Agenda item

Ian Pearson introduced the report (Agenda Item 7) that set out the details, cost, and charges to schools of the services on which maintained school representatives are required to vote (on an annual basis). Appendix A to the report showed how much each service cost on a school by school basis for 2022/23.

Jonathan Chishick raised a query regarding the figures for the Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Service. At primary level it applied to over 700 pupils however, at secondary school there were only 11 pupils. He queried why the numbers reduced so dramatically going in to secondary school. Part of the service ensured that GCSE papers were provided in a language that could be understood by these children and Jonathan Chishick was therefore surprised regarding the split in the cost to primary schools compared to the cost to secondary schools. Ian Pearson stated that this area was the most complex in terms of the way the census produced information that fed into the allocation.  A large difference in numbers would be expected between primary and secondary school due to seven of the ten secondary schools being academies and therefore would not feature in the total pupil numbers being catered for. Some of these secondary schools were very large. Academies that want access to the service had to buy the service and were not able to delegate.  For maintained schools, if the fund was de-delegated then the service was available free of charge to these schools. Numbers however, did not relate to pupil numbers support in a particular year as they could only be viewed retrospectively from previous data.  Ian Pearson stated that a fuller explanation could be provided at the next meeting.

Melanie Ellis added that the numbers were generated by the October census. Melanie Ellis stated that with further investigation she should be able to see how these figures were comprised.

Catie Colston raised a question regarding the School Improvement Team under section 11 of the report. The proposed change to the service regarding how it would be funded was noted under section 11.2. Not all might be aware that a consultation had recently taken place and Catie Colston felt it would be worth clarifying what this would mean.

In response to Catie Colston’s question Ian Pearson report that up until 2022/23 School Improvement Services within local Authorities had been funded through Government grant money. The consultation had taken place at the end of 2021 and had been carried out to help the Government consider whether to allocate the grant. The view had been taken by the Department of Education not to allocate the grant and therefore school improvement would need to factored into the de-delegation arrangements when the Schools’ Forum set the budget for each year. The consultation had concluded before Christmas and subsequently the DfE had clarified their response to the consultation. The responses to the consultation showed that around 75% had not wished to take the route proposed by the Government however, regardless of this view this was the approach adopted. The approach would include a two stage process including 50 percent of the grant being removed in the first year and the whole amount in the second year.

Ian Pearson further explained that it had been assessed how much 50 percent would be as this would essentially be the gap that would need to be funded through de-delegations. This sum had been reduced slightly due to money held in the reserve fund. Another conversation would be required in the following year when the whole of the grant was removed to decide on a suitable level of funding for de-delegation. 

The Chair invited the relevant members of the Forum to vote on each of the recommendations as follows.

Recommendation 2.1:

That representatives of maintained primary schools should agree to de-delegate funds in the 2022/23 financial year for:

·         Behaviour Support Services

·         Ethnic Minority Support

·         Trade Union Representation

·         Schools in Financial Difficulty

·         CLEAPSS

·         School Improvement

·         Statutory and Regulatory Duties comprising:

- Statutory accounting functions in respect of schools

- Internal Audit of schools

- Administration of pensions for school staff

·         Health and Safety Service to Schools

Jonathan Chishick proposed that the recommendation be approved by maintained primary school representatives and this was seconded by Keith Harvey. At the vote the motion was carried.

Recommendation 2.2:

That representatives of maintained secondary schools should agree to de-delegate funds in the 2022/23 financial year for:

·         Behaviour Support Services

·         Ethnic Minority Support

·         Trade Union Representation

·         CLEAPSS

·         School Imprvement

·         Statutory and Regulatory Duties comprising:

- Statutory accounting functions in respect of schools

- Internal Audit of schools

- Administration of pensions for school staff

·         Health and Safety Service to Schools

Chris Prosser proposed that the recommendation be approved and at the vote the motion was carried.

Recommendation 2.3:

That representatives of maintained special, nursery and PRU heads should agree to de-delegate funds in the 2022/23 financial year for:

·         CLEAPSS (Special schools and PRU  only)

·         Statutory and Regulatory Duties comprising:

- Statutory accounting functions in respect of schools

- Internal Audit of schools

- Administration of pensions for school staff

·         Health and Safety Service to Schools

Jon Hewitt proposed that the recommendation be approved by maintained special, nursery and PRU representatives and this was seconded by Maria Morgan. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that:

·         A fuller explanation and detail to be provided on the difference in numbers accessing the Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Service at primary and secondary level.

·         Each of the recommendations set out under section two of the report were agreed.