schools forum meeting 21 september 2016 … · ofsted early years inspection process the last eyqf...

SCHOOLS FORUM MEETING

21st September 2016

5.00 to 7.00 Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Committee Room 6 Attendees: Jim Edgecombe (Chair), Ludmilla Morris (Chair of Early Years Sub Group), Phil Haigh (Chair of High Needs, ISB and DSG Monitoring Sub Groups), Seema Kharbanda (Clerk), Tony Eginton, Jo Palmer, Elaine Caffary, Peter Ryerson, Kris O’Sullivan, Wendy Bhad, Mark Bland, Laurie Cornwell, Chris Weaving, Chris Shasha, Alison Moore, Robert Jones, Sudhi Pathak, Ross Macdonald, Duncan Greig, Rhona Johnston, Bob Charlton, Debbie Gilder, Joan Greening, Tracey Hemming, Jacqueline Lack, Lesley Knee, Peter Malewicz, Ruth Munro, Dan Kennedy, Graham Young Invitees: Thomas Murphy Shadow Reps/Observers: Lisa Corrigan, Bob Pannell, Leonora Smith

AGENDA

Item Time Lead Update 1. Apologies 5.00 – 5.05

2. Minutes of Meeting held on 29th June 2016 5.05 – 5.10 JE Report

3. Matters Arising from meeting on 29th June 2016 a) Non Teaching Staff Pensions b) Early Years Advisory Service c) Academy School Balances Report d) Pupil Number Projections September 2016

5.10 – 5.15 5.15 – 5.25 5.25 – 5.35 5.35 – 5.45

JP DK PM PM

Verbal Verbal Report Report

4. DSG Sub Group a) Review of Early Years Centres Funding b) New Growth Contingency Allocations 16/17 c) Uptake of Places in Growth Contingency

Funded Schools

5.45 – 6.15 6.15 – 6.25 6.25 – 6.35

TM PM PM

Report Report Report

5. Items for Decision a) Early Years Funding Formula Proposed

Response b) DSG Month 4 Monitoring Report c) Trade Union Duties d) Proposed Work Programme

6.25 – 6.35 6.35 – 6.45 6.45 – 6.50 6.50 – 7.00

PM

PM PM PM

Report

Report Report Report

6. Information Items a) Update on Schools National Funding Formula

7.00 - 7.10

PM

Verbal

7. AOB

Future Meetings:

Meeting: Date & time: Venue:

High Needs Group Thursday 29 September 2016 at 10.00 Deanesfield School

DSG Monitoring Group/EY Tuesday 4 October 2016 at 10.00 Cherry Lane School

Funding Formula Working Group Tuesday 11 October 2016 at 10.00 Haydon School

Schools’ Forum Wednesday 19th October 2016 at 17:00 CR6, Civic Centre

High Needs Group Wednesday 16 November 2016 at 10.00 Deanesfield School

DSG Monitoring Group/EY Tuesday 22 November 2016 at 10.00 Cherry Lane School

Funding Formula Working Group Tuesday 29 November 2016 at 10.00 Haydon School

Schools’ Forum Wednesday 7 December 2016 at 17:00 CR6, Civic Centre

DSG Monitoring Group/EY Thursday 5 January 2017 at 10.00 Cherry Lane School

Funding Formula Working Group Tuesday 10 January 2017 at 10.00 Haydon School

Schools’ Forum Wednesday 18 January 2017 at 17:00 CR4/4a, Civic Centre

High Needs Group Wednesday 22 February 2017 at 10.00 Deanesfield School

DSG Monitoring Group/EY Tuesday 28 February 2017 at 10.00 Cherry Lane School

Schools’ Forum Wednesday 8 March 2017 at 17:00 CR6, Civic Centre

Schools’ Forum Wednesday 17 May 2017 at 17:00 CR6, Civic Centre

Schools’ Forum Wednesday 28 June 2017 at 17:00 CR6. Civic Centre

Schools Forum 21 September 2016 Item 2

Hillingdon Schools Forum Minutes of the Meeting held on Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commenced at 17:00 Committee Room 5 Maintained Primary Representative Members: Ms Kris O’Sullivan (KOS) Deanesfield Primary School

Mr Duncan Greig (DG) Breakspear Primary School Ms Chris Weaving (CW) Whiteheath Infant School Ms Chris Shasha (CS) Oak Farm Infant School Maintained Secondary School Representative: Maintained Special Mr Ross Macdonald (RM) Meadow School Representative Academy Representative Mr Bob Charlton (BC) Charville Primary School Members: Ms Wendy Bhad (WB) Bishop Ramsey CofE School

Ms Tracey Hemming (TH) Barnhill Partnership Trust Mr Robert Jones (RJ) Haydon School

Mr Peter Ryerson (PRy) Guru Nanak Sikh Academy Ms Jacqueline Lack (JL) Frays Academy Trust

Special Academy Mr Sudhi Pathak (SP) The Eden Academy Representative

Maintained Primary Mr Jim Edgecombe (JE) (Chair) Whiteheath Junior School Governor Members: Ms Jo Palmer (JP) Hillside Infant School Mr Phil Haigh (PH) Cherry Lane Primary School and The Eden Academy

Mr Tony Eginton (TE) Minet Nursery & Infant School and Hillside Junior School

Other Members: Ms Elaine Caffary (EC) Nursery Manger - 4 Street Nursery

Ms Lesley Knee (LK) Ruislip Methodist Pre-School Ms Laurie Cornwell (LC) The Skills Hub Ms Debbie Gilder (DG) Pield Heath School

In attendance from: London Borough of Hillingdon Mr Dan Kennedy (DK) Head of Business Performance, Policy & Standards

Mr Peter Malewicz (PM) Group Finance Manager - Education

Ms Ruth Munro (RM) Senior Accountant School Funding Mr Graham Young (GY) Lead Business Partner for Schools

Observers: Ms Lisa Corrigan (LCo) Highfield Primary School (Shadow Representative) Ms Joanne Nightingale (JN) Whitehall Junior School (Shadow Representative) Clerk: Ms Seema Kharbanda (SK) Independent Clerk

Minutes:

Item 1

Welcome & Apologies

JE welcomed everyone. Apologies were received from MB, AM, RJ, LM

Item 2

Minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2016

All confirmed that they were happy with the minutes of the previous meeting Chris Sasha was not at the meeting – this was amended

AGREED

Item 3

Matters Arising from the meeting held on 11 May 2016

3a

3b

3c

3d

3e

Process for Deputising PM confirmed that if there is a need to deputise or substitute for a meeting, The constitution states that this should be agreed in advance of the meeting. PM Will distribute the constitution so that members can see exactly what the deputising process is. Non Teaching Staff Pensions JP verbally presented information that she had received. She explained that the problems were gradually being resolved but that this was requiring additional input from schools. JP to provide update in next meeting. Early Years Advisory Service GY explained that the overspend on the Early Years Advisory service was due to the budget not being increased to take account of pay inflation and that there has never been a budget for car allowances. GY also indicated that there was currently a vacant Early Years Advisory Teacher post which has not been filled as and this has caused the budget to show an underspend in 2016/17. Once the post is filled there will be an overspend. Some more background information was required by the group as there have been lots of problems for Early Years and there was no confirmation if this post was to be filled going forward even though there is a need for it. GY to bring information to September meeting JE to schedule this for next meeting

School Balances 2015/16 GY confirmed that the revised school balances summary information regarding income has been circulated with the Children’s Centre related income deducted from the total income figures. The impact was a slight increase on the percentage balances for those schools with a Children's Centre.

Update on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services DK explained that Sunny Mehmi has worked with the CCG on this problem. DK will arrange for a briefing note to be available for the next meeting of the High Needs sub-group.

ACTION PM

ACTION JP

ACTION GY & JE

NOTED

ACTION

DK

Item 4 High Needs Sub Group

4a

Feedback from 9 June 2016 Meeting PH had circulated the minutes. The affordability of the banded funding model is an issue. The next meeting of the High Needs group will be looking at the both the number of bands and the levels at which they have been set. Up until the current year, it has been possible to move funding from the schools block to the high needs block. With the introduction of the national funding formula next year this will no longer be possible. It is not known what will happen if funding on high needs goes into deficit

NOTED

Item 5 Information Items

5a

5b

5c

5d

Maintained Schools 3 Year Budget Plans GY circulated a report prior to the meeting. Maintained schools are required to submit three year budget plans, which are reviewed by LA officers who carry out some analysis of the figures. In 2016/17, the budgeted in-year deficit across all primary schools is projected to be £4.8 million. This time last year the budgeted in-year deficit was £3.8 million, but the actual outturn position was a £118k surplus. In the 3-year period from 2016/17, there is a projected £8.6 million reduction in balances. In 2015/16, 4 schools ended the year in deficit and these will continue to be monitored closely. Two of these schools have applied for a licenced deficit in 2016/17 and reports will be going to Cabinet to gain approval for these deficits. The LA is working closely with schools that are most at risk of deficit to ensure regular monitoring is carried out against financial plans in order to avoid future deficits. Where schools are in deficit there is a requirement to move to formal monthly monitoring with additional support from the Schools Finance Team in order that a more regular review of expenditure against budget can be carried out. GY confirmed that he has got detail of academy balances (though it is quite out of date) and will present this at the next meeting. KO asked whether we could see pupil number projections alongside the budget information, GY said that he would speak to the Admissions team and look at presenting detail of pupil number projections at the next meeting. EYSFF - Quality Factor GY had circulated a report prior to the meeting. The Early Years Quality Framework (EYQF) determines the quality factor within the EYSFF. Following the changes to the Ofsted Early Years inspection process the last EYQF assessments were carried out in March 2015. An analysis was carried out and the findings of recent Ofsted inspections were compared with the EYQF quality scoring and this highlighted a number of discrepancies. There were concerns raised regarding the time factor between Ofsted Inspections. Sometimes they were too soon, and sometimes too long. There was discussion regarding how often reports and assessments should be and how funding was distributed to higher grade schools. It was agreed that the Early Years Group would discuss this further in September and decide then if necessary adjustments to the quality factor should be made for 2017/18. There were concerns raised for the smaller PVIs, particularly given the extension to the free hour entitlement from 15 to 30 hours per week. Exceptional Funding Concerns were raised about a Primary School that being charged for accommodation that they were renting from the borough It was discussed and agreed that the Local Authority and the Governing Body would need to discuss this and it was not a matter for the Forum. It was raised that there are 3 Secondary Schools and 1 Primary School in the Borough that are increasing their pupil numbers while staying with their current PAN. These schools receive no funding for the additional children from September to March. It was felt that nothing could be done about this in the current year but the Funding Working Group will be asked to look into what, if anything, could be done to mitigate such problems in future years. Supporting disadvantaged children to access childcare EC presented a paper which had been prepared by Philip Ryan. Within the centrally retained element for Early Years of the Dedicated Schools Grant, an amount of £408,700 is available to support vulnerable families. This proposal recommended using some of this funding to support disadvantaged families with the cost of childcare for the following two reasons:

ACTION GY

ACTION EARLY YEARS

AGREED

AGREED

1 Prepare for the implementation of 30 hours childcare by supporting low income working families to access provision to support them in work 2 Help vulnerable families with childcare to enable them to access other support e.g. counselling, parenting courses Forum approved the following two recommendations

(a) To approve funding to trial the provision of 30 hours childcare for low income working parents.

(b) In the light of the consultation responses, funding is requested for £105k of the DSG funding to be available for use to extend the current Families in Need Scheme to offer support to vulnerable families. The funding requested is based upon an additional 70 children being funded on the assumption that 45 children will only need funding for one term only. It is based on paying the childcare costs at the same rate as Two Year old Funding (£6 per hour).

AGREED

AGREED

Item 6 Any other Business

None

Future Meeting Dates

The meeting concluded at 18.40 Signed: ............................................................... Date:

.................................................... If you have any issues to refer to the Schools Forum you should contact one of the representatives.

Hillingdon Academy School Balances Report

1. Introduction This report provides Schools Forum with information on the level of balances of academy schools for the academic years ended 31 August 2014 and 31 August 2015. 2. Recommendation To note the content of the report 3. Information Academy trusts are required by the DfE to prepare an annual report and financial statements to 31 August each year. These accounts must be audited annually by independent registered auditors and submitted to the EFA by 31 December. There is also a requirement to file the accounts with the Companies Registrar as required under the Companies Act 2006 and publish the audited accounts on the trust’s website by 31 January. The main financial statements are prepared on an academy trust basis but within the detail of the accounts individual school balances are included. Appendix A shows a summary of Hillingdon academy schools balances as at 31 August 2015 with the previous year balances as a comparison. Generally academy schools in Hillingdon appear to have reasonable balances, however there are a few schools that have lower balances and three of the schools are currently showing a deficit position. Where the balances are zero this is due to the school not having converted, opened in that year or the accounts are not yet published on the school website (this is the case for the QED Academy Trust schools). Despite converting on 1 April 2015, Ruislip High are not included as we have been unable to find their published accounts on either the Ruislip High or the GOV.uk websites. It is worth noting that over half of the schools saw a reduction in their balances when compared with 2013/14.

4. Appendix - Academy Balances summary 2013/14 & 2014/15 (academic years)

Schools Forum: 21st September 2016

DSG Funded Early Years Report

1. Background and context

1.1 The three early years centres referenced in this report are directly managed by the council. The

centres operate as integrated Early Years and Children's Centres.

1.2 They were originally set up as part of the Neighbourhood Nursery programme, where the main

focus was to provide affordable childcare for the most disadvantaged families in the Borough. An

opportunity was also taken to ensure that adequate provision was made available for vulnerable children

by holding open a number of spaces within each centre. The vision was to develop these 3 centres into

Centres of Excellence. In order to achieve this, it was recognised that smaller staffing ratios were put in

place and that the skills of the staff needed to be at a much higher level than most other providers. The

impact of operating a Centre of Excellence would be an increase in the cost of the staffing establishment,

with an intention that this additional cost would not be passed onto the users of the service.

Original basis for DSG funding

1.3 DSG resource investment to these centres was agreed a number of years ago following the

agreement of a proposal made to Schools Forum by the then Head of Early Years Service, Alison Booth.

1.4 The rationale and terms underpinning the investment were as follows:

● To invest in the early years foundation stage education of vulnerable children;

● To prevent vulnerable children from poor personal and educational outcomes by supporting them

to access high quality early years education.

1.5 DSG investment contributed to:

● Childcare and early years foundation stage learning for children aged 6m - 5 years;

● The offer of a total of 131 places: Nestles - 62, South Ruislip 36 and Uxbridge 33 based on the

locally agreed ratios detailed below;

Age Statutory

Ratios

Hillingdon

Ratios

Under 2s 3:1 3:1

2 year olds 4:1 4:1

3 and over 8:1 6:1

● The provisional securing of 7 places per centre for emergency social care placements; and

● Wrap around provision for vulnerable children referred by social care - 35 hrs not funded through

2, 3 and 4 year old 15 hour free entitlement payment.

1.6 Each setting sought to meet its vulnerable places target and achieve optimum occupancy whilst

providing a mixed economy of childcare for families who present a range of different needs. Although

vulnerable children accessed the provision, the absence of a differential and potential means testing

charging policy coupled with the fact that the base rate was considered to be significantly below the

market rate was seen as providing subsidised childcare for families who would not have been deemed as

vulnerable.

Revised arrangements

1.7 Previous arrangements for DSG funding of council managed early years centres were reviewed at

the request of the DSG monitoring group in October 2014.

1.8 As a consequence officers were asked to review the current admissions and funding

arrangements in order to ensure that DSG investment is solely focused on enabling vulnerable children

to access early years foundation stage education.

1.9 The review identified that the fee for childcare being charged was significantly below the average

rate for the sector, it also indicated that the Centres were offering places to all families irrespective of

their ability to pay and that the places held vacant for the placement of vulnerable children were under-

utilised.

1.10 This resulted in a proposal to remove £396k from the base budget (leaving a total budget of

£335k for the three centres, allocated £90k for Nestles, £111k for South Ruislip and £134k for Uxbridge),

cease the holding of vacant spaces for vulnerable children and an increase in the childcare fee rate to the

following, based on a 50 hour week, which formed part of the Fees and Charges budget proposals that

were presented to Cabinet and Council in February 2015, but revised in August 2015 (Table 1).

1.11 These new rates were implemented in September 2015; with a view to further explore pricing

structures for implementation in 2016-17.

1.12 In addition Centres were required to reach and maintain occupancy levels of no less than 80%.

Current occupancy returns as at July 2016 indicate that the overall occupancy rate is 61.2%. The

average split between the take up of places from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged children is 26%

compared to 74%.

Table 1 - Fees and Charges as at September 2015

Previous Charges New Charges with effect from 1 September 2015

All Ages Under 2 Over 2

Residents Non

Residents

<5

Hours

5 Hours+

10 Hours

<5

Hours

5 Hours+

10 Hours

Standard Hourly Charge Rate

£4.10 £4.14 £6.68 £5.18 £4.65 £6.15 £4.88 £4.48

Standard Hourly Charge Rate

£205.00 £207.00 £232.50 £224.00

90% Concessionary Average Hourly Fee

£4.10 £4.14 £6.01 £4.66 £4.18 £5.53 £4.39 £4.03

90% Concessionary Average Hourly Fee

£205.00 £207.00 £209.00 £201.50

1.13 The centres are required to prioritise access for vulnerable families, but no longer hold places

open for them regardless of whether they are filled or not in order to avoid empty capacity.

1.14 Centres have been advised to use the 2 year old free entitlement criteria to inform the process of

allocating places. The prioritisation process was applied to new clients as of 1st September 2015.

1.15 In the event that places remain available having applied the above criteria in response to demand,

priority will be afforded to any Hillingdon resident wishing to secure a place.

2. Occupancy Strategy

Centres have been instructed to package their provision by offering either 5 hour (8am-1pm or 1pm-6pm)

or 10 hour (8-6pm) slots, removing the option to offer different options for hours. This approach was

introduced to reduce the number of hours at the beginning and end of the day that remain vacant, due to

varied patterns of occupancy.

In addition a new exemplar for calculating occupancy has been introduced, which provides greater levels

of rigour and scrutiny. This has meant that overall occupancy levels have reduced slightly, whilst the

actual numbers of children accessing places remains at a similar level to the previous year in 2 out of the

3 centres.

3. Financial summary

Set out below is the reported projected year end monitoring position for the 2016/17 financial year as at the end of July 2016 for each centre, including the 2015/16 outturn position for comparison:

Nestles

2015/16 Outturn 2016/17 Projected

Budget £000

Actual £000

Variance

£000

Budget £000

Forecast £000

Variance

£000

Staffing Costs 510 485 (25) 503 524 21

Non Staffing Costs 215 200 (15) 215 215 0

Income (547) (412) 135 (629) (551) 78

Net Expenditure 178 273 95 89 188 99

South Ruislip


Budget £000

Actual £000

Variance

£000

Budget £000

Forecast £000

Variance

£000

Staffing Costs 335 361 26 332 326 (6)

Non Staffing Costs 133 169 36 132 126 (6)

Income (314) (247) 67 (353) (345) 8

Net Expenditure 154 283 129 111 107 (4)

Uxbridge


Budget £000

Actual £000

Variance

£000

Budget £000

Forecast £000

Variance

£000

Staffing Costs 330 354 24 334 332 (2)

Non Staffing Costs 129 132 3 129 130 1

Income (296) (238) 58 (328) (314) 14

Net Expenditure 163 248 85 135 148 13

Total All 3 Early Years Centres


Budget £000

Actual £000

Variance

£000

Budget £000

Forecast £000

Variance

£000

Staffing Costs 1,175 1,200 25 1,169 1,182 13

Non Staffing Costs 477 501 24 476 471 (5)

Income (1,157) (897) 260 (1,310) (1,210) 100

Net Expenditure 495 804 309 335 443 108

In summary, the outturn position for the 3 centres reported an overspend against the budget of £309k,

the majority of which related to a shortfall on income. In part this was due to the new fees being agreed

and implemented in September 2015, rather than April 2015 as planned, as the original proposal was

challenged as part of stakeholder consultation during the budget setting process of the Council, resulting

in a further analysis and review being required.

As can be seen, the budget for 2016/17 has been amended to reflect the full year impact of the fee rate

increase, where the majority of the change relates to an increase in the income budget, which has been

increased by £153k. This in turn results in a reduction in the net budget requirement for the three centres.

The projected outturn position is reporting an overspend of £108k, the majority of which relates to

Nestles. This is an improved position of £201k when compared to the 2015/16 outturn position.

As part of the monthly monitoring process, managers are continually reviewing this position and seeking

to maximise fee income.

4. 'As is' Staffing establishments

Current staffing at each centre is under the levels required to bring the centres to maximum occupancy,

in line with the new occupancy strategy. Challenges with recruitment and long term absences e.g.

maternity leave, mean that all centres are operating with a higher than desired level of agency cover.

Whilst the financial differential of employing agency staff as opposed to appointing to permanent

positions is negligible, the inconsistency in the supply of quality agency staff has resulted in challenges

with increasing occupancy in some age groups.

It is also worth noting that it is not possible to draw direct parallels between the Early Years Centres and

similar provision offering early education and care e.g. a PVI nursery or school nursery class, in respect

of staffing levels or cost, given the agreed quality principles under which the early years centres operate;

including lower ratios for children aged 3-5 years and the employment of early years practitioners

qualified at level 3 or above.

Nestles Avenue

Structure As-is Sept 16

Manager 1 FTE 1 FTE

Deputy 1 FTE vacant

Administrator/Receptionist 1 FTE 1 FTE (agency)

Early Years Practitioners (L3 qualified) 16 FTE 13.5 FTE

Total Capacity 62 51

Breakdown by Age and Ratio

Ages Statutory Ratios

FTE Places

Staff Required Staffing in place

U2 1:3 12 4 FTE 2 FTE 1 FTE (agency) 1 vacant

2-3 1:4 20 5 FTE 4.5 FTE 0.5 vacant

3-5 1:6 30 5 FTE 2 FTE 2 FTE (agency) 1 vacant

Additional Early Years Practitioners to manage ratios at beginning/middle/end of day

2 FTE 1 FTE (agency) 1 AWR (agency)

South Ruislip


Manager 1 FTE 1 FTE (secondment)

Deputy 1 FTE vacant

Administrator 6 hrs p/wk 16 hrs p/wk (10 additional hrs on a temp basis)

Early Years Practitioners (L3 qualified) 9 FTE 8 FTE



Ages Statutory Ratio

FTE Places


U2 1:3 6 2 FTE 2x0.5 FTE 1 FTE (agency)

2-3 1:4 12 3 FTE 2 FTE 1 FTE (agency)



1 FTE 1 AWR (agency)

Uxbridge


Manager 1 FTE 1 FTE

Deputy 1 FTE 1 FTE

Early Years Practitioners (L3 qualified) 9 FTE 8 FTE



Ages Statutory Ratio

FTE Places


U2 1:3 9 3 FTE 2 FTE 1 FTE (agency)


3-5 1:6 12 2 FTE 2 FTE


1 FTE vacant

5. Outcomes and Impact of Practice and Provision

Current occupancy returns indicate that the overall occupancy rate is 61.2%. The average split between

the take up of places from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged children is 26% compared to 74%.

As previously referenced, challenges with recruitment and long term absences e.g. maternity leave,

mean that all centres are operating with a higher than desired level of agency cover and a vacancy

factor. It should be noted that this challenge coupled with an inconsistent supply of quality agency staff,

impacts upon the centres capacity. Occupancy figures quoted are calculated using a centre's capacity

when fully staffed. By way of example, Nestles Avenue's occupancy for the month of July, when based

on a full staffing complement is 60.9%. In contrast, this rises to 74.1% when calculated as a percentage

of the reduced capacity when the staff vacancy factor is taken into consideration.

Expectations for children's learning and development remain high. Staff work to support children's

progress and outcomes for children are recognised as being outstanding under the new Common

Inspection Framework. Children are enabled to make progress, including those with special educational

needs and disabilities.

All centres work in partnership with colleagues from Children's Social Care and the All Age Disabilities

service to ensure that where children are deemed to be vulnerable or have an identified need, they are

enabled to access early education and learning with the appropriate support.

Ofsted Inspection Judgments

Centre Previous Current

Nestles Outstanding

4th July 2011

Outstanding

20th October 2015

South Ruislip Outstanding

19th December 2011

Outstanding

7th April 2016

Uxbridge Good

3rd November 2010

Good

3rd August 2015

Outstanding Descriptors *Under the new Common Inspection Framework 2015

• Children make consistently high rates of progress in relation to their starting points and are extremely

well prepared for the next stage of their education.

• Almost all children in the provision, including disabled children, those who have special educational

needs, those for whom the setting receives additional funding and the most able, are making

substantial and sustained progress that leads to outstanding achievement.

• Gaps between the attainment of groups of children in the setting, including those for whom the setting

receives additional funding, have closed or are closing rapidly. Any differences between outcomes in

different areas of learning are closing.

• Children are highly motivated and very eager to join in. They consistently demonstrate the

characteristics of effective learning.

Centre Current Ofsted Report Findings

South Ruislip

*Outstanding

· Staff have high expectations of what children can achieve. Children make outstanding progress in relation to what they know when they start. They are exceptionally well prepared with the skills they need in readiness for school.

· Partnerships with parents, other early years providers, and relevant agencies are very strong. They make a significant contribution to helping staff meet the needs of all children.

· Management monitors the effectiveness of teaching and learning and provides purposeful training to help staff develop their skills and to enable children to shine and flourish.

Outcomes for children are outstanding

· All children make excellent progress and any gaps in learning close quickly. Children have outstanding attitudes to learning. They can use magnifying glasses to observe minibeasts and can identify their colours, shapes and movements. Babies have plenty of space to develop their physical skills and opportunities to learn new words. Older children develop excellent self-care routines. They count, sort objects and confidently solve problems.

Nestles · Leaders and staff expertly implement the Early Years

*Outstanding

Foundation Stage requirements. They meet each child's individual needs and check the achievement of different groups carefully to ensure that all children make substantial and sustained progress.

· Staff act on the information they obtain from parents, children and others to evaluate their practice. They are highly committed to continuous improvement through effective systems for self-evaluation.

Outcomes for children are outstanding

· Children make outstanding developmental progress and gaps are closing rapidly. They become extremely independent learners. Young children learn to play together and share resources fairly. Older children learn to count objects, explore patterns and shapes and significantly increase their problem-solving skills.

Uxbridge

Good

· The leadership and management are good. The management team has a strong understanding of the requirements of the Early Years Foundation Stage. They follow robust recruitment and vetting procedures.

· Staff form strong links with other provisions, such as schools. They invite other professionals to their setting and plan effective resources and activities that help children to emotionally prepare for their move to school.

· The management team encourages all staff to extend their knowledge and skills through training. They share new knowledge and implement new activities into their practice to improve the outcomes for all children, including those with special educational needs and/or disabilities.

6. Next Steps

Managers complete monthly returns regarding occupancy; the returns enable the extrapolation of data to

show the FTE equivalent occupancy across the age groups, based on children’s patterns of attendance.

In addition it also demonstrates the balance of funded and parental fee income in hours. This data is

used to forecast occupancy and fee income across the year and forms part of the monthly budget

management meetings with finance.

Currently managers are in the process of matching vacancies with demand across the waiting list, and

making offers for places. The September induction process is the busiest, due to the number of children

leaving to go to school, creating capacity for both internal movement of children between rooms and for

the new intake.

Whilst it is prudent to review placements currently offered outside of the 5 hour (8am-1pm or 1pm-6pm)

or 10 hour (8-6pm) slots, this requires sensitivity to ensure that any suggested changes or ceasing of

these placements does not cause disruption to the early education of our most vulnerable children.

The early education and childcare provided by the 3 Early Years Centres pays regard to the

Government’s expectation for the provision of sufficient childcare offering wrap around care, including

early starts and late finishes, as part of a more flexible offer for working parents. This expectation is not

just for the 3 and 4 year old 15 hour free entitlement, but also the two year old 15 hour free entitlement

and the extension of the free entitlement to the 30 hours of free provision from September 2017.

7. Action Plan

Action to be taken By whom When

1. Review vacancies in line with waiting lists, with a view to offer places

Centre managers End of Sept 16 and

then monthly

2. Review of current placements with a view to maximising occupancy where appropriate

Centre managers End of Sept 16 and

then monthly

3. Occupancy to be completed ahead of monthly budget management meeting. Service manager to review monthly.

Centre managers

Service Manager

Ongoing

4. Review of staffing positions in line with maximising occupancy

Assistant Director

for EIPS/Service

Manager

End of October 16

5. Planning for introduction of 30 hours entitlement as of September 2017

Service

manager/FIS

manager

January 2017

New Allocations of Growth Contingency Fund for Expanding Schools 2016/17

1. Introduction

This report sets out the required increase to the Growth Contingency Fund for expanding schools that will take on additional pupils in September 2016.

2. Recommendation

Schools Forum is asked to agree: i) To release the expanding schools funding to Hillside Infants.

3. Background

The Schools Funding formula no longer includes a factor to provide resources for schools that have or are expanding, nor does it include a factor for the set up costs or the required diseconomies of scale funding for new basic need academy schools. However, the new funding arrangements do allow local authorities to put in place a Growth Contingency Fund Policy to fund schools that fall within these categories. Expanding Schools The Growth Contingency Fund Policy, states that the funding for expanding schools will be based on the average rates of funding per pupil across the school sector. For 2016/17 the funds provided for the expanding schools allocation is £61,411. There is one school that has recently been in negotiations with the Local Authority with regard to expansion as indicated in the table below. Applying the rate of £61,411 per form of entry increases the total Growth Contingency fund requirement to £1,784k for 2016/17.

School £ Hillside Infants 61,411 Original Growth Requirement 2016/17 1,722,477 Revised Growth Requirement 2016/17 1,783,888

Update on Pupil Numbers in Expanding Schools 2016/17

4. Introduction

This report gives an update on the number of pupils on roll in expanding schools that are in receipt of growth contingency funding and basic need academies that are in receipt of diseconomies funding.

5. Recommendation

Schools Forum is asked to: ii) note the contents of the report, iii) consider whether in future years the payment of Growth Contingency funding

should be withheld until we have a clearer indication of September Reception numbers.

6. Background

The Schools Funding formula no longer includes a factor to provide resources for schools that are expanding, nor does it include a factor for the set up costs or the required diseconomies funding for new basic need academy schools. However, the new funding arrangements do allow local authorities to put in place a Growth Contingency Fund Policy to fund schools that fall within these categories. Schools Forum agreed as part of the 2016/17 DSG budget setting process to allocate funding to the schools that have expanded as per the attached appendix. There is also one new bulge expansion (Hillside Infants) which was not on the original growth contingency allocation in January and the pupil numbers of these are also included in the appendix. Schools Forum also agreed to allocate diseconomies funding to the three basic need academies and tab two of the appendix details the pupil numbers for each of these. Expanding Schools The 'Expansions' tab of the appendix shows the pupil numbers based on the May census and offered Reception places for September. The numbers indicate that in the majority of cases the allocation of growth contingency is justified. However there are some exceptions within the 'Diff' column, which calculates and highlights where Reception numbers are below capacity. Based on this information, Schools Forum may wish to consider that in future years Growth Contingency funding is withheld until we have a clear indication of what the September Reception numbers will be. Basic Need Academies The pupil number figures in the 'Basic Need' tab of the appendix show that all three of the basic need academies are seeing an increase in numbers each year. All three schools have submitted a budget plan for 2016/17 (academic year) and both John Locke and

Lake Farm have been able to set a budget with little or no requirement of diseconomies for the period September '16 to August '17. It should be noted that in 2017/18 both John Locke and Lake Farm will have classes in KS2 which may mean that there is a further requirement for diseconomies due to an inevitable increase in costs. There will still be a requirement to fund diseconomies at St Martin's as the school has been open for a shorter time than the other two and is still building up its pupil numbers. It should be noted that St Martins will be operating as a 2 forms of entry in Reception from September 2016 given the estimated intake. All Schools The 'All Schools' tab of the appendix shows the pupil numbers for all schools in order that Schools Forum members can assess the impact of pupil number growth in different areas of the borough.

Early Years National Funding Formula Consultation London Borough of Hillingdon Response

Q1. Should there be an early years national funding formula (to distribute money from central government to each local authority)? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with the introduction of a national funding formula, as the current funding model no longer reflects the true cost of providing 2, 3 and 4 year old free entitlement places. Q2. To what extent do you agree with the proposed funding floor limit, so that no local authority would face a reduction in its hourly funding rate of greater than 10%? The London Borough of Hillingdon supports the proposal to have in place a funding floor at the rate suggested as long as it reflects local circumstances. It would then enable the relevant local authority to work with their providers to manage the reduced level of funding provided. Alternatively, to avoid any disruption, it might be worth considering cash limiting the level of funding that local authorities receive, where it is currently proposed that their funding will be reduced. This could be managed by slightly increasing the total amount of funds available or top-slicing all of the gainers, until such time as all providers are funded on the same basis. Q3. Should a universal base rate be included in the early years national funding formula? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with this approach as it provides transparency for providers on the base level of funding that they will receive regardless of other factors. Q4. Is 89.5% of overall funding the right amount to channel through this factor? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with this level as providers need a reasonable level of certainty of the minimum funding that they will receive for all of the children that they provide care and support for. A smaller proportion could significantly impact the viability of some providers as it could make it difficult for them to plan and budget effectively and with certainty on the level of funding that they will receive. Q5. Should an additional needs factor be included in the early years national funding formula? The London Borough of Hillingdon fully supports the inclusion of the additional needs factors as this will provide additional funding to providers to reflect the different needs of the children that they will be providing care and support for. Q6. Do we propose the correct basket of metrics for additional needs? The London Borough of Hillingdon understand the reason for the inclusion of the factors proposed, but does not believe that EAL or Disability Living Allowance are robust enough to use as factors in this instance as they are very subjective or only pick up a small minority of children. The London Borough of Hillingdon would suggest that IDACI and FSM are the most appropriate factors to use. Q7. Do we propose the correct weightings for each metric of additional needs? As stated above, the London Borough of Hillingdon does not believe that EAL and

Disability Living Allowances are the right factors to use. However, in total the London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with the 10.5% apportionment for the additional needs factors. Q8. Should the early years national funding formula include an area cost adjustment? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with the inclusion of an area cost adjustment as this would reflect the higher costs associated with operating a business in larger cities such as London. Q9. Should that adjustment be based on staff costs (based on the General Labour Market measure) and on nursery premises costs (based on rateable values)? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with this methodology. Q10. Should we retain the current two-year-old funding formula? The London Borough of Hillingdon would like to suggest that the 2 year old funding formula moves towards the same methodology as the 3 and 4 year old funding formula so that it captures the same level of challenges that each provider faces within its relevant locality. Having a simple base rate would not capture some of the additional cost challenges that some providers face in meeting the needs of very young children. Q11. Should we use the additional funding secured at the spending review to uplift local authorities’ allocations based upon this? The London Borough of Hillingdon supports the proposal to allocate all of the additional funding to the relevant two year old free entitlement offer as this will move the funding rate that Council's receive much closer to the amount that is paid to providers. The London Borough of Hillingdon currently funds the two year old free entitlement offer at £6.00 per hour, which we believe is in line with most other London Borough's. Q12. Should the free entitlement be capped at 30 hours for children of eligible working parents and 15 hours for all other children? The London Borough of Hillingdon is of the view that the free entitlement is capped at the respective rates, as this is fully understood by parents and is embedded within the way in which providers operate. A change to this would incur significant additional administration costs if a more flexible arrangement was introduced. Q13. Should Government set the proportion of early years funding that must be passed on to providers? The London Borough of Hillingdon supports this approach as it is a reasonable step to ensure a consistent approach across the country and ensures that minimal funds are retained centrally. Q14. Do you think that 95% is the correct minimum proportion of the money that should be passed from local authorities to providers? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees that this is the right balance, between maximising the funds that are paid directly to providers whilst allowing a reasonable proportion to be retained to support services that are valued by providers and deliver

value for money across the early years sector. A proportion of the funds held by the London Borough of Hillingdon are for capacity building of the two year old provision, which should be accounted for as part of the 95%, rather than within the 5% retained sum, as these funds will be allocated to individual providers. Q15. Should local authorities be required to give the same universal hourly base rate to all childcare providers in their area? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with this proposal as it is fair and reasonable as no provider should be funded more favourably than any other, unless there is good reason to do so. The latter point is very relevant for Maintained Nursery schools, where in Hillingdon, the funding formula provides them with a significant lump sum to cover the additional costs of their particular status. Removing this factor, will cause this setting some very real challenges. Q16. Should local authorities be able to use funding supplements? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with this approach, which is similar to the way in which school funding is determined, as these additional factors can be used to reflect the challenges that some providers face with the different needs of the children attending the relevant setting. However, the London Borough of Hillingdon is concerned that the quality factor will not be included within the allowable factors, as this provides funding for all providers where they have an Ofsted rating of good or better. Where a provider is below this rating, they are provided with support from the Early Years Advisory Service to help them move towards achieving an improved rating, for which they will then start to attract the additional funding. Q17. Should there be a cap on the proportion of funding that is channelled through supplements? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with this proposal to ensure a consistent approach across the country and provide an element of certainty of funding for providers no matter where the setting is located. Q18. If you agree that there should be cap on the proportion of funding that is channelled through supplements, should the cap be set at 10%? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with setting the cap at 10%, a higher rate could potentially have an impact on some of the smaller providers, such as childminders, which could remove an element of parental choice. Q19. Should the following supplements be permitted? Deprivation, sparsity / rural areas, flexibility, efficiency, additional 15 hours. The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with the inclusion of the deprivation and sparsity factors within the allowable factors, but feels that the funding for flexibility, efficiency and additional 15 hours would be better managed through the creation of a contingency, similar to the Growth Fund Contingency that is in place for schools. This would allow resources to be more targeted based on fact and would be governed by the relevant policy.

The London Borough of Hillingdon strongly urges that a quality factor and a facility to provide a lump sum for Maintained Nursery schools are included within the allowable supplements. Q20. When using funding supplements, should local authorities have discretion over the metrics they use and the amount of money channelled through each one? The London Borough of Hillingdon believes that local authorities should have discretion over the metrics as this would allow them to target resources based on local circumstances. Q21. If you agree that efficiency / additional 15 hours should be included in the set of supplements, do you have a suggestion of how should it be designed? The London Borough of Hillingdon believes that for the efficiency and additional 15 hours supplements, that these would be better managed through the creation of a contingency, similar to the Growth Fund Contingency that is in place for schools. This would allow resources to be more targeted based on fact and would be governed by the relevant policy. Q22. If you think any additional supplements should be permitted which are not mentioned here, please set out what they are and why you believe they should be included. As stated above, the London Borough of Hillingdon strongly urges that a quality factor and a facility to provide a lump sum for Maintained Nursery schools are included within the allowable supplements. Where the quality factor would provide a small financial incentive for providers to improve, and a lump sum would provide some protection for Maintained Nursery schools to reflect the additional costs of running such an establishment. Q23. Should there be a Disability Access Fund to support disabled children to access their free entitlement? The London Borough of Hillingdon welcomes this proposal, as it would provide additional resources to providers to help them to provide relevant support to a small number of children, who might otherwise not access early years provision. Q24.Should eligibility for the Disability Access Fund be children aged 3 or 4 which are a) taking up their free entitlement and b) in receipt of Disability Living Allowance? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with this proposal as a reasonable proxy to capture disabled children accessing their free entitlement. Q25. When it comes to delivering the funding for the Disability Access Fund, is the most appropriate way the existing framework of the Early Years Pupil Premium? The London Borough of Hillingdon agrees with this approach as providers are now familiar with the Early Years Pupil Premium process, which this would then be an extension of. Adding in another process could add an additional administrative burden on

providers. Q26. To what extent do you agree that a lack of clarity on how parents / childcare providers can access financial support results in children with special educational needs not receiving appropriate support? (We mean children who do not already have an Education, Health and Care Plan) The London Borough of Hillingdon has, through its' Schools Forum, been looking into this, as it is becoming more of a challenge, especially at the younger age group (0 to 5), where children are evidencing a need but due to the assessment process cannot access high needs top up funding. Q27. Should local authorities be required to establish an inclusion fund? The London Borough of Hillingdon supports the proposal to be able to create an inclusion fund as this would then allow the local authority to provide targeted resources to providers when needed and in a timely manner. In fact Hillingdon already includes such a fund. Q28. Would an inclusion fund help improve the supply of appropriate support children receive when in an early years setting? Yes, but it would need to be clearly defined. Q29. If you envisage any barriers, arising from existing practice or future proposals, to introducing a new requirement on local authorities to establish an inclusion fund, please tell us what they are and how they might be overcome. The London Borough of Hillingdon would urge that additional resources are made available for this new fund rather than being met from the High Needs block, which is already under severe pressure. Q30. should local authorities be responsible for deciding The children for which the inclusion fund is used? The London Borough of Hillingdon believes that it should be the local authority that decides the eligibility criteria, but reached in agreement with relevant stakeholders. Q31. should local authorities be responsible for deciding The value of the fund? The London Borough of Hillingdon believes that the local authority should decide the value of the fund, the level of which will be informed by current and projected need. Q32. should local authorities be responsible for deciding The process of allocating the funding? The London Borough of Hillingdon believes that it should be the local authority that decides the process of allocating the fudning, but reached in agreement with relevant stakeholders. Q33. Where specialist SEN or SEND services are delivered free at the point of use, should they be considered as funding passed directly to providers for the purposes of the 95% high pass-through?

The London Borough of Hillingdon believes that this should be the case, as the funding will be provided to individual providers for supporting individual children, it would not be used to fund a service or staffing run by or employed by the local authority. Q34. To what extent do you agree with the transition approach proposed for the Early Years National Funding Formula (money distributed from Government to local authorities)? The London Borough of Hillingdon supports this approach as it would allow time for those local authorities and providers affected to put in place an action plan to address the reduction in funding. An alternative that might be considered, to avoid impacting on providers, would be to freeze the allocation for the local authorities affected and either top slice the funding for all other authorities over the two year period, or provide additional resources to fund the difference. Over time all other local authorities will catch up to the levels of the more favourably funded local authorities. Q35. To what extent do you agree with the transition approach proposed for the high pass-through of early years funding from local authorities to providers? The London Borough of Hillingdon supports this approach, as it would allow time for those local authorities affected to effectively manage the required reduction. Q36. To what extent do you agree that our proposals on the high pass-through of funding from local authorities to childcare providers makes the existing Minimum Funding Guarantee for the early years unnecessary? The London Borough of Hillingdon has not had an opportunity to model this or fully understand the implications, but in a period where in most cases, additional funding will be required, it would appear that there would be no need for a Minimum Funding Guarantee. Q37. To what extent do you agree with the transition approach proposed for introducing the universal base rate for all providers in a local authority area? The London Borough of Hillingdon supports this approach, in fact this is our current practice. Q38. Please provide any representations / evidence on the impact of our proposals for the purposes of the Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010). The protected characteristics are: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race (including ethnicity); religion or belief; sex and sexual orientation. No comment

Schools Budget Dedicated Schools Grant (£401k overspend)

1. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) is projecting an in-year overspend of £401k. The overspend, in the main, relates to the capacity building programme for two year old provision where the funding was agreed for a number of projects last financial year, but works did not actually begin till the current year.

Original Budget

Budget Changes Funding Block

Month 4 Variance (+ adv / - fav)

Revised Budget

Forecast Outturn

Variance (As at

Month 4)

Variance (As at

Month 2)

Change from

Month 2

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

(140,664) 0 Dedicated Schools Grant Income (140,664) (140,697) (33) (150) 117

105,361 451 Delegated to Schools 105,812 105,812 0 248 (248)

4,805 0 Early Years 4,805 5,257 452 377 75

3,740 0 Centrally Retained 3,740 3,688 (52) (37) (15)

26,758 0 Special Needs 26,758 26,792 34 (203) 237

0 451 Total Schools Budget 451 852 401 235 166

0 0 Balance Brought Forward 1 April 2016 (866) (866)

(451) Use of Balances (451) (852)

0 0 Balance Carried Forward 31 March 2017 415 14

Dedicated Schools Grant Income: £33k underspend

2. The projected £33k surplus relates to the Early Years Pupil Premium where Early Years settings have so far identified less children eligible for payment of early years pupil premium than we have been funded for. The funding allocation for 2016/17 has now been adjusted by the DfE, however we still expect a small underspend unless additional eligible children are identified throughout the year.

Delegated to Schools, nil variance

3. The projection for Early Years funding delegated to schools has been amended to reflect the actual numbers of three and four year olds accessing the free entitlement. There has been a decrease in the forecasted spend compared to the estimated position at the start of the year due to a slight reduction in actual numbers in the summer term.

Early Years: £452k overspend

4. The £452k overspend in Early Years predominantly relates to the capacity building programme for two year old provision. The funding was agreed for a number of projects last financial year, but works did not actually begin till the current year. £610k of the DSG underspend from 2015/16 was allocated for these projects and it is expected that these

will be completed this financial year. This is offset by an underspend in the vulnerable children funding where it is not expected that the full £400k budget will be used as the mechanism for accessing this funding is still being agreed.

Centrally Retained: £52k underspend

5. The £52k underspend in the Centrally Retained block, predominantly relates to a vacant

Procurement Officer post, where funding has been agreed for two posts but only one is currently filled. There is also an underspend projected in the Admissions budget.

6. These underspends are offset by a projected £14k overspend on the cost of the Courier Service to schools which is to be reviewed by Schools Forum in the coming months as part of their review of all centrally retained DSG budgets.

High Needs: £34k overspend

7. There is a continuing budget pressure of £244k linked to the number of Looked After Children being placed out of borough. This is off-set by a projected underspend due to SEN growth that has been budgeted but not yet realised. This budget may be needed later in the year as the number of SEN assessments coming through the system has been on the increase in recent months.

8. A further £82k underspend is projected on the SEN contingency budget as less expenditure is expected on additional therapies for SEN pupils now that the new banded funding model has been adopted and top-up funding should be sufficient to meet all the needs of these pupils.

9. There is a projected overspend of £83k on the SEN support teams due to the recruitment of additional visual impairment specialist teachers as previously agreed by Schools Forum.

School Academy Conversions

10. The Academies Act 2010, allows schools to convert to academy status and by doing so will receive funding directly from the Education Funding Agency (EFA). Schools can convert at any point in the year, once they have converted, a number of adjustments are required to realign the DSG income budget and the amount delegated to maintained schools.

11. We have not yet been made aware of any maintained schools which are planning to

convert to academy status in 2016/17. Maintained School Balances & Budgets

12. A review of balances at the end of the 2015/16 financial year identified an increase in the number of maintained schools in deficit. In Hillingdon only one school had a licenced deficit in 2015/16. However a further three primary schools ended the year in a deficit position. Any schools that fall into deficit are subject to more focused monthly monitoring by LA officers to ensure that everything possible is being done to address the situation.

13. The table below provides an update on the financial position of schools maintained by the

Council (this excludes academy schools), based on school outturns and three year budget plans. Two schools have requested a licensed deficit in 2016/17, but there are a further eleven schools with balances below £50k who have been classified as at risk of falling into deficit and are subject to closer monitoring and support from the Schools Finance team:

School Type

Total Number

of Schools

Number of Schools In Deficit 2015/16

Value of Deficit £000

Number of Schools In Deficit 2016/17

Nursery 1 0 0 0 Primary 51 3 62 1 Secondary 2 1 761 1 Special 2 0 0 0 Total 56 4 823 2

14. Maintained schools started the 2016/17 year with an opening surplus balance of £12.8m (revenue & capital). This was a slight increase of £0.3m from the previous year. Despite this increase in balances a number of schools are beginning to experience financial difficulties due to funding being cash-limited and significant increases in costs and the projected balance at the end of 2016/17 is £6.0m.

Trade Union Duties

1. Introduction

As part of the School Funding Reform Arrangements for 2013/14, decisions were made by Schools Forum to delegate the majority of previously centrally retained budgets, with supply cover for staff taking part in Trade Union duties being the exception. An amount therefore continues to be de-delegated from each maintained schools budget with those academy schools that want to receive the benefit of the trade union staff being invoiced for their contribution towards the cost. This report provides an update on the outturn position for this particular budget.

2. Recommendations

a. Surplus funds to be rolled into the DSG underspend carried forward to the next

financial year (this is the current process),

b. Surplus funds to be specifically directed towards de-delegated services in the

following year, thereby reducing the amount needed through de-delegation and

academy contributions.

3. Background

A reconciliation of the 2015/16 trade union duties income and expenditure has identified a £30k underspend for the financial year. In 2015/16 £44k was de-delegated from maintained schools and £27k was paid by Academy schools giving a total income of £71k. Expenditure in the same period was £41k leaving a surplus of £30k for the year. The following is an extract from the Schools Revenue Funding Operational Guidance; "Any unspent de-delegated funding remaining at the year-end should be reported to Schools Forum. Funding may be carried forward to the following period as with any other centrally retained budget, and can be used specifically for de-delegated services if the authority wishes" Currently any unspent balance contributes to the DSG underspend carried forward to the following year. Members of Schools Forum need to consider whether this balance should be earmarked specifically for trade union duties in the following year. The result of this would be a reduced amount that would require to be de-delegated and invoiced for trade union duties in the following year.

ITEMS TO CONSIDER AS PART OF AN AGREED DSG WORK PROGRAMME FOR DEVELOPING THE 2017/18 BUDGET Early Years

1. Need to review the Early Years Funding Formula in light of the recent proposals as set out in the Early Years National Funding Formula Consultation paper.

2. Need to review Centrally retained budgets Schools

1. Need to review Centrally Retained budgets 2. Need to investigate the impact of the movement of ESG funded services into the DSG 3. Need to review Growth Contingency and consider whether to expand the criteria to

include schools that are growing at a much faster rate than the funding (the mismatch between October census funding and the actual intake in the following September)

High Needs

1. Need to review Banded Funding Model 2. Need to review SRP Funding and viability 3. Need to review Demographic Growth projections

General

1. Opportunity to refocus funding on emerging challenges, e.g Mental Health Support Services

schools forum meeting 21 september 2016 … · ofsted early years inspection process the last eyqf...

Documents