Agenda item

1. Welcome to new members

GK welcomed new members, and those that were attending for the first time as substitute representatives.

2. Apologies for absence                                    

Apologies for absence were received from Saul Smus, Lesley Ludlow, Seamus McKenna and Jenny Gridley.

Derrick Brown has resigned, and a new Academy headteacher representative will be sought.

GK thanked DO and HS for their contribution to Schools Forum as this was their last meeting prior to retirement.

3. Declarations of interest

None

4. Minutes of previous meeting: 4 December 2014

Accepted as a true and accurate record.

5. Matters arising

P9. IH provided clarification that regulations require formula funding lump sums to be the same for all establishments, whether this is a free-standing academy or part of a multi-academy trust/ chain.

P10. EP thanked IH for his presentation to governors regarding the remit of the Schools Forum. CB advised that as a result of this, 4 applications had been received and an election will be held.

P9. KN and IH will have a separate meeting to discuss TU representation for non-school (centrally based) teachers.

6. Items for Information

6.1  Budget monitoring 2014/15 (as at Month 9)

Catherine Peters

CP tabled a summary of the current budget monitoring position that has been submitted for the Performance and Contract Management Committee meeting on 11^th February 2015.  She confirmed that there were no changes to the schools budget since the last report to Forum on 4 December 2014.  However, current forecasts are projecting an increase in the underspend from £2.9m to £3.2m; this is mainly due to low take-up of 2 year old places, a slight reduction in 3 & 4 year old claims and the planned reduction in high needs (HN) spending in light of the recent review.

ML asked what will happen to any 2014/15 underspend.

CP advised that, as agreed at previous Schools Forum meetings, the first call on any underspend will be HN contingency.

PF asked for clarification on which items shown in the table were underspends/ which were overspends.

CP said that in line with accounting practice, bracketed items are underspends.

6.2  SEN working group and HN review

David Monger

DM summarised the work of the HN working group, which met 4 times in 2014.  Their contribution covered both the report to Schools Forum regarding HN place requirements, and the zero-based review of HN expenditure. The development of new banding arrangements for PRUs, ARPs and mainstream settings are being discussed with all establishments affected by the new proposals, and this replicates the work of the HN working group. This place planning and HN expenditure reports to Schools Forum completed the work planned for this group, and therefore DM suggests that this working group is no longer required.  However, updates on new banding proposals will be provided at future Schools Forum meetings.

KD queried what funding arrangements would be applied for the new LLDD centre at Barnet & Southgate college.  DM advised that specific discussions are underway with the college for implementation in 2015/16, but that timescales may be extended.

6.3  2015/16 DSG and Schools Budget

Carol Beckman

The DSG announcement confirmed our expectation of the Schools Block allocation for 2015/16, but this is the only item within the DSG that is currently confirmed.  The HN block, Early Years block and 2 year old funding will not be finalised for another 6 – 8 months.  There is therefore little change to the Schools Budget since it was last presented to Schools Forum in December.

APT submission

In line with DfE requirements, and in order to set a balanced budget, Barnet submitted the Authority Pro-forma Tool (APT) on 21^st January 2015 incorporating the changes shown below for 2015/16:

·         Removal of £23 per pupil from the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU), as this was a one-off distribution of the 2012/13 underspend

·         Reinstatement of a minimum funding guarantee cap of 0.5%, the same level that applied in 2014/15

SH asked if the DSG was increased in line with inflation.

CB advised that it was not, and has been a flat cash settlement for a number of years.  Some of the lowest funded LAs (lower per pupil funding than average) received an uplift, but Barnet did not benefit from this.

Early Years Pro-forma APT submission

• a 2p per hour per child reduction in the Early Years formula, as this was a one-off distribution of the 2012/13 underspend

All other formula factors for both the main APT and the Early Years APT remain the same as in 2014/15 and as reported to the December Schools Forum.

PH asked if information about the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP) has been received. 

CB confirmed that the EYPP allocation has been advised, but the funding must be paid on actual eligibility data.  Information advising providers about the data they need to collect for EYPP claims will be included in the School Circular shortly.

De-delegation

The de-delegation rates per item and totals are shown in the Schools Forum agenda papers.

Schools Forum is asked to note the update to the APT submissions and the rates for de-delegation.

7. Items for decision

1.1Retrospective adjustments for estimated pupil numbers

Carol Beckman/ Claire Gray

This is a new factor that the new funding regulations now allow, where new schools and academies have opened and received funding on the basis of estimated pupil numbers.  The hope is that the estimated numbers will be correct and it is not anticipated that a pupil number adjustment (PNA) will need to be widely used.

However, if overfunding (and consequently over-recoupment) does occur, Barnet wishes to put down a marker for circumstances where it may arise.  No pupil funding adjustments can be applied in year, so any proposal could not be applied until 2016/17 at the earliest.  Schools Forum are being asked to agree the principle of applying a retrospective pupil number adjustment where new and growing schools are funded on estimated pupil numbers, and whether the proposal of a 5% threshold (10% for 1FE primary phase) is appropriate.

ML stated that the Wren Academy is funded on estimates and wanted to know if this would apply. Also, how does the LA know what the estimated pupil numbers are? The Wren’s current funding agreement with the EFA provides a threshold of 2.5%, will this proposal change this agreement?

CB said that this factor would apply to the planned expansion at the Wren, but is to ensure Barnet is not over-recouped by the EFA. The pre-populated data in the APT identifies which establishments are funded on estimates.

VW asked if this would be a double hit on academies and free schools. 

CB. No - for academies and free schools, the funding adjustment applies to the amount recouped from the authority by the EFA in the subsequent financial year, not the establishment itself.  For maintained schools, the adjustment would be applied directly the following financial year.

TB confirmed that pupil number adjustments are already notified to academies in their General Annual Grant (GAG).

SH asked if guidance was sought from the EFA on the percentage threshold to be applied in Barnet.

CB advised that as all EFA academy funding agreements were different, with a threshold ranging from 10% to 2.5%, depending on when these were signed.  Barnet’s proposal is designed to ensure consistency to all types of provider.  However, Barnet is open to suggestions as to what the percentages should be. VW said that this situation is unlikely to occur, but is most likely to happen with newly opened free schools and it was felt that these percentages provided a reasonable tolerance.

AV asked why this was needed if Academy/ Free school funding is effectively an in/ out paper exercise.  CB said that this is true for income, but estimated pupil number funding impacts on the amount recouped by the EFA from Barnet.

SL asked if Barnet knows what percentages other LAs are applying.

CB said that this could be established and reported back to the next Schools Forum meeting.  VW stated that any threshold percentages can be reviewed in future.

Recommendations:

Schools Forum is asked to:

1.    Agree the principle of applying a retrospective pupil number adjustment to new and growing schools where these are funded on estimated pupil numbers

2.    Agree the 10% 1FE primary phase/ 5% other phase threshold

Votes:

1.2 Framework for considering applications by independent faith schools to join the maintained sector

                                                                                                                                Val White

VW expressed her thanks to SM and JD who contributed to the recommendations presented to Schools Forum today.  This is an outline document as it is still being scrutinized by the legal team, but is based on current DfE guidance and reflects Barnet’s history of welcoming independent schools into the maintained sector.  It outlines what Barnet would expect in a range of areas – value for money, demand for places, Ofsted grading, national curriculum delivery requirements, financial health of proposer, condition of buildings/ premises and that the per pupil cost is in line with other LA schools with a similar profile. 

VW said that the aim is to pace applications to approx. 1 per year in order to manage any potential call on the DSG, and to ensure that the timing of admission to the maintained sector generates maximum income to the LA.

KN asked if being in the borough of Barnet equates to being a Barnet school.

VW said the proposals suggest that the main site address is in Barnet and that 80% of pupils should be Barnet residents, but there may be exceptions to this.

EP queried if the criteria applied to independent faith schools only.

VW stated that these criteria would apply to all independent schools, not just independent faith schools.

SL wanted assurance that the schools will provide a broad RE curriculum.

VW confirmed that the schools would have to comply with National Curriculum requirements in force at the time.

KN asked if schools can still apply to join the maintained sector as VA schools.

VW said that local authorities can no longer open maintained schools, there is a presumption for Academies or Free schools when opening a new school, although there are specific circumstances where the current regulations still allow VA or maintained schools.

EP asked if Barnet pupils in the school reduce over time, would Barnet remain responsible for the school.  VW said that such discussions would be held if such a situation arose.

SL suggested that the percentage of Barnet pupils might need to be varied from 80% for those schools on the outer edges of the borough. She also felt that the ‘95% full’ criteria should be applied to more than just 2 year groups.

VW said the percentage criteria in both circumstances could be adapted in line with individual cases.

Recommendations:

Schools Forum is asked to endorse the proposal framework for submission to committee.

Votes:

8.      Draft agenda for next meeting

1.      Welcome to new members

2.      Apologies for absence

3.      Declarations of interest

4.      Minutes of previous meeting: 5 February 2015

5.      Matters Arising

6.      Items for information

6.1  2014/15 Budget Monitoring – Provisional Outturn position

6.2  Update on SEN review

6.3  2015/16 DSG and Schools Budget – Section 251 submission

7.      Items for decision

8.      Draft agenda for next meeting – 2 July 2015

9.      Any other business

9.      Any other business

KN provided members with flyers showing a range of H&S courses offered by Capita, and encouraged schools to attend/ send a representative.

Meeting closed: 5.10pm