worcestershire schools forum › download › downloads › id › 6894 › wsf_… · agenda item...

Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 19th May 2016

Page | 1

www.worcestershire.gov.uk

Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 19

th May 2016

2.00pm

Kidderminster Room

County Hall

Worcester

WR5 2NP

Document Details:

Status: V 0.1

Date: May 2016

Document Location: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/downloads/download/552/worcestershire_schools_forum_framework_downloads

Contact: Andy McHale

Contents

http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/

http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/downloads/download/552/worcestershire_schools_forum_framework_downloads

http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/downloads/download/552/worcestershire_schools_forum_framework_downloads

Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 19th May 2016

Page | 2

www.worcestershire.gov.uk

Agenda

Minutes

Minutes of the Previous Meeting 11th April 2016

Agenda Item 5 Matters Arising

a) DfE Consultations Stage 1 7th March 2016 Final WCC Consultation Responses

b) Post 16 Review

c) UTC

Agenda Item 6 Any Other Business

a) WSF Membership Update

b) WSF Training Session Requirements

Agenda Item 7 Gypsy Roma Traveller Update

Agenda Item 8 DfE Information Requirements Continuing Historic Commitments

Agenda Item 9 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Update 2016-17

Agenda Item 10 Early Years Issues

a) DfE Consultation for Increasing the 3 and 4 Year Old Free Entitlement

b) Provider Rates September 2016

Agenda Item 11 White Paper Summary Educational Excellence Everywhere

Agenda Item 12 Academies Update

Date of Next Meeting: -

Thursday 30th June 2016 at 2pm, Kidderminster Room, County Hall

http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/

MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)

Thursday 19th

May 2016 at 2.00pm

Kidderminster Room, County Hall, Worcester

A G E N D A

1. Apologies

2. Declaration of Interests

3. Declaration of Potential Conflict of Interests

With Items on the Agenda

4. Minutes of the Last Meeting 11th April 2016 (attached)

5. Matters Arising

a) DfE Consultations Stage 1 7th March 2016 (attached)

Final WCC Consultation Responses

b) Post 16 Review (verbal update)

c) UTC (verbal update)

6. Any Other Business

a) WSF Membership Update (attached)

b) WSF Training Session Requirements (discussion item)

7. Gypsy Roma Traveller Update

(Kay Poole in attendance) (attached)

8. DfE Information Requirements 2017-18

Continuing Historic Commitments (attached)

9. Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)

Update 2016-17 (attached)

10. Early Years Issues

a) DfE Consultation for Increasing the

3 and 4 Year Old Free Entitlement (attached)

b) Provider Rates September 2016 (verbal update)

Sue Alexander

Head of Financial Management

Adults, Children,

Families and Communiites

PO Box 73

County Hall Spetchley Road

Worcester WR5 2YA

Tel 01905 846942

E-mail

[email protected]

11. White Paper Summary

Educational Excellence Everywhere (attached)

12. Academies Update (attached)

Date of Next Meeting: Thursday 30th June 2016 at 2pm

Kidderminster Room, County Hall

Please pass apologies to Andy McHale who can be contacted on

Tel 01905 846285 or e-mail [email protected]

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)

Thursday 19

th May 2016

Kidderminster Room, County Hall, Worcester The meeting started at 2.05 pm IN ATTENDANCE: WSF Members Clive Corbett (Chair) - HT Pershore High School Malcolm Richards (Vice Chair) - Governor, Bromsgrove Claire Greenlaw - Acting HT Evesham Nursery School Lawrence Gittins - HT St. John's CE Primary School Vivienne Cranton - HT Hollymount Primary School David Coache - HT Bengeworth CE First School (Substituting for Elizabeth Spencer) Bryn Thomas - HT Wolverley CE Secondary School Frank Steel - HT Regency High School Deb Rattley - HT Chadsgrove Special School (until 3pm) Stephen Baker - Union Representative Val Houghton - Church of England Board of Education Alistair Thomas - Governor, Malvern Hills David McIntosh - Governor, Wyre Forest Peter Ingham - Governor, Wyre Forest Richard Taylor - Governor, Bromsgrove Tricia Wellings - PVI Sector John Bateman - Governor, Aspire Alternative Provision (AP) Free School Michael Kitcatt - 16-19 Providers Local Authority (LA) Officers

Simon White - Director of Children, Families and

Communities Sue Alexander - Head of Financial Management Adults,

Children, Families and Communities Andy McHale - Service Manager Funding and Policy

Children, Families and Communities 1. APOLOGIES AND ABSENCE Elizabeth Spencer - HT St. Richards CE First School Andrew Best - HT St. Nicholas' CE Middle (Absent) Guy Shears - HT RSA Academy Arrow Vale Jeff Robinson - Governor, Malvern Hills June Longmuir - Governor, Bromsgrove Sean Williams - HT The Forge Pupil Referral Unit (Absent)

Sean Devlin - Archdiocese of Birmingham Denise Phelps - PVI Sector Caroline Brand - Schools Finance Manager Children, Families and Communities 2. WELCOME 2.1 The Chair welcomed Simon White, Director of Children, Families and Communities and Claire Greenlaw Acting HT Evesham Nursery School to the WSF meeting. 3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST None declared. 4. DECLARATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS WITH ITEMS ON THE AGENDA None declared. 5. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (11

th April 2016)

Agreed. 6. MATTERS ARISING 6.1 Under 9.3 (a) Andy confirmed the DSG baseline information had been submitted to the DfE by the due date. A minor query had been raised by the DfE on the use of one-off funding in the Schools Block in 2016-17. 6.2 Under 8 the WSF noted the final responses to the DfE consultations on the Schools National Funding Formula and High Needs. A member of the WSF passed on complements from their group to the LA on the thoroughness of the response and advised the DfE had to review a significant number of responses. There were concerns raised on the how the DfE were going to score these and the timing of the Stage 2 consultation. 6.3 In terms of the Post 16 review a member of the WSF advised that final meetings had taken place but the report would not be due until after the European elections. It was confirmed the review was centred on LEP not RSC areas and was restricted to 6

th Form

colleges and FE but collaboration between school 6th forms was expected.

6.4 In terms of the UTC the Chair confirmed the bid was now at Stage 2 and there was divided opinion in secondary schools. It was anticipated the hub and spoke model would affect some schools in terms of their pupil numbers. A member of the WSF commented that further curriculum choice was welcomed but this needed to be in existing institutions. A member of the WSF advised that similar provision had been closed in other LAs. 7. GYPSY ROMA TRAVELLER UPDATE 7.1 The Chair welcomed Kay Poole and Steve Wilkinson from Babcock Prime to the WSF meeting.

7.2 Kay presented on the service offer for maintained schools and academies together with the current issues facing the service. 7.3 Kay confirmed the existing approval for de-delegation from maintained schools provides for a free continued service but a traded one for academies. Kay raised concerns on some academies are not engaging and the level of buy back being low. This was starting to have implications as follows: -

Increases in Elective Home Education (EHE) and Children Missing Education (CME) with these pupils unsupported in the social care system.

No support in the EY or Post 16 sectors.

Effect on educational outcomes.

Increase in unreported racists and bullying incidents.

Poor attendance and more exclusion. 7.4 Members of the WSF commented as follows: -

The amount of de-delegation from maintained schools may have been affected by the change in the Low Prior Attainment (LPA) factor.

Could the service manage on the previous central funding including supporting EY and Post 16 or has the demand grown?

There is a wider issue on the provision of Education Services which the DfE have seemed to have neglected.

Schools have continuing limited resources so have to prioritise so those academies without GRT will not want to contribute back. This results in those academies needing support having to pay more.

Issues on EHE need to be addressed.

Liaison with AP Free Schools could be useful as they deal with increasingly vulnerable pupils.

Recent initiatives such as providing IT for GRT pupils have been introduced. 7.5 Kay responded to advise that academies need to be encouraged to contribute and that the IT initiatives had been positive. Also there are difficulties in engaging with GRT on private sites and in working with pupils in the social care system. 7.6 The Chair thanked Kay for the very valuable input and suggested a sub-group may want to look at the issues further. Kay Poole and Steve Wilkinson left the meeting at 3.05pm. 8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS 8.1 WSF Membership Update (a) The WSF noted the current membership attendance record. (b) Andy requested individual WSF members to note any impending term of office expiry dates and to arrange re-nomination or alternative membership as required. 8.2 WSF Training Update (a) The Chair reminded the WSF this has been raised as an issue as part of the recent self-evaluation exercise. Andy advised that a training session could be programmed but it would need to be of benefit for all WSF members.

(b) On refection the WSF members supported: -

A reminder session of the powers, responsibilities and decision making for the WSF to take place within a WSF meeting.

For new members the clerk to continue to circulate key documents and provide support as now and to have a buddy/mentor system with long standing members.

8.3 Babcock Issues (a) The Chair introduced and suggested the need for clarity on issues relating to core and enhanced services provided. The Vice Chair supported referring to a recent example in the traded services brochure relating to Governor Services. (b) Sue suggested a report to the next meeting to give clarity on what was included in the contract. It was agreed to ask John Edwards to attend the next meeting to discuss but Sue requested issues in advance to be raised. Simon recommended that Babcock attend too. A member of the WSF felt discussion on the funding aspects e.g. ESG and De-delegation would be useful too. 9. DfE INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 2017-18 CONTINUING HISTORIC COMMITMENTS 9.1 Andy introduced the item and referred to the previous WSF meeting that agreed the DSG Baseline 2016-17 submissions and the information requirements requested by the DfE for the funding of Historic Commitments. 9.2 Andy advised that the remaining area for discussion related to Combined Budgets of £1.5m that supported the Early Intervention Family Support Service (EIFS) requiring an application by 27

th May 2016.

9.3 The WSF were requested to consider the draft submission included as an Appendix to the report. The WSF were extremely supportive of the application and of the service as evidenced. In response to questions from WSF members Andy advised the service was highly valued by schools, managed by both the LA and schools and was used to employ EIFS workers in supporting schools and vulnerable families. A member of the WSF advised on their locality and the excellent work being undertaken. Andy requested any further comments for the submission by 23

rd May 2016.

9.4 Andy confirmed that the Schools Block funding allocated to the Pupil Growth Fund in 2016-17 was not part of this exercise. It had been included as required in the submission for the DSG baseline exercise with the DfE intending to allocate that back to LAs on a historic basis in the soft formula period. RESOLVED: - The WSF approved the submission of the case as presented, subject to any final minor amendment, to the DfE by 27

th May 2016 for continued support for the

Historic Commitment for EIFS and for this to continue to be funded as part of the Central DSG Schools Block from 2017-18 and thereafter.

10. DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) UPDATE 2016-17 10.1 Andy introduced the report which detailed the DSG 2016-17 position as at 31

st

March 2016. Andy advised of a typographical error in Table 2 where the 2016-17 Revised Total should read (7.50) not (0.75). 10.2 The only change was confirmation of the academy deductions for the Schools Block and High Needs (HN) places. Andy advised there will be a final notification probably in June 2016 to confirm the final HN place deduction and the Early Years (EY) DSG from the January 2016 census. 10.3 The WSF noted the revised position. 11. EARLY YEARS (EY) ISSUES 11.1 DfE Consultation for Increasing the 3 and 4 Year Old Free Entitlement (a) Andy introduced the report which detailed the consultation aspects. The WSF were advised it is not a funding consultation for the EY DSG but one more for providers and LA EY services. The key aspects were: -

Eligibility – the DfE proposals for qualifying for the additional 30 hours.

Flexibility – setting out issues for 'stretching' the offer over more than 38 weeks and childcare sessions at the beginning and the end of the day.

SEN – supporting additional needs.

LA Delivery Model – including assessing eligibility and proposals for a standard 'Provider Agreement'.

Parental Information – statutory publication requirements. (b) Andy advised discussions had been held with the EY Service that is now part of Babcock Prime and a draft response had been prepared by them. The WSF were invited to comment. (c) A member of the WSF commented on the process for and the need to engage providers in this but noted it was more of a provider consultation and would be encouraging individual responses. They felt the policy as currently set up was in their opinion set to fail and advised some of the LA pilot areas had already withdrawn. The consultation draft was in the main supported with the following comments: -

Question 4 – the barriers are often related to planning restrictions.

Question 5 – not in agreement with allowing 3 providers as it could lead to fragmented provision and significant movement for some pupils.

Questions 8, 9 and 10 – there were concerns on how SEN issues would be catered for and funded.

Question 13 – it would have been useful to see a model provider agreement from the DfE to assist in any comments.

Question 15 – information to parents every 6 months is more reasonable.

Question 21 – there needs to be detail included on the impact of LA statutory duty as this will be significantly affected by the DfE policy proposals.

(d) Andy requested any changes to be sent by 27

th May 2016 and these would be

forwarded to the EY Service for them to complete the submission. RESOLVED – The WSF supported the submission to the consultation subject to further amendments to be received by 27

th May 2016.

(e) Andy confirmed an expression of interest had been made on the capital funding consultation for this initiative. A further consultation on cutting red tape had also been launched and could be considered too. 11.2 Provider Rates September 2016 (a) Andy advised on the need for the annual discussion on provider rates. In 2015, the LA after consultation with the WSF approved a 4p increase from September 2015 to be funded from DSG reserve given all the EY DSG was required to fund the previous rates. (b) A member of the WSF requested the LA to consider a further increase from September 2016 given there was an option for a 6p increase last year. This would assist in supporting increasing costs like the living wage and the WSF were alerted to a recent blog and video on the matter. Andy advised every 2p increase is approximately £100k of EY DSG. It was anticipated the EY DSG would increase from September 2017 as part of the DfE review. (c) The WSF agreed to consider further at the next WSF meeting when the final DSG outturn 2015-16 will be available along with the final EY DSG 2016-17. 12. WHITE PAPER SUMMARY EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE EVERYWHERE 12.1 Andy introduced the report and Appendix which detailed the key aspects in the White Paper. The report detailed the Government position on academies following the Secretary of State announcement on 6

th May 2016. A member of the WSF advised on

the availability of academy status for 6th Form Colleges. The WSF commented on the

extremely useful summary Appendix A compiled by John Edwards. 12.2 The WSF were provided with an extract of the key issues in the proposed 'Education for All Bill' in the Queen's Speech. Andy advised this included a reference to 'Redressing historical unfairness in school funding through a National Funding Formula.' The Vice Chair advised at the West Midlands School Leaders in Education Annual Conference on 18

th May the National Schools Commissioner referred to the need for

'fairer funding'. 12.3 The Chair advised that thoughts on and responses to the White Paper are better made by personal contact with the National and Regional Schools Commissioners. 13. ACADEMY UPDATE 13.1 The WSF noted the academy position in Worcestershire as at 1

st April 2016.

14. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 14.1 The Chair advised that given the uncertainty of timing of the Stage 2 consultation and other matters then the next meeting programmed for 30

th June 2016 would need to

be re-scheduled. In order to accommodate this, WSF members were requested to reserve both 7

th and 14

th July 2016 at 2pm with the details being confirmed nearer the

time. The meeting closed at 3.55pm Date of next meeting: - Either 7

th or 14

th July 2016 at 2.00pm - Venue to be confirmed.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)

Monday 11

th April 2016

At Pershore High School, Station Road, Pershore, Worcestershire The meeting started at 3.05 pm IN ATTENDANCE: WSF Members Clive Corbett (Chair) - HT Pershore High School Malcolm Richards (Vice Chair) - Governor, Bromsgrove Lawrence Gittins - HT St. John's CE Primary School Vivienne Cranton - HT Hollymount Primary Guy Shears - HT RSA Academy Arrow Vale Frank Steel - HT Regency High School Deb Rattley - HT Chadsgrove Special School Stephen Baker - Union Representative Val Houghton - Church of England Board of Education David McIntosh - Governor, Wyre Forest Peter Ingham - Governor, Wyre Forest Richard Taylor - Governor, Bromsgrove Jeff Robinson - Governor, Malvern Hills June Longmuir - Governor, Bromsgrove Tricia Wellings - PVI Sector Denise Phelps - PVI Sector John Bateman - Governor, Aspire Alternative Provision (AP) Free School Local Authority (LA) Officers

Simon White - Director of Children, Families and

Communities Sue Alexander - Head of Financial Management Adults,

Children, Families and Communities Andy McHale - Service Manager Funding and Policy

Children, Families and Communities Caroline Brand - Schools Finance Manager Children, Families and Communities 1. APOLOGIES AND ABSENCE Claire Greenlaw - Acting HT Evesham Nursery School Elizabeth Spencer - HT St. Richards CE First School Andrew Best - HT St. Nicholas' CE Middle Bryn Thomas - HT Wolverley CE Secondary School Alistair Thomas - Governor, Malvern Hills Sean Williams - HT The Forge Pupil Referral Unit Sean Devlin - Archdiocese of Birmingham

Michael Kitcatt - 16-19 Providers Councillor John Campion - Cabinet Member with Responsibility For Children and Families 2. WELCOME 2.1 The Chair welcomed Simon White, Director of Children, Families and Communities and Sue Alexander, Head of Financial Management Adults, Children, Families and Communities newly in post to the WSF meeting. 3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST None declared. 4. DECLARATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS WITH ITEMS ON THE AGENDA None declared. 5. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (25

th February 2016)

Agreed. 6. MATTERS ARISING 6.1 Under 12 Public Apprenticeships Andy confirmed no further guidance had been received and the Chair confirmed a response had been sent as requested. 6.2 Under 14.1 UTC the Chair confirmed the bid was now at Stage 2 and Secondary Headteachers had been invited to update meetings. 7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS 7.1 The PVI representatives advised the WSF that the DfE had published consultations on the extension of the 3 and 4 year old free entitlement to 30 hours and on cutting red tape. 7.2 Andy advised this did not include any proposals for the Early Years DSG. The DfE have indicated this will be consulted upon at a later date. The WSF noted the consultation was mainly on the delivery aspects and was more for providers at this stage. 7.3 The consultation return date of 6

th June 2016 was noted and the WSF agreed to

discuss at the next WSF meeting on 19th May 2016.

8. DfE CONSULTATIONS STAGE 1 7

th MARCH 2016

8.1 The Chair introduced the item and referred to the agenda items on a summary of the Stage 1 issues and the letter sent to schools prior to the Easter break encouraging individual responses. The Chair confirmed the draft responses to be discussed were those to be made by WCC and that there may be different opinions within the WSF. The WSF noted this, concurred the number of responses was important and that the devil will be in the detail at Stage 2.

8.2 Sue introduced the current position of WCC and confirmed draft v2 had been circulated to all schools and the WSF and a draft v3 had also been made available to the WSF. Sue advised given the importance of the issues the responses were very detailed and in some areas extremely hard hitting and requested the WSF review and provide any comments or suggestions. 8.3 The WSF commented on the Schools National Funding Formula draft v3 as follows: - (a) Question 1 Principles

The impact of reductions in post 16 are critical for secondary schools particularly those in a three tier system.

Possible caution needed in questioning the tight timescales. (b) Question 2 School National Formula From 2019-20

Noted as a significant issue and support for the WCC proposal for some local discretion.

Significant concerns on the EFAs ability to administer the 'hard' formula from 2019-20.

There is the potential for the loss of valued and experienced LA staff.

How would this impact on the funding arrangements between maintained schools and academies?

De-delegated services are valued highly by academies too.

Needs to be clarity by the DfE on the future role of Schools Forums. (c) Questions 3 to 13 Proposed Formula Drivers

Key recurring theme for all factors is the need for transparency on the entitlement model, formula weighting and derived unit of resource.

Data volatility particularly around IDACI and LPA will be a significant cause for concern.

Factors for specific schools e.g. PFI, split sites and exceptional premises often subject to long term contractual arrangements are crucial for some schools. So the funding of these in the 'hard' period will potentially be a cause for concern.

(d) Question 16 Area Cost Adjustment

Recognition that this is important but is its relevance diminishing given the cost pressures for all schools?

How can it continue to be based on staffing differentials due to the ability of academies to vary national pay scales?

WCC has not been well served on this issue historically with some neighbouring LAs being in receipt of ACA for no clear reason often resulting in staff movement.

Significant concern on how the DfE will calculate this so is there the potential for a 'fiddle factor'.

(e) Questions 17 to 19 Removal of Formula Factors

A need to refer to the LA statutory duties for LAC provision and the pressure on this due to the ESG funding proposals.

Mobility is often linked to vulnerable pupils.

Post 16 only currently permitted if it was a local formula factor prior to April 2013.

(f) Question 20 Ring Fenced Schools Block

Significant concerns on the loss of flexibility within the DSG and the potential impact on the HN block for vulnerable learners and for supporting Early Years.

(g) Question 22 LA Ongoing Responsibilities

Concur with the comments on impact of academy conversions for those maintained schools in deficit.

(h) Question 24 Other Duties

Concerns on the impact of the proposals on school organisation and accountability currently in place through WCC and its members.

8.3 The WSF commented of the High Needs draft v3 as follows: - (a) All Questions

Continued ability for local distribution, bandings and top up arrangements supported.

Extremely difficult to complete until Stage 2 is published.

No specific mention of funding for AP places – will this change in the future?

ACA issues mentioned in Schools Block consultation equally valid. 8.4 Members of the WSF were complimentary on the thoroughness of the drafts noting the complexity of all the issues. The Vice Chair advised that there was no requirement on the WSF to approve the WCC response and views would differ but responses from all schools, providers and associations were encouraged. 8.5 Andy advised on the impact of the funding arrangements between maintained schools and academies. The APT is the same for both but the EFA recalculate academies MFG and capping entitlements thereby revising allocations for some schools. Also academies have seen reductions to the general duties ESG rate with tapering protections but WCC has had to manage these reductions without any transitional funding. In terms of the future role of Schools Forums Andy further advised for the 'soft' period the existing responsibilities are likely to remain but it was unclear on the arrangements thereafter. 8.6 It was agreed that the drafts v3 would be amended to include relevant comments from the extremely useful discussions. Overall the WSF were broadly supportive of the WCC responses for both the Schools and High Needs consultations. 9. DfE INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 2017-18 9.1 Andy introduced the item and referred to the report detailing the information requirements requested by the DfE for DSG Block Baseline and the funding for Historic Commitments. 9.2 DSG Baseline 2016-17 (a) Andy advised that given LAs were able to move grant between the DSG Blocks the DfE were looking for up to date information on this for the DSG allocations 2016-17 to inform the 2017-18 position. This excludes any one-off funding from DSG Reserve and 2 year old funding. Returns have to be made to the DfE by 12

th April 2016.

(b)The WSF had been circulated the WCC proposals which detailed decisions required on the DSG Blocks including the centrally retained school block DSG. 9.3 Historic Commitments (a) Andy advised that the other areas of the former historic commitments for CERA £1.030m and Termination of Employment Costs £0.2m had now time expired. The majority of these had supported previously committed High Needs issues and so in conjunction with the permitted non-ring fence arrangements the WSF were supportive of re-allocating these to the High Needs Block. This would be crucial in supporting place pressures and associated top up from September 2016 for both special schools given the LA has commissioned significantly more places and for having to fund AP places from year 3. (b) Andy further advised that there was one area of historic commitments relating to Combined Budgets of £1.5m that supported the Early Intervention Family Support Service (EIFS). The WSF noted this was a long standing service subject to previous consultation with schools and annual decision by the WSF. The WSF agreed it is highly valued by schools but Andy advised it will need to be subject to an application to the DfE for funding purposes. This needs to be made by 27

th May 2016 and so would be

discussed further at the next WSF meeting. Simon advised this would be aligned to the 0-19 service being developed. RESOLVED: - On a show of hands the WSF approved unanimously by 17 votes to 0: -

The DSG Baseline for 2016-17 recommended by WCC for submission to the DfE by the due date as follows: - Schools Block Delegated £299.164m (excluding the one-off DSG

Reserve allocation from 2015-16 £2.005m). Schools Block Central £2.626m – Combined Services EIFS £1.500m,

School Admissions £0.696m, Servicing Schools Forums £0.055m, Licences and Subscriptions £0.375m.

Pupil Growth Fund £0.700m. High Needs Block £46.131m. Early Years £16.487m (excluding funding for 2 year olds). Reflecting the former historic commitments time expired re-allocated to

the High Needs Block to support HN provider place pressures as detailed.

The need to submit a case to the DfE by 27th

May 2016 for continued support for the Historic Commitment for EIFS and for this to be included in the DSG Baseline submission 2016-17 to continue to be funded as part of the Central DSG Schools Block from 2017-18.

The meeting closed at 4.25pm Date of next meeting: - Thursday 19

th May 2016 at 2.00pm

Kidderminster Room, County Hall

Response ID ANON-TEB1-7ER5-F

Submitted to Schools national funding formula

Submitted on 2016-04-15 11:07:09

Introduction

A Name

First name::

Andy

Last name::

McHale

B Email address

Email address:

[email protected]

C Response type

Please select your role from the list below::

Local authority representative

Please select your organisation type from the list below::

Local authority

Organisation name::

Worcestershire County Council

Local authority area::

Worcestershire

D Would you like your response to be confidential?

No

Please give your reason for confidentiality::

Principles for a reformed funding system

1 Do you agree with our proposed principles for the funding system?

Yes

Please provide any further comments::

Yes but with comments: -

WCC

• Is extremely pleased and welcomes after many years of unfairness and campaigning, in conjunction with the F40 Group, that the Government is tackling the

long funding inequity and unfairness both between individual LAs and schools.

• Contends 'Fairer Funding' cannot come soon enough and that any transition through MFG/Capping for both the DSG in total and individual schools must be

considered but not be long enough to mitigate against the required changes to funding levels.

• Is concerned about the extremely tight timescales making full engagement with schools and the Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) extremely difficult.

• Is disappointed that not all school provider funding streams has been included in the consultation; the long awaited consultation on Early Years is a key aspect

missing where our funding levels are one of the lowest in the country too.

• Contends Post 16 funding, particularly in a three tier system, is a key funding aspect that needs consideration in the whole holistic funding approach as well as

Pupil Premium Grant (PPG) and Other Specific Grants.

• Agrees with these and notes these contain no real surprises and have long been championed as underlying previous policy decisions and these proposed

changes.

• Suggests some of these need further definition e.g. what is fairness and some may conflict e.g. fairness might be at variance with simplicity and it will not be

possible to see whether these are met until Stage 2 of the consultation process. For example, the weightings that are to be applied to the national funding formula

elements need to enable all schools to educate all pupils as well as enabling them to support pupils with additional needs so that all pupils have the opportunity to

achieve their potential.

• Contends the principles need to ensure that as much funding as possible goes to schools but must take account of local circumstances for local distribution.

• Is concerned that taken together with the proposals for a national funding formula for High Needs, this will just leave LAs managing a series of volatile, high unit

cost, specialist services with no flexibility to manage the DSG budget as a whole. The consultations fail to recognise the inter-relationship between the Schools

and High Needs blocks.

The structure of the funding system

2 Do you agree with our proposal to move to a school-level national funding formula in 2019-20, removing the requirement for local

authorities to set a local formula?

No


No and with comments: -

WCC

• Although welcoming a school-level approach is: -

■ Extremely disappointed and concerned that the DfE plan to remove the requirement for LAs to set a local formula from 2019-20 and so disagrees with the 'hard'

formula approach.

■ Against removing local decision making from the formula so any incentives that currently exists within the system for schools to work together for the benefit of

pupils in the system is lost. This could be to the detriment of the weakest and most vulnerable pupils and so much less inclusive putting even more pressure on

the High Needs Block.

■ Concerned LAs will no longer have their consultative and allocation role for the local schools funding formula.

• Feels that some local discretion is still warranted e.g. 80:20 national to local split might be more appropriate. The benefit of some local decision will benefit area

characteristics.

• Has significant reservations on: -

■ The ability of the EFA to administer the allocation of budget shares to all schools within the statutory deadlines for them to set their budgets. WCC and its

schools are extremely concerned that the current standard and quality of LA staff will not be replicated within a national funding arrangement.

■ Whether the EFA would be able respond to the inevitable multiple questions from individual schools, which will be largely based on local circumstances. Given

feedback from academies on EFA response times there are significant concerns on the capacity of this to be able to be done centrally.

■ How the DfE will be able to reflect local circumstances in key aspects such as premises related factors in the longer term.

• Feels the proposed position will lead to LAs having a lack of control and influence in school block funding. From 2019-20 any school queries will become a

matter for the EFA.

• Anticipates the National Funding Formula for Schools (NFSS) will provide WCC and its schools with additional resources but cannot be certain on this until

consultation Stage 2 has been completed.

• Is concerned even if this does happen then existing cost pressures and planned ESG reductions could more than offset any increases. This will certainly be the

case if Stage 2 is unfavourable.

• Has concerns on the 'soft' approach for 2017-18 and 2018-19 as follows: -

■ The big issue for LAs and their Schools Forums/Schools is how quickly they want to or will move towards the NFFS over the next 2 years. Does WCC stick with

what we have, move to something else or straight to the NFSS potentially creating more turbulence?

■ LAs can discuss the principles on this but cannot not really decide upon this until Stage 2 when the DfE will publish their costed proposals for LAs and schools.

■ There will be the potential for variance between the individual school level budgets determined by the NFFS and any different local distribution of the Schools

Block by LAs.

■ Schools that are due to receive more in the NFFS will want to move quicker to it than schools that are better served by the existing local schools funding

formula.

■ This will all lead to more local school challenge and potential dispute.

■ The requirement to complete 2 APT submissions as now with the first one in October 2016 will require the Stage 2 consultation to be completed and all policy

decisions to be made well before the Summer 2016.

• Is concerned from 2019-20 on the potential impact for the withdrawal of the ability to de-delegate services and provision for maintained schools: -

■ These are services, e.g. support for staff costs such as jury service, trade union facilities time, etc and school specific contingency that are non-uniform across

schools. These are valued highly by our maintained schools and academies, far more effective when provided centrally and our Schools Forum has approved

de-delegation since April 2013. These are low cost per pupil services so delegating could mean a potential higher cost for an individual school if they have

manage issues individually.

■ As part of its commissioning programme WCC has a long term contract in place with Babcock International to provide some of the de-delegated services

funded by this retained DSG. These services – EAL and GRT – provide support to the most vulnerable children promoting inclusivity so would potentially be at

risk in the future.

■ Overall de-delegation allows collaboration and best practice exercising democratic accountability. It promotes the sharing of service and expertise, provides

cost effectiveness and helps LAs fulfil its statutory and regulatory responsibilities.

• Contends the factors, parameters and agreed funding levels within the NFFS are crucial and will determine funding levels for each LA and its schools as well as

any re-distribution between LAs. The NFFS is likely to have different units of resource to our local formula e.g. possibility a bigger lump sum.

• Agrees to the proposed formula drivers for the 3 sub blocks excluding ACA; this seem logical in terms of the building blocks for the NFFS as they are part of the

allowable LA formula factors. We currently use the majority of the proposed NFFS factors currently and do not use LAC, mobility and post 16. So this is consistent

but how these will compare to the NFFS is unknown.

• Does not support ACA to be a separate block and given the national cost pressures questions its inclusion at all. Any system distribution via ACA factors should

be restricted to cost differences relating to teachers' pay with the majority of resources being distributed on the basic funding per pupil. The growth of the current

ACA compensation has led too much of the difference in per pupil funding amounts in the present system.

• Feels ACA may be better served as multiplier to the per pupil sub block to reflect any regional differences in costs.

• Asserts in terms of how this translates to LA allocations and the variance to the existing School Block allocation via the LAs GUF rates will be affected by: -

■ How these sub block entitlement models and values in the formula are constructed and subsequently costed.

■ The difference in these to existing LA local formulae units of resource.

■ The share of the Schools Block DSG quantum assigned to each of the sub blocks.

■ The MFG and capping to be applied by the DfE to dampen re-distribution between LAs and schools.

■ Any scaling by the DfE for overall affordability.

• Insists the DfE must start from entitlement for all pupils on a bottom up needs led approach – this is imperative. There has to be a transparent and robust model

on how these block %'s and units of resource are derived and calculated. This will need to include the MFG/Capping and any scaling for affordability. Issues for

consideration include: -

■ If the DfE set the block weightings first the impact will depending on how this is done e.g. a bigger % share to 'per pupil' may be seen as fairer.

■ Smaller LAs may benefit from a bigger schools cost block % or lump sum.

■ How will formula factor units of resource be calculated – base cost, MFLs, a combination, etc – entitlement and transparency are key.

■ A bigger % share to ACA taken initially will support those LAs receiving ACA. The order of calculation should recognise any ACA is additional to the basic per

pupil amount and not a starting point to the distribution of funding.

• Contends all factors need to be costed on a current needs entitlement and not purely an average of current spend as used in the MFLs. WCC recommends the

DfE uses the methodology in the proposed F40 model which has: -

■ Been complied on reviewing entitlement for each proposed formula driver independently e.g. primary AWPU (class sizes, non-contact time, staffing costs, etc).

■ Applying these resulting units of resource to the data sets.

■ Aggregated for each factor with any ACA adjustment applied last as a multiplier for those perceived qualifying LAs.

■ Assess the affordability and scaling back on specific factors as required.

• Understands a key point is manageability for schools but feels the unfairness has gone on long enough.

• Is disappointed there seems to be no end point proposed for transition to the full NFFS just ‘several years’.

• Notes that the Pupil Premium will remain as a separate grant but suggests consideration by the DfE of the potential 'multiplier effect' of deprivation funding.

• Is concerned although Schools Forums still have a key role in 2017/18 and 2018/19 but what happens thereafter? There needs to be clarity on their role and

voice for the future for all schools and providers.

Building block A: per-pupil costs

3 Do you agree that the basic amount of funding for each pupil should be different at primary, key stage 3 and key stage 4?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees with the approach suggested and per pupil needs to be fully funded prior to any other formula factors. The DfE may want to consider entitlement at both

KS1 and KS2.

• Contends this should be the main formula component fully funded with the per pupil entitlement fully transparent in driving the per pupil calculation.

• Advises there needs to be transparency on the entitlement model, factor weighting and the derived unit of resource.

• Requires this to be based upon clear evidence and rationale costed at current salary and other cost levels including sub factors for: -

■ Teaching group sizes.

■ Teacher contact time, including an allowance for planning, performance and assessment (PPA).

■ Teaching assistant time.

■ Absence e.g. sickness, maternity etc.

■ Leadership costs.

■ Non class staff costs.

■ Resources.

■ Exam fees (Key Stage 4 only).

Building block B: additional needs factors

4a Do you agree that we should include a deprivation factor?

Yes

4b Which measures for the deprivation factor do you support?

Pupil- and area-level



WCC

• Agrees with the need for a deprivation factor but contends there needs to be transparency on the entitlement model, factor weighting and the derived unit of

resource.

• Any factors also need to recognise rural deprivation.

Pupil and area level but with comments: -

WCC

• Contends there are merits in both but how any weightings are to be applied will be crucial.

• Is concerned on the issues in respect of the volatility in the IDACI data particularly in 2016-17 due to the update being once every 5 years but this data may

support in the cases where parents do not want to register for FSM. Using an average might be better.

• Advises the DfE consider bringing PPG into the formula to allow a holistic view of deprivation to remove potential 'double funding'.

• Suggests that if the PPG is to remain any allocation using FSM needs to be on the annual data only not Ever 6.

5 Do you agree we should include a low prior attainment factor?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees with the need for a low prior attainment factor but contends there needs to be transparency on the entitlement model, factor weighting and the derived

unit of resource.

• Is concerned about: -

■ The reliability and consistency of data being used to determine funding allocations under the current system for this area.

■ The financial impact of any definitional changes due to data set availability, new curriculum and/or assessment measures. It is difficult that LAs are being asked

to give an opinion on the inclusion of an indicator when it is not known how it will be revised.

■ The perception of lower attainment allocating more resource; has the DfE considered a valued added factor to reward improvement?

■ The ability of the DfE to develop these proxy indicators in the medium to long term.

6a Do you agree that we should include a factor for English as an additional language?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees with the need for an EAL factor but contends there needs to be transparency on the entitlement model, factor weighting and the derived unit of resource.

However, there may be some minority ethnic groups classed as EAL that do not need support.

• Is concerned on the proposal to not allow from 2019-20 de-delegation for maintained schools to support centrally retained EAL services. This could spread the

current central resource too thinly and put the viability of services at risk. This equally applies to central GRT services.

6b Do you agree that we should use the EAL3 indicator (pupils registered at any point during the previous 3 years as having English as an

additional language)?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees to the approach suggested.

Building block C: school costs

7 Do you agree that we should include a lump sum factor?

Yes

Please provide any further comments:


WCC

• Agrees with the need for a lump sum factor but contends there needs to be transparency on the entitlement model, factor weighting and the derived unit of

resource.

• Suggests a closer look on its allocation in terms of both: -

■ School organisation e.g. interaction with small schools in sparse areas.

■ School re-organisations e.g. school amalgamation reduces a lump sum requirement (national factor) but may require a split site (local factor), which may not be

funded.

• Contends it needs to for each sector costed at current salary and other cost levels including sub factors for: -

■ The cost of a head teacher on an average leadership scale.

■ An allowance for the fixed costs of administrative staff, premises, ICT and supplies.

■ For primary schools, the cost of additional resources to reflect the difficulties that small schools routinely face in organising year groups into a standard class

structure.

8 Do you agree that we should include a sparsity factor?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees with the need for a sparsity factor but contends there needs to be transparency on the entitlement model, factor weighting and the derived unit of

resource.

• Contends the majority of sparsely-populated rural areas incur additional costs due to the requirement to fund small necessary schools across all sectors. There

are also significant budgetary and cost pressures on LAs for home to school transport costs.

• Appreciates the current DfE formula factor is a start but and assumes the second nearest school has spaces.

• Suggests the current model may not be necessarily fit for purpose and is disappointed after a long period no alternative is being proposed. For example, is

sparsity the same as necessary small rural school provision; do schools provide a social community facility, etc?

• Advises an allocation on population density, allocating funding to those with the lowest number of pupils per square kilometre might be more relevant or a return

to a rural ACA arrangement. Recognition is also required for pockets of sparsity which might, depending on the calculation method, be averaged out over a larger

geographic area.

• Recognise that no single model can fully reflect the range of circumstances across LA areas and as such there should be flexibility on how a sparsity factor

should be applied locally.

Building block C: other school costs

9 Do you agree that we should include a business rates factor?

No



WCC

• Questions why the DfE want to keep this in the NFFS; if retained the EFA will have to manage the complicated and often painful adjustment process. The DfE

will need to build in the proposed 2017 revaluation, which could have a material redistributive impact across schools.

• Contends as rateable values are set using a nationwide formula with a common multiplier. There should be no reason for cost differences between areas for this

type of expenditure.

• Advises this is a situation where the pre 16 formula supports the whole school including EY and post 16.

• Queries the current two-tier system as to why some schools have to pay full business rates whilst others get 80% mandatory relief.

10 Do you agree that we should include a split sites factor?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees with the need for a split site factor and welcomes the continuation of this in the 'soft' formula.

• Contends there needs to be transparency on the entitlement model, factor weighting and the derived unit of resource and will require the EFA to keep up with

changes on a regular basis.

• Is concerned how the DfE will provide for this from 2019-20? These are often significant costs for individual schools in WCC and the current formulae used by

different LAs vary significantly given the range of local circumstances.

11 Do you agree that we should include a private finance initiative factor?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees with the need for a PFI factor and welcomes the continuation of this in the 'soft' formula but how will the DfE get national consistency in the longer term?

• Is concerned how the DfE will provide for this from 2019-20? These are significant costs for individual schools in WCC. The current formulae used by different

LAs vary significantly based on differing local governor agreements, separate PFI schemes and legal contractual arrangements. Indeed such agreements in WCC

calculate the PFI factor so how will this be managed by WCC only being allocated historic costs? There will be legal costs if these arrangements need to be

revised – will this be funded by the DfE?

• Is aware that LAs have taken different approaches towards the funding of PFI unitary charges so LAs should be no worse off regarding PFI charges when there

is a 'hard' formula. The DfE may want to consider options here e.g. LAs retain PFI funding centrally in the new central schools block or the DfE take over the

on-going responsibility of PFI contracts from LAs.

• Contends basing these on historic costs in the 'soft' period will impact as the PFI contracts are governed by inflation allowances so there will be a DSG cost

pressure. The amount each school currently receives will need to increase for annual inflation so consequently there is a requirement to continue increasing the

amount distributed through this factor and this will continue for the life of the contract putting pressure on the Schools Block DSG.

12 Do you agree that we should include an exceptional premises circumstances factor?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees with the need for an exceptional premises factor and welcomes the continuation of this in the 'soft' formula

• Contends there needs to be transparency on the entitlement model, factor weighting and the derived unit of resource and will require the EFA to keep up with

changes on a regular basis.

• Is concerned how the DfE will provide for this from 2019-20? These are significant costs for individual schools in WCC and the current formulae used by

different LAs vary significantly governed given the range of local circumstances by individual user agreements and partnership contracts.

13 Do you agree that we should allocate funding to local authorities in 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on historic spend for these factors?

Yes/No - Business rates:

Yes

Yes/No - Split sites:

Yes

Yes/No - Private finance initiative:

Yes

Yes/No - Other exceptional circumstances:

Yes



WCC

• Agrees to the approach for the 'soft' period as the LAs will be allocated historic costs for premises factors and will be able to allocate to individual schools

accordingly but there needs to be a mechanism for increasing the historic amounts for newly qualifying schools e.g. a new entitlement to split site due to school

re-organisation.

• Is concerned that these are the easy elements of the funding formula which are currently managed first by LAs prior to the pupil-led and other elements. Without

such flexibility either LAs or individual schools could experience significant budget difficulties.

• Contends basing these on historic costs in the 'soft' period will impact and these are governed by contracts and local agreements with inflation so there will be a

DSG cost pressure.

• Is concerned how the EFA will treat the schools costs premises factors in the long term. These are extremely critical to certain schools in WCC are significant

funding wise for those schools and would need to remain in some form in the proposed 'hard' NFSS.

• Contends the use of historic spend for business rates may lead to inaccurate allocations to those schools who become academies during this period and who

are then, under current legislation, due to receive mandatory relief on business rate bills.

• Insists that a long term and efficient solution needs to be found to deal with a range of local circumstances that cannot be managed nationally. This lends itself

to local flexibility in the formula as detailed above.

Building block C: growth

14 Do you agree that we should include a growth factor?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees with the need for a growth factor but has concerns on the current system that has to reserve and use current DSG for funding future pupils on a 'lagged'

model not including those pupils. What effectively happens now is LAs have to top slice existing DSG without those pupils included to fund future basic need

growth provision.

• Contends the principles for the need for a pupil growth factor are warranted but need more consideration by the DfE as it is important to reflect actual growth

rather than historic growth. How will the DfE adjust the DSG for growing numbers in the future which are not factored into the historic estimated allocation – the

use of basic need estimates could be considered?

• Is concerned on what will be the future mechanism to cover growth. This needs to be linked to the LA statutory responsibility to ensure sufficiency of school

places – however the funding of which could be at significant risk with the central DSG funding proposals.

• Suggests the DfE should be including an estimate of the additional DSG required and allocate that growth to LAs as part of the DSG settlement just like LAs

have to estimate for this in the APT for the following year. This would provide additional DSG for real terms demographic increase and pressures in advance.

15 Do you agree that we should allocate funding for growth to local authorities in 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on historic spend?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees to this approach just in order to preserve use of existing DSG for future pupils.

• Contends allocating back to LAs the historic amounts reserved during the 'soft' NFFS period is fine but not in the longer term. What is the position if the historic

provision overspends in this period?

Building block D: geographic costs

16a Do you agree that we should include an area cost adjustment?

No

16b Which methodology for the area cost adjustment do you support?

hybrid methodology


No but if it is to be used with comments: -

WCC

• Contends any use of an ACA type system requires the current outdated system allocated to some LAs and not others to be thoroughly reviewed. There are cost

pressures for all covering all the country not just London LAs. Also, the ability of academies to vary national pay rates could render ACA irrelevant on an

increasing scale as more schools convert towards 2020.

• Contends the review should include how large any adjustment factors should be in terms of the resources they distribute and also who should receive this

compensation. The costs that any adjustment are intended to compensate for should be restricted to those experienced by schools and not those as measured in

the wider labour market.

• Contends that more detail about how the ACA will be applied is required. Is it individual to the school or generic for the LA area? The current anomalies of

schools on opposite sides of a road receiving different funding will not be solved by an ACA that is too broad.

• Insists the geographic area where compensation applies must either be restricted to those areas in London where wage weightings apply or should apply

countrywide avoiding the problems of 'cliff edges' where neighbouring LAs experiencing similar problems in terms of costs receive different treatments e.g. WCC

against our neighbours that are in receipt of ACA being able to offer more attractive recruitment practices.

• Contends its share of the Schools Block quantum and weighting must be clearly explained and justified not being to the detriment of the other sub blocks – it

has the potential to be a mechanism to retain the funding status quo.

If to be introduced hybrid and with comments: -

WCC

• Suggests ACA be added, on the 'hybrid' model and applied to all pupil-led factors to reflect regional differences in costs.

• Contends, as stated in the question above, whichever methodology is used then the data it is based on should be relevant to the costs experienced by schools

not the general labour market and it should focus on the need to spend and not on what is currently spent. The amounts distributed via this adjustment should be

minimised so the basic amount per pupil can be maximised.

Factors not included in the formula

17 Do you agree that we should target support for looked-after children and those who have left care via adoption, special guardianship or

a care arrangements order through the pupil premium plus, rather than include a looked-after children factor in the national funding

formula?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees to the non-use of a LAC factor in the national funding formula and contend it is covered in the LAC PPG.

• Have concerns of moving the current DSG provision from LAs for this area from the DSG to the PPG, so those LAs that do not use the factor will see a

reduction in DSG.

• Contends this needs to be linked into the LA statutory duty for the welfare of LAC to ensure provision the funding of which appears to be under threat as a

consequence of the proposed changes to the ESG retained duties.

18 Do you agree that we should not include a factor for mobility?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees to the non-use of pupil mobility as a formula factor but contends this is very closely linked to supporting vulnerable pupils.

19 Do you agree that we should remove the post-16 factor from 2017-18?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees to the removal and non-use of post 16 as a formula factor particularly given the budget pressure on the pre-16 funding.

• Requests clarification into how this will be re-distributed into the DSG.

Transition to the reformed funding system

20 Do you agree with our proposal to require local authorities to distribute all of their schools block allocation to schools from 2017-18?

No



WCC

• Does not agree to the proposed requirement.

• Contends the proposed non ability for LAs to transfer between the funding blocks will be severely restrictive in supporting costs pressures in HN and EY. There

are relationships in provision and funding between the blocks that need to be maintained.

• Is concerned that ring-fencing the Schools Block will:-

■ Leave no incentive for schools to be inclusive. Funding will not necessarily alter for changes to the numbers of pupils with SEN. This will place extra pressure

on the High Needs Block, which can currently be managed by moving money between blocks if necessary.

■ Not match up with the timing of the changes proposed for the High Needs Block and so by treating the blocks in isolation leaves vulnerable children open to an

education based on cost efficiencies rather than the most appropriate provision for the individual. This likely to drive the High Needs costs up including LA

transport costs.

■ Not allow schools and LAs to work together for the child and to make a range of provision for children; the flexibilities between the blocks can be utilised

towards the best arrangements for all children to provide efficiency in high needs places

■ Put all the pressure into the High Needs Block with no relief valves left in the system. As the numbers of vulnerable pupils increase the High Needs Budget will

not be able to increase as required due to the proposed restrictions. In the long term this will not be to the benefit of any vulnerable children that need help.

■ Not lend itself for support school re-organisation.

• Contends the impact of ring-fencing the Schools Block separately from the High Needs Block could have an impact on pupils who have SEN. There needs to be

more research on how the ring-fencing interacts with the ways that LAs are currently organised for high needs pupils and with the levers on funding for support to

these pupils.

• Requests the DfE to review their policy on the allowable use of any DSG carry forward from previous years in the new system including any relating to

de-delegated services.

• Is concerned that LAs will also be significantly restricted by this due to the: -

■ Pressure on current historic commitments in the central schools blocks DSG e.g. requirement for more basic need pupil growth, ESG reductions may require

provision for redundancy costs, etc.

■ Inability to not be able to move DSG between the Schools and the other Blocks from 2017-18.

21 Do you believe that it would be helpful for local areas to have flexibility to set a local minimum funding guarantee?

Yes



WCC

• Appreciates the complexities here but contends until Stage 2 of the consultation it is difficult to comment. Also setting a more restrictive local MFG will cause

both confusion and potentially increase challenge from schools.

• Requests clarification of the transitional protection arrangements the DfE have in mind. For instance does it mean: -

■ An initial MFG/Capping for the DSG allocations to the LAs?

■ A further and different MFG/Capping for individual schools within the schools block allocation?

■ A third local MFG/Capping to run outside of the NFFS?

• Requests further clarity on how this will be applied to existing academies given some having significant EFA calculated and funded transitional protection

arrangements.

• Advises the consultation is confusing. For instance it is stated some LAs and by inference some schools will receive less cash in 2017, but LAs will still have to

set a formula so no school can lose more than the designated MFG per pupil – is this the national or local one? However, the consultation states: 'For losing

authorities, this would leave them with very little room for manoeuvre.'

Funding remaining with local authorities

22 Do you agree that we should fund local authorities' ongoing responsibilities as set out in the consultation according to a per-pupil

formula?

No



WCC

• Has major concerns on the approach by the DfE in this area and would prefer to see a full description of ongoing functions before attempting to answer this

question and has concerns that not all the responsibilities will cease to the extent that this consultation assumes they will. In the current system LAs have

accountability and responsibility through elected members – it is not clear how this will work in the changes proposed to statutory responsibilities.

• Requests further information on the small list provided for remaining statutory duties and it is difficult to know exact extent of this until we know what duties will

remain but will assume these will be minimal. Again, this would potentially have significant implications on our existing contractual arrangements.

• Contends there is no guarantee that then designated rate per pupil will allocate grant to the current level of retained Schools Block DSG and ESG retained

duties. Maintained schools will not be provided with transitional funding for the lost ESG in the way that academies are likely to be and this is not equitable;

otherwise pupils in maintained schools are being discriminated against up until 2022. LA responsibilities will continue without the associated budget provision.

• Advises that is an existing budget pressure with the present grant not covering the extent of the range and level of current retained responsibilities.

• Is disturbed that LAs will not receive enough grant to be able to perform its remaining statutory duties for school admissions, servicing of the school forum,

education welfare, asset management and statutory/regulatory duties – so what happens then?

• Is concerned that the Government policy of academy status for all schools confirmed in the recent White Paper – A Vision for Schools in England will: -

■ Put significant pressures on the statutory and regulatory duties of all LAs such as legal, finance and property services thereby significantly increasing not

reducing costs and responsibilities.

■ Create a period of five years when LAs will be responsible for maintaining schools and will be the nominal employer of the staff in those schools, but will have

no remit to monitor, support or challenge the quality of the education they provide.

■ Despite due diligence, budgetary challenge and control together with agreed governing body signed off recovery plans who is responsible for school deficits on

academy conversions? For any school converting to an academy, sponsored or otherwise, with a deficit will this be the responsibility of the DfE or be left with the

LA to fund?

• Requests clarity on the proposals from 2017 onwards, when LAs will no longer have statutory responsibilities for school improvement – schools will not have the

funding to pay for this support.

• Is concerned on supporting schools in funding matters. LAs will still get embroiled in questions from parents and the media even if school funding longer is the

LAs responsibility (as part of local democracy and accountability). This will have a cost – including a reputational cost for LAs and the DfE.

23 Do you agree that we should fund local authorities' ongoing historic commitments based on case-specific information to be collected

from local authorities?

Yes



WCC

• Contends there needs to be more thought given to these proposals and is concerned that central retention is likely to be much more restricted.

• Advises these differ significantly between LAs based upon historic agreements and have DfE, LA and when required local Schools Forum approval having

agreed a set of ongoing local arrangements (including staff costs) which will be difficult to unwind. These decisions have been made locally and in consultation

with schools, so why is the DfE overriding these local decisions? Costs of redundancy made as a result of the DfE’s decisions should be payable by the DfE.

• Suggests that these types of arrangements should not cease and subject to local agreement should be allowed to continue and new ones should be allowed to

start if required.

• Asserts the proposal that such areas will become subject to DfE justification and evidence the need for their historic commitments currently funded in the central

DSG, e.g. contributions to combined services, is unwarranted.

• Is concerned that there is significant risk that these historic commitments may no longer be funded. For example in WCC, valued services provided for schools

under combined budgets for our Early Intervention and Family Support Service (EIFS) are fully supported by our Schools Forum. If the funding is discontinued the

service would either have to become traded with schools funding it with no additional resource; or cease leaving significant closures costs with the LA.

• Notes the DfE will be asking LAs to justify and evidence the need for their historic commitments currently funded in the central DSG but would respectfully

suggest LAs be able to continue these functions.

The education services grant

24 Are there other duties funded from the education services grant that could be removed from the system?

Please provide your comments::


WCC

• Suggest there are none that could be removed for current statutory duties. All statutory duties should be sufficiently resourced including: -

■ Funding for the costs to transferring all schools to academies.

■ Funding the costs of closing services associated with maintained schools, including redundancy costs and any ongoing PRC costs that arise as a direct result

of these proposed changes.

■ Associated TUPE implications for the EFA undertaking the roles currently done by LA.

■ Funding the costs of any closing schools along with the associated duties e.g. retention of school records, disposal of furniture and equipment, safeguarding

processes, etc.

• Contends for general duties why are LAs and by inference its maintained schools not being afforded transitional protection like academies?

25 Do you agree with our proposal to allow local authorities to retain some of their maintained schools’ DSG centrally – in agreement with

the maintained schools in the schools forum – to fund the duties they carry out for maintained schools?

No


No but with comments: -

WCC

• Is concerned that because it appears to be moving the costs from LAs to maintained schools without transitional protection. This is not the same for academies

who will have protection on the loss of ESG.

• Contends there will be a significant impact on the funding for WCC and academies as the general duties ESG is withdrawn. In particular: -

■ It will not be possible for LAs to reduce service provision or stop doing things as the DfE suggest.

■ Standalone academies will have to use their core budget to meet the cost of these duties.

■ The existing transitional arrangements for academies will remain but will be unwound by 2020.

• Requests clarity on the DfE proposal that LAs will be expected to step back from running School Improvement (SI) from the end of the academic year 2016/17

and in particular : -

■ The LAs role in school performance and challenge – who will perform this critical function?

■ All schools will have the responsibility for procuring this without any resource leading to a fragmented and ineffective system.

■ As part of its commissioning and savings programme WCC has a long term contract in place with Babcock International to provide SI and other services funded

by general duties ESG – the contractual implications in terms of service delivery and funding are significant.

• Contends the DfE need to consider this more carefully as more LAs are now looking to outsource their education services. How will DfE balance their desire for

more private sector involvement in public sector services in cases like this?

• Notes the DfE are proposing to allow LAs to retain some of the maintained schools DSG to cover these services but why would maintained schools agree to

such a proposal? This is similar to multi academy trust taking a 'top slice'! Also, LAs would not have the option to delegate the statutory responsibility.

Equality analysis

26 Please provide any comments on the equality analysis.


Please refer to comments earlier on the potential impact on HN pupils and vulnerable learners.

Response ID ANON-XYDA-G3Y7-Z

Submitted to High needs funding reform

Submitted on 2016-04-15 11:16:44

Introduction

A Name

First name::

Andy

Last name::

McHale

B Email address

Email::

[email protected]

C Response type

Please select your role from the list below::

Local authority representative

Please select your organisation type from the list below::

Local authority

Organisation name::

Worcestershire County Council

Local authority area::

Worcestershire

D Would you like your response to be confidential?

No

Please give your reason for confidentiality::

Principles for a reformed funding system

1 Do you agree with our proposed principles for the funding system?

Yes



WCC

• Is extremely pleased after many years of unfairness and campaigning in conjunction with the F40 Group the Government is tackling the long funding inequity

and unfairness both between LAs and schools.

• Contends 'Fairer Funding' cannot come soon enough and that any transition through MFG/Capping for both the HN Block DSG in total needs to be considered

but not be long enough to mitigate against the required changes to funding levels.

• Agrees with these and notes these contain no real surprises and have long been championed as underlying previous decisions and these proposed changes.

• Suggests some of these need further definition e.g. what is fairness and some may conflict e.g. fairness might be at variance with simplicity and it will not be

possible to see whether these are met until Stage 2 of the consultation process. For example, the weightings that are to be applied to the national funding formula

elements need to enable all schools to educate all pupils as well as enabling them to support pupils with additional needs so that all pupils have the opportunity to

achieve their potential.

• Is concerned that taken together with the proposals for a national funding formula for schools, this will just leave LAs managing a series of volatile, high unit

cost, specialist services with no flexibility to manage the DSG budget as a whole. The consultations fail to recognise the inter-relationship between the Schools

and High Needs blocks; no group should be supported to the detriment of any other.

Distributing high needs funding to local authorities

2 Do you agree that the majority of high needs funding should be distributed to local authorities rather than directly to schools and other

institutions?

Yes



WCC

• Supports the continuation of the HN Block DSG being distributed direct to LAs rather than directly to schools and institutions.

• Contends it is extremely difficult to comment without the Stage 2 detail.

• Notes that top up funding and banding systems will continue to be developed and managed locally by LAs.

• Contends a mechanism to reflect growth in SEN must be included in the formula.

• Believes that there should be a greater national definition of bandings or criteria used for payments to providers.

3 Do you agree that the high needs formula should be based on proxy measures of need, not the assessed needs of children and young

people?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees that the high needs formula should be based on proxy measures of need, not the assessed needs of children and young people.

• Contends Stage 2 needs to: -

■ Provide clear evidence of the correlation between proxy measures and all special education needs.

■ Evidence how the balance of indicators has been formed into the relative weightings.

Formula design

4 Do you agree with the basic factors proposed for the formula?

Yes/No - Basic entitlement:

Agree

Yes/No - Population:

Agree

Yes/No - Child health:

Agree

Yes/No - Child disability:

Agree

Yes/No - Low attainment at key stage 2:

Agree

Yes/No - Low attainment at key stage 4:

Agree

Yes/No - Deprivation - free school meal eligibility:

Agree

Yes/No - Deprivation - income deprivation affecting children index:

Agree

Yes/No - Adjustments - for "imports/exports":

Agree



WCC

• Contends consideration must be given to an assessment of the growing high needs populations and LA pressures in this area. The High Needs Block has been

based upon historical spend for too many years without any account having been taken of the growing numbers of pupils with high needs in all sectors.

• Broadly agrees with basic factors proposed but: -

■ Insists the DfE must start from entitlement for all pupils and has a transparent and robust entitlement model on how these block %'s and units of resource are

derived and calculated including the MFG/Capping and any scaling for affordability.

■ Questions how formula factor units of resource will be calculated – base cost, LA averages, a combination, etc – transparency is the key.

• Contends the DfE needs to: -

■ Assess the growing HN populations and LA budget pressures.

■ Consider how to fund ongoing demographic and cost pressures in the HN sector.

■ Confirms the measure of HN pupils in the population factor and that it should from the early years to age 25 as currently specified.

■ Reviews more regularly those factors based on census 10 yearly data e.g. children in bad health.

■ For deprivation as well as FSM consider the use of the funding data for 2 year olds and the Early Years (EY) Pupil Premium in the EY DSG.

■ Considers volatility in the IDACI data particularly in 2016-17 due to the update being once every 5 years.

■ For LPA consider the reliability and consistency of data being used to determine funding allocations under the current system for this area together with the

financial impact of any definitional changes due to data set availability, new curriculum and/or assessment measures. The fact that the indicator for low attainment

at KS2 will change before the formula is introduced. It is difficult that LAs are being asked to give an opinion on the inclusion of an indicator when it is not known

how it will be revised.

■ Confirms the use of 2016-17 spend in the formula factors and whether this is the MFG factor or if the MFG will operate outside of this.

• Has concerns that there are no specific proposals for the funding for AP which are funded mainly through planned places and that it is suggested this will only

use two of the factors proposed.

• Contends the current AP place number pressures from year 3 the costs of which are being recouped from LAs who have not commissioned the provision must

be taken into account. For WCC this is £1.5m a year of DSG we have to find.

• Contends, like the national school funding proposals it is difficult to comment on this without some idea of the how these factors will be constructed, weighted

and costed together with the operation of any MFG and any scaling for affordability will be crucial.

• Is concerned that ring-fencing the Schools Block will:-

■ Leave no incentive for schools to be inclusive. Funding will not necessarily alter for changes to the numbers of pupils with SEN. This will place extra pressure

on the High Needs Block, which can currently be managed by moving money between blocks if necessary.

■ Not match up with the timing of the changes proposed for the High Needs Block and so by treating the blocks in isolation leaves vulnerable children open to an

education based on cost efficiencies rather than the most appropriate provision for the individual. This likely to drive the High Needs costs up including LA

transport costs.

■ Not allow schools and LAs to work together for the child and to make a range of provision for children; the flexibilities between the blocks can be utilised

towards the best arrangements for all children to provide efficiency in high needs places.

■ Put all the pressure into the High Needs Block with no relief valves left in the system. As the numbers of vulnerable pupils increase the High Needs Budget will

not be able to increase as required due to the proposed restrictions. In the long term this will not be to the benefit of any vulnerable children that need help.

• Contends the impact of ring-fencing the Schools Block separately from the High Needs Block could have an impact on pupils who have SEN. This will lead to

unintended changes in provision in some areas that may restrict opportunities for some of the most vulnerable. There needs to be more research on how the

ring-fencing interacts with the ways that LAs are currently organised for high needs pupils and with the levers on funding for support to these pupils.

5 We are not proposing to make changes to the distribution of funding for hospital education, but would welcome views as we continue

working with representatives of this sector on the way forward.

Please provide your comments::

Yes

WCC

• Supports this approach.

6 Which methodology for the area cost adjustment do you support?

hybrid methodology


No but if it is to be used with comments: -

WCC

• Contends any use of an ACA type system requires the current outdated system allocated to some LAs and not others to be thoroughly reviewed. There are cost

pressures for all covering all the country not just London LAs. Also, the ability of academies to vary national pay rates could render ACA irrelevant on an

increasing scale as more schools convert towards 2020.

• Contends the review should include how large any adjustment factors should be in terms of the resources they distribute and also who should receive this

compensation. The costs that any adjustment are intended to compensate for should be restricted to those experienced by schools and not those as measured in

the wider labour market.

• Contends that more detail about how the ACA will be applied is required. Is it individual to the school or generic for the LA area? The current anomalies of

schools on opposite sides of a road receiving different funding will not be solved by an ACA that is too broad.

• Insists the geographic area where compensation applies must either be restricted to those areas in London where wage weightings apply or should apply

countrywide avoiding the problems of 'cliff edges' where neighbouring LAs experiencing similar problems in terms of costs receive different treatments e.g. WCC

against our neighbours that are in receipt of ACA being able to offer more attractive recruitment practices.

• Contends its share of the HN Block quantum and weighting must be clearly explained and justified not being to the detriment of the other sub blocks – it has the

potential to be a mechanism to retain the funding status quo.

• Contends if to be introduced: -

■ Suggests ACA be added, on the 'hybrid' model and applied to all pupil-led factors to reflect regional differences in costs.

■ Whichever methodology is used then the data it is based on should be relevant to the costs experienced by schools not the general labour market and it should

focus on the need to spend and not on what is currently spent. The amounts distributed via this adjustment should be minimised so the basic amount per pupil

can be maximised.

Managing a smooth transition

7 Do you agree that we should include a proportion of 2016-17 spending in the formula allocations of funding for high needs?

Yes



WCC

• Support this but it needs to be weighted carefully and not to the detriment of the proxy indicators which in the main should be driving the HN Block allocation;

otherwise the new formula is meaningless.

8 Do you agree with our proposal to protect local authorities' funding through an overall minimum funding guarantee?

Yes



WCC

• Agrees to a MFG but disagrees on the proposed timescale of a minimum of 5 years for protection via the MFG – this is far too long.

• Requests clarification how it will work with the proposed formula factor based upon historic spend.

Changes to the way high needs funding supports mainstream schools

9 We welcome views on what should be covered in any national guidelines on what schools offer for their pupils with special educational

needs and disabilities.

Please provide any comments::

WCC

• Is concerned why this was not covered in the ISOS project or from further commissioned DFE research.

10 Do you agree with the proposed changes to the funding of special units in mainstream schools?

Disagree


No but with comments: -

WCC

• Feels the need for change is not a provision issue but a technical one as the EFA merely want to discard the pupil number adjustment process for the Schools

Block APT.

• Suggests it could introduce a two tier system compared to special schools but for pupils with the same needs.

• Assumes it would operate by having a £6k place and not reducing the October NOR with the AWPU being applied and a full provision will not be affected the

funding comes from two sources Schools Block AWPU and HN Places.

• Notes given the sector AWPU rates for primary schools are likely to receive the allocations of less than £10k and secondary schools more than £10k.

• Advises there are some technical issues to consider: -

■ The DSG allocation would have to include the places reduction currently made so a higher Schools Block presumably funded by a transfer from the HN to

School Blocks nationally.

■ There are sometimes admissions issues but on this model non full provision in October would see a reduced budget. This would have to be a variation to the

MFG between 2016-17 and 2017-18 otherwise schools in MFG would see no AWPU increase.

11 We welcome examples of local authorities that are using centrally-retained funding in a strategic way to overcome barriers to

integration and inclusion.


WCC


• Contends it is difficult to comment when there is no real evidence forthcoming from previous DfE research.

12 We welcome examples of where centrally-retained funding is used to support schools that are very inclusive and have a high

proportion of pupils with particular types of special education needs, or a disproportionate number of pupils with high needs.


WCC

• Feel this is covered within LAs APT submissions for the criteria for exceptional SEN.


• Contends it is difficult to comment when there is no real evidence forthcoming from previous DfE research.

Changes to the way high needs funding supports independent special schools

13 Do you agree that independent special schools should be given the opportunity to receive place funding directly from the Education

Funding Agency with the balance in the form of top-up funding from local authorities?

Agree



WCC

• Supports this approach as long as the £10k is reduced from the fees paid for individual pupils and the admission of pupils can be tracked appropriately.

• Feels this could be seen as an opportunity for such providers to increase their fees.

• Contends LAs will need to know which pupils and institutions this applies to so fees can be adjusted accordingly.

Changes to the way high needs funding supports post-16 providers

14 We welcome views on the outline and principles of the proposed changes to post-16 place funding and on how specialist provision in

further education colleges might be identified and designated.


WCC


• Advises this is a really complex area and further policy guidance and discussion is required in Stage 2 as indicated in the consultation paper.

Equality analysis

15 We welcome comments on the equalities impact assessment.


Please refer to comments earlier on the potential impact on HN pupils and vulnerable learners.

AGENDA ITEM 6a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

19th MAY 2016 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) MEMBERSHIP ATTENDANCE – ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/16

DETAILED MEMBERSHIP MEETING DATES

CATEGORY/NUMBER/NAME TERM RE-ELECTION DATE

Sept 2015

Oct 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Apr 2016

May 2016

July 2016

Page 1 of 3

FIRST/PRIMARY SCHOOLS (7)

HEADTEACHERS (4)

Nicola Reid /Claire Greenlaw 1st 31st March 2018 X X X X Ap

Elizabeth Spencer 4th 30th November 2017 Ap Ap

Lawrence Gittins 2nd 31st October 2016

Vivienne Cranton @ 1st 31st March 2017 Ap Ap Ap Ab

GOVERNORS (3)

Malcolm Richards V/Chair 1/9/14 6th 31st March 2018

Alistair Thomas 2nd 31st August 2018 Ap

Peter Ingham 4th 31st January 2018

MIDDLE SCHOOLS (2)

HEADTEACHERS (1)

Andrew Best 1st 31st January 2018 X X X Ab Ap

GOVERNORS (1)

Vacancy @ V V V V V

SECONDARY/HIGH (6)

HEADTEACHERS (3)

Guy Shears @ 1st 31st August 2016 Ap Ap

Clive Corbett @ Chair 1/9/14 2nd 30th September 2017

Bryn Thomas 1st 31st January 2017 Ap

GOVERNORS (3)

Jeff Robinson 3rd 31st October 2018 Ap

David McIntosh 5th 31st August 2017

Richard Taylor 2nd 30th September 2017





Sept 2015

Oct 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Apr 2016

May 2016

July 2016

Page 2 of 3

SPECIAL (3)

HEADTEACHER (2)

Debbie Rattley 1st 31st January 2018 X X X

Frank Steel @ 1st 31st August 2017 Ap

GOVERNOR (1)

June Longmuir 6th 31st March 2018 Ap Ap

PUPIL REFERRAL UNITS (PRU)/ALTERNATIVE PROVISION (AP) (2)

HEADTEACHER (1)

Sean Williams 2nd 31st August 2017 Ap Ap Ap Ap

GOVERNOR (1)

John Bateman @ 1st 28th February 2017 Ap

NON SCHOOL (6)

UNION REPRESENTATIVE (1)

Stephen Baker 5th 31st August 2017

ARCHDIOCESE OF BIRMINGHAM SCHOOLS COMMISSION (1)

Sean Devlin 6th 31st August 2017 Ap

CHURCH OF ENGLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION (1)

Val Houghton

2nd 31st March 2017





Sept 2015

Oct 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Apr 2016

May 2016

July 2016

Page 3 of 3

PRIVATE, VOLUNTARY AND INDEPENDENT (PVI) (2)

Tricia Wellings 2nd 31st October 2016 Ap Ap

Denise Phelps 1st 30th April 2017 Ap

16-19 PROVIDER (1)

Michael Kitcatt 1st 31st December 2016 Ap Ap Ap

OTHER

No Longer WSF Members Paul Kilgallon Jane Long Marian Gager

Ap

Ap Ap Ap

Ap X

Ap

X X Ap

X X X

X X X

X X X

WSF Substitutes Rob Chadwick Adrian Ward

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

TOTAL ATTENDANCE NOS. = 20 16 18 19 17

TOTAL MEMBERSHIP = 26 26 26 26 26 26

TOTAL ATTENDANCE % (QUORUM 40% = 10)

77 62 69 73 65

= Attended; Ap = Apologies; Ab = Absent; X = Not a member at that point; V = Vacancy; N/A = Not Applicable @ Representatives from the Academy Sector; Plus 1 Observer Seat Education Funding Agency (EFA) representative.

AGENDA ITEM 8 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

19th

MAY 2016

REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) DFE INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 2017-18

CONTINUING HISTORIC COMMITMENTS 1. PURPOSE 1.1 To discuss with the WSF the DfE information requirements. 1.2 To request WSF approval for the submission to the DfE. 2. CURRENT POSITION 2.1 At its meeting on 11

th April 2016 the WSF considered a report on the DfE

requirements and approved the LAs recommendation to make a submission for continuing the historic commitment funding for the Early Intervention Family Support (EIFS) Service. 2.2 This has been included as such in the LA required DSG baseline 2016-17 submission to the DfE. 2.3 The draft submission is attached at Appendix A. This includes the details on the EIFS and confirmation of the now time expired commitments for CERA and Termination of Employment Costs transferred to the High Needs Block previously approved by the WSF. 3. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 The WSF notes and comments on the issues in the draft submission. 3.2 The WSF approves the final submission to be submitted to the DfE by the due date of 27

th May 2016.

Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy May 2016

Local authority historic commitments for 2017-18 DSG central schools block

LA Num 885 LA Name

LA historic (prior to 2013-14) commitments that will still operate in 2017-18

Explanation of historic commitments - please enter details of each individual commitment in a separate line of the blue columns

1.4.4 (Termination of employment costs) £0.200 £0.000

£0.0001.4.6 (Capital expenditure from revenue (CERA)) £1.030

Worcestershire

£1.499

Additional informationFinancial year

commitment ends

Figures are in £m throughout this spreadsheet

Ongoing as service

continuing has been

subject to annual

See word file in Further

Information column

Further information: explanation of historic commitments, confirm schools forum approval, description of

any accompanying evidence providedCentrally retained duties budget line

Total value from 2015-16

S251

Expected value of (pre 2013-14)

historic commitments in 2017-18

1.4.1 (Contribution to combined budgets) £1.499

See DSG Baseline return for 2016-17 11th April 2016. Confirmed historic commitment time now expired.

Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) approved revised baseline for DSG 2016-17 as part of that

submisssion.

See DSG Baseline return for 2016-17 11th April 2016. Confirmed historic commitment time now expired.

Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) approved revised baseline for DSG 2016-17 as part of that

submisssion.

Microsoft Word 97 - 2003 Document

1.4.7 (Prudential borrowing costs) £0.000 £0.000 N/A

1.4.12 (Exceptions agreed by Secretary of State) £0.000 £0.000

1.4.9 (Equal pay - back pay) £0.000 £0.000 N/A

N/A

WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (WCC) HISTORIC COMMITMENTS – CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMBINED BUDGETS 2017-18 AND FUTURE YEARS A key aspect of Worcestershire County Council (WCC) policy over a number of years is to work closely with schools in supporting vulnerable families. This has been resourced financially by the use of a combined budget of £1.499m to support the Early Intervention Family Support Service (EIFS). Prior to 2013-14 this was part of the centrally retained DSG and from 2013-14 this continued with the new national funding arrangements as part of the centrally retained Schools Block. As required by the DfE, this funding has been subject to annual consultation with all schools as part of our statutory consultation requirements. In each year since 2013-14, schools have been extremely supportive of centrally retaining this funding to support this key service. The consultation feedback from schools on the EIFS and what it provides in terms of supporting outcomes has been extremely positive. Schools have: -

Indicated the valuable contribution of the EIFS and welcomed the working relationships formed with their EIFS workers

Commented on these being vital to the support of vulnerable families and their life chances.

Advised partnerships formed with EIFS workers been instrumental in making a positive difference and contribution to families in need.

So, as required, on an annual basis following the outcomes of the WCC local funding consultations both the Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) and the WCC Cabinet have approved the central retention of the combined services funding for this key service area. In terms of operational aspects the EIFS provide EIFS workers within school clusters. Schools have a key worker they link with who can provide support and guidance to help deal with any family issues that may arise. In doing this the EIFS: -

Support schools in assisting and improving life chances and outcomes for vulnerable pupils and families.

Offer a package of support to families tailored to their needs assisting with a range of needs such at behaviour management and emotional wellbeing.

Work both within the family home and with the child on a one to one basis in school.

Parents have access to a number of groups including parenting programmes, support groups where children have additional needs and Moodmasters to support low level emotional wellbeing. WCC will assess each referral received to decide whether the EIFS are the appropriate service to provide support. WCC regularly consult with schools via our EIFS workers and Team Coordinators and also produce a yearly monitoring report which is sent out to all schools. The feedback received is positive and the majority of schools find the EIFS service invaluable – there only issue is that they would like more workers but WCC are aware of the restrictions on the amount that can be centrally retained.

Therefore, there is clear evidence for the continued funding of the EIFS including support from schools together with the required approvals by the WSF and WCC Cabinet. On this basis WCC requests that the historic commitment of £1.499m under combined services funded previously from the centrally retained Schools Block DSG be approved to continue and allocated as part of WCC DSG in 2016-17 and thereafter. Worcestershire County Council Approved by the Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) on 19

th May 2016


19th

MAY 2016

REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) UPDATE 2016-17

1. PURPOSE 1.1 To share with the WSF a recent update for the DSG 2016-17. 2. CURRENT POSITION 2.1 On 31

st March 2016 the DfE issued a revision to the DSG 2016-17. The details are in

the attached link: - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dedicated-schools-grant-dsg-2016-to-2017 2.2 A comparison between the initial allocation in January 2016 and the update in March 2016 is detailed in Table 1 and shows no change to the DSG gross position prior to academy recoupment. Table 1: Revised DSG 2016-17

DSG Allocations 2016-17 DSG GUF

Funding £

Pupil Numbers

2016-17 Provisional December

2015 £'m

2016-17 Revised March 2016 £'m

Notes

Schools Block 4,318.28 70310 303.618

298.661

Total Schools Block 303.618 303.618 No Change

Early Years (EY) Block – 3 and 4 year olds Early Years (EY) Block – 2 Year Olds + EY Pupil Premium

3,229.56

4,607.50

N/A

5105

769

N/A

16.487

3.543

0.384

16.487

3.543

0.384

1

1

Total EY Block 20.414 20.414 No Change

High Needs (HN) Block (Provisional)

N/A N/A 44.901 44.901

Other Adjustment NQT

N/A

N/A

0.104

0.104

No

Change

Total Other 0.102 0.102

Total DSG 369.035 369.035

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dedicated-schools-grant-dsg-2016-to-2017

Note 1 – Both the EY Block and entitlement to EY 2 year old funding on participation will be confirmed in June 2016 initially from the January 2016 census. These issues are discussed further under Agenda Item 10b). 2.3 The main change between the December 2015 provisional allocation and the revised March 2016 allocation relates to academy recoupment to include relevant adjustments for academies open as at 1

st March 2016 and for recoupment of HN places.

2.4 For mainstream schools the estimated recoupment is now £139.77m which will alter depending on any further conversions. For HN places the revised position is detailed in Table 2. However it is likely this will be further revised.

Table 2: Estimated HN Place Deductions

DETAIL 2016-17 Provisional

£'m

2016-17 Revised

£'m

SEN Units Academies (0.99) (1.00)

Special Academies Pre and Post 16

(4.68) (4.75)

Alternative Provision (0.89) (0.94)

Special Maintained Post 16 (0.81) (0.81)

Mainstream Maintained Post 16 - -

NMSS - -

TOTAL (7.37) (0.75)

3. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 The WSF notes the revised DSG position for 2016-17 prior to and after academy recoupment. Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy May 2016


19th

MAY 2016

REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) DfE CONSULTATION FOR INCREASING

THE 3 AND 4 YEAR OLD FREE ENTITLEMENT 1. PURPOSE 1.1 To discuss with the WSF the issues within the above consultation and draft response issues. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 On 3

rd April 2016 the DfE issued an initial consultation on its stated commitment to

double the amount of free childcare for working parents of 3 and 4 year olds. The details are in the attached link: - https://consult.education.gov.uk/early-years-funding/childcare-free-entitlement 2.2 Responses are requested by 6

th June 2016.

2.3 The proposed implementation date is September 2017 and the DfE are piloting the policy from September 2016 in 7 LAs in order to: -

Test provider capacity to deliver the entitlement in a way that suits working parents’ employment patterns and helps more parents to return to work or work more hours.

Test market innovation around sufficiency, flexibility of provision and partnership working.

Provide the DfE and LAs with early intelligence on how it can refine the system in preparation for full implementation from 2017.

2.4 The consultation contains 25 questions all about service delivery together with the roles for LA EY services and EY providers. It is not about the detailed DSG financial aspects for EY funding. So this consultation response is more for such LA EY services and all EY providers. However, the opportunity is being taken to discuss issues with the WSF. 2.5 The key overarching issues highlighted are: -

Making sure there are enough childcare places available.

Increasing flexibility to meet parents’ needs.

Ensuring that disabled children and those with additional needs are able to access the entitlement.

Reforming the LA role.

Making sure that parents have access to information.

Continuing commitment to two-year-olds. 2.6 On the EY funding aspects the consultation confirms the commitment to introduce an EY national funding formula to ensure that any increased investment is distributed on a fair and equitable basis between LAs and providers. In this the DfE have made clear their commitment to maximise the funding which reaches front line childcare providers and so

https://consult.education.gov.uk/early-years-funding/childcare-free-entitlement

will be consulting on proposals for achieving this as part of their intended consultation on EY DSG funding reform later this year. 3. KEY CONSULTATION ASPECTS 3.1 Eligibility (a) The extended entitlement is intended to support working parents with the cost of childcare and enable them, where they wish, to return to work or to work additional hours. (b) This is in addition to the universal 15 hour early education entitlement which all 3 and 4 year olds and the most disadvantaged 2 year olds will continue to access. (c) The Government has already set out details of who will be eligible for 30 hours free childcare in the Policy Statement published alongside the Childcare Act. As the Policy Statement explains, the additional hours will be available to families where: -

Both parents are working (or the sole parent is working in a lone parent family).

Each parent has a weekly minimum income equivalent to 16 hours at national minimum wage or living wage.

Neither parent has an income of more than £100,000 per year. (d) The government has set out its intention to develop a single, seamless online childcare application system for parents wishing to apply for both Tax Free Childcare and 30 hours of free childcare. This will allow working parents to apply for both schemes at the same time avoiding the need for them to provide the same information twice. (e) As part of the eligibility checking process, parents will need to declare that they expect to earn the equivalent of 16 hours national minimum or living wage on average each week over the next quarter. This quarterly declaration period has been designed to help those on fluctuating incomes, including those on zero hour's contracts, to meet the criteria. Self-employed parents will be able to assess their expected income either over the next declaration period, or for the current tax year. (f) There is also a commitment to have in a place a ‘grace period’ for families whose circumstances change. This is intended to enable parents to retain their childcare place for a short period if they have become ineligible for the extended entitlement. 3.2 Flexible Provision (a) The DfE contend the most useful type of flexibility for parents would be a ‘stretched’ offer for parents accessing their free entitlement including: -

Over more than the 38 weeks of the school year enabling access to childcare during the school holidays.

Ability to access their childcare over a specific number of days, for example over 3 days per week.

Ability to access childcare in the early morning or later in the evening. (b) The current statutory guidance sets out a minimum session length of 2.5 hours that providers must deliver in order to be funded as part of the existing entitlement. The DfE propose to: -

Remove this minimum session length outside the period of 9am to 3.30pm to enable providers to be funded for short-term ‘wraparound’ provision.

Increase this to 3 hours between 9am to 3.30pm to reflect the fact that working parents will now be able to access 30 hours of childcare per week.

Change the current statutory guidance that allows the hours over which funded provision can be taken from 7am to 7pm to 6am to 8pm to further support parents who work in shift patterns.

Keep the maximum funded session length of 10 hours per day to protect the wellbeing of the child and to support a positive early education experience for them.

Ensure that parents are able to access 30 hours of free childcare across the full year and that it should be offered over at least 38 weeks.

3.3 Supporting Special Educational Needs and Disability (a) The DfE contend all children should be able to access their current free entitlement and any additional needs should not present any barriers. So, the DfE want the 30 hour free entitlement to have a real impact on the lives of all working families and parents with disabled children having the same opportunities as other parents. (b) LAs, using tools such as the Local Offer, should set out more clearly what support is available to EY settings in these circumstances. 3.4 Reformed LA Delivery Model (a) LAs will: -

Have to verify the eligibility of parents seeking to access the additional hours for 3 and 4 year olds.

Be responsible for verifying that a parent has had their eligibility for the extended entitlement confirmed by HMRC via DfEs existing Eligibility Checking System, which will be adapted for this purpose.

Have a duty to publish information about childcare services in their local area in order to improve the breadth and quality of information to parents on childcare provision and support them in making decisions about which provider best suits their needs.

Be required to pay providers regularly, potentially on a monthly basis. (b) The DfE will consult on the themes to be included in a standard 'Provider Agreement' and are proposing the following: -

LAs arrangements for prompt and regular payments.

Expectations of providers in relation to providing access for children with Special Educational Needs and Disability.

LAs and providers’ approach to delivering flexible childcare to meet parents’ needs.

The procedure for providers to raise a complaint in relation to delivery of the extended entitlement.

LAs arrangements to ensure that providers are not constrained in the way they deliver the entitlement.

(c) The DfE anticipate that more parents will want to split their childcare provision. So they are to propose that LAs should be able to fund a maximum of three providers per child for the existing and extended entitlement in order to: -

Support the wellbeing of the child, since it could be detrimental for a child to have to move between more than 3 providers.

Manage the burden for LAs, which will have to split funding between providers delivering the entitlement.

Support the sustainability of providers. 3.5 Information to Parents (a) LAs must publish the full range of information on childcare services set out at Schedule 1 to the Childcare Act 2006 (Provision of Information to Parents (England) Regulations 2007. (b) This information must be updated and cover a range of data e.g. costs, time and duration of child care available, and OFSTED inspection outcomes. In doing this, LAs will need to continue to make arrangements to ensure parents that have difficulty accessing information online are provided with it. 4. CURRENT POSITION 4.1 The LA continues to work closely with the EY Team in Babcock on all EY issues. 4.2 There have been discussions with them on potential issues for inclusion in the response and an initial draft is included at Appendix A. 4.3 As well as the LA the issues are related to all EY providers. So the EY representatives on the WSF are encouraged to continue to engage with all providers to ensure responses are made to the consultation. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 The WSF notes and comments on the consultation aspects and the initial draft response. 5.2 The WSF EY representatives engage with all providers as requested. Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy May 2016

Draft 1 12th May 2016

APPENDIX A

30 Hours Consultation

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/30-hour-free-childcare-entitlement

1) Does the use of terms or quarters to manage the ‘grace period’ achieve the government’s

objective to minimise disruption to children, parents, local authorities and providers?

Yes

No

If no, please set out any alternative approaches that you think would be more workable:

We agree with the suggested grace period, however we do not agree with having exceptions or

LA discretion. This is due to the potential of inconsistent practices/decisions occurring around

the country. If there are going to be exceptions, there should be very clear, national criteria

included within the national guidance, to avoid confusion for parents and LAs.

2) Are there particular issues around ‘summer-term’ children that local authorities and

childcare provides will need to manage more carefully?

Yes

No

If yes, please explain/ set out any alternative approaches that you think would be more workable:

All removal of funding should be consistent across all terms, without special arrangements for

the Summer Term.

3) What type of flexible provision would be most valuable for parents?

Early morning or late evening / weekend /overnight / outside term time / other

4) What are the barriers to flexible provision?

Restrictions on when the entitlement can be offered in regulations or statutory duty

Lack of clarity on when funded hours can be provided

Planning restrictions

Lack of willingness of providers to develop partnerships

Perceived lack of parental demand

5) Do you agree that the proposed requirement on local authorities (to secure that the

extended entitlement is provided over no fewer than 38 weeks) and statutory guidance (to

remove the 2.5 hour minimum session length outside the hours of 9am and 3.30pm, to

increase the minimum session length to 3 hours between 9am and 3.30pm and to extend the

hours when funded sessions can be delivered from 7am to 7pm to 6am to 8pm) will remove

barriers to flexible provision? If not why not?

Yes

No

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/30-hour-free-childcare-entitlement


Please share your views below (max 100 words):

Administration of the free entitlement, without a minimum length will be an issue both for LAs

and settings. This will be especially difficult for allocating funding for children accessing their

free entitlement at more than one setting. Minimum length sessions are important for financial

planning to support sustainable businesses. We would suggest an hour as a minimum length.

It should also be recognised that multiple short transitions for children could impact on

anxiety levels of children.

6) Which of the options below will have the most impact in encouraging providers to offer the

extended entitlement?

Encouraging monthly payments for providers

Make it easier for settings to expand premises e.g. by reducing planning restrictions

Opportunities to work in partnership (e.g. with schools or PVI’s)

Other – (50 words)

Other – An hourly funding rate that reflects actual costs of delivery for a setting. This should

include an element of surplus for reinvestment in sustainable early years provision,

investment in quality improvement and experienced staff paid above minimum/living wage.

7) Do you agree it would help if providers and local authorities were clearer in what SEND

support was available in a setting or across the LA?

Yes

No

If you would like to say why or more about where this should be set out, please comment in the box

below:

Local Offers should include expectation of provision for SEND along with the LA funding that

is available to support Early Years providers with the increased costs associated with

inclusion. Worcestershire has an Ordinarily Available Guidance document that sets out clearly

the level of provision, SEND needs and LA funding that is expected to be available in all Early

Years settings. This should include clear stipulations around the Equality Act 2010 and SEND

Code of Practice and guidance on the Graduated Response. Adequate High Needs Block and

DSG funding needs to be provided to the LA to administer to Early Years providers to cover

the additional 15 hours that children with SEND will attend, specifically the need for additional

staffing to support children with SEND – as this is a major barrier to inclusion and adequate

interventions to support the development of children with SEND.

8) Do you agree LAs should continue to have a strategic role in ensuring children with SEND

can access childcare?

Yes

No


9) What types of support are you currently receiving from your LA specifically around SEND /

what support are you providing (if an LA)? How are you currently funding this?

Provide comments below (max 200 words):

The LA provides advice and guidance to early years settings on including children with SEND

within their settings. This includes a wide range of training on matters of inclusion and web

based resources to support the inclusive practice of all early years’ settings. Includes access

to inclusion supplement (attached to EYSFF) to support financial impact of inclusion. Funding

is via DSG and the High Needs Block funds the most complex children (i.e. those who will

benefit from specialist provision). The EYCS Inclusion team has been significantly reduced

since the introduction of austerity measures, significantly impacting on the number of children

with SEND that can be directly supported by the team. Other teams include Hearing and

visually impaired teams, and complex communication needs team for children with diagnosis

of needs and they receive direct teaching interventions from the teams, including support for

transition into school.

10) Is there any support you are not currently receiving / providing which you think would

make a positive impact on children with SEND accessing childcare in your area?


There is no brokerage support for parents trying to identify settings with places for their

children with SEND. Whilst EYCS inclusion team will support with transition into setting once

the placement has been identified, our impartiality clause means that we cannot recommend

individual settings. Changes to the portage service and the review of Child Development

Centres and Children Centre’s have also resulted in the removal of support for parents. WCC

does not have a Family Information Service and support and information is very limited. The

extension of inclusion supplement funding to cover the additional 15 hours is paramount to

ensure equity of access for children with SEND. Many children attend up to 50 hours a week,

with EY settings currently only receiving contributions towards the cost of the 15 hours of

statutory offer. Without the increase in funding settings will face further financial insecurity

and unsustainable staffing requirements due to the legal requirements under the Equality Act.

Schools receive an appropriate level of funding to ensure adequate provision is in place, the

EY’s settings should be on a level playing field especially as they are the first point of call in

terms of identification of need and developmental interventions to support children’s

readiness for school.

11) Do you agree with the proposal to encourage a monthly payment system?

Yes

No

12) Do you agree that a model agreement should include the principles set out in this

consultation chapter?

Yes

No


Do you think anything else should be included, or that anything should not be included? (max 100

words)

Arrangements for the removal of the entitlement from providers judged by Ofsted to not meet

the required quality requirements should also be included; these should take into account

continuity for the children already accessing the setting, as well as the needs of the family as a

whole.

LAs have different arrangements in place for those children accessing their free entitlement at

more than one setting. This can be confusing for parents, especially for those whose children

access settings in more than one LA. National guidelines would support a consistent

approach across the Country.

LAs often struggle to maintain accurate information about opening hours, places, vacancies,

and parental fees as settings do not always provide this information regularly. Placing a

requirement upon settings to regularly supply this information within the Model Agreement

would support LAs to collect this information, allowing for better sufficiency data and more

accurate parental information.

13) Will a model agreement have a positive or negative impact on particular types of

providers? If so which?


As long as the Model Agreement is fair for all provider types, the impact should be minimal. It

must be developed by people who have an in depth understanding of early year’s provision

and the free entitlement, and who are able to implement the requirements through a

sustainable business model.

14) Should we limit local authorities to fund a maximum of three providers for the existing and

extended entitlements?

Yes

No

If you do not agree, please explain why (max 100 words):

15) How often should information about childcare be updated and published for parents?

Annually / every six months / termly / quarterly / other

16) We believe that electronic means, e.g. via a website, is the most easily accessible format

for parents. Do you agree?

Information to parents -- Please Select – Yes / No / Not sure

If you would like to say why or more about this, please comment below (max 100 words):

Many vulnerable families, along with parents who have additional needs, are either not able to

access the internet or don’t have the confidence or know how to do so. It is therefore

imperative that there are other means of getting the required information, to ensure that all

families and children are able to access childcare and the free entitlement.


17) Is there other information directly related to childcare provision that could be helpful to

parents that local authorities should consider collecting and publishing?

Yes

No

If yes, please list the additional information that would be most useful to parents (max 100 words):

18) Does the guidance clearly explain this new duty and how it will be fulfilled?

Yes

No

If no, please say why:

Whilst the duty gives some clarity on the legal responsibilities of LAs, many of the other

functions are ‘shoulds’ and therefore can and will be ignored. If the Government wants clear,

up to date and usable information to be available to parents, it must be set out in law. For

example, if LAs ‘should’ have information available in formats other than digital, that will be

ignored unless it is a statutory duty.

19) Is there anything further which could usefully be included in the guidance, to help local

authorities ensure all parents who need it have access to information about childcare? E.g.

Guidance on a technical framework/technical schema which defines the format and structure

of the data.

Yes

No

If yes, please say what this is (max 150 words)

20) Under the Children and Families Act 2014, an English Local Authority is required to publish

sources of information, advice and support for children and young people with a disability,

including information about childcare for children with a disability. This information is known

as the ‘local offer’. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 set out the

information which must be included in the local offer. We think the local offer is the right place

for information and advice for parents on SEND provision in the early years. Do you agree?”

Yes

No

If no, where else would be better (max 50 words): None

21) Is there anything in these proposals which would prevent local authorities from meeting

their duty to secure funded early education for two-, three- and four-year-olds?

Provide comments below (max 150 words): None


22) Are there any particular groups of children and/or parents for which the impact of these

regulations will be significant?


23) Are there any particular types of providers for which the impact of these regulations will be

significant?


If the Model Agreement and free entitlement as a whole is promoting all year round provision

as the ‘best option’, term time only settings may struggle to remain open and/or sustainable.

This would have an impact on overall sufficiency of places. Whilst no one disagrees with the

principle of ensuring that working parents have access to all year round, flexible provision, it

is important to remember that the initial free 15 hours are to ensure that all children are able to

access high quality early education, without a requirement for parents having to work and

therefore a 38 week offer is both appropriate and sufficient. It is important not to penalise term

time only, part time providers who are unable to extend their opening hours.

24) Is there any practical advice related to the regulations and their effect or implementation

that you would like to see in the statutory guidance?


25) Is the guidance clear on what local authorities must do to discharge their statutory duties?


Whilst the statutory responsibilities are clear, the ‘shoulds’ and the ‘best practice’ will be

ignored by LAs, due to capacity, funding and reduced services, unless there are clear

repercussions for ignoring them. If something is required, it should be included as statutory

as it is highly unlikely that anything additional will be done.

26) Any other comments?

General

Throughout this consultation, the question of funding has been ignored. For the majority of

settings, the level of funding will determine whether or not they offer 30 free hours per week.

The funding provided to LAs and settings must be high enough to support good quality

provision. This should include funding for: -

sufficient salaries to keep good quality, highly trained staff.

sufficient surplus/profit to reinvest into the business.

sufficient funding to incentivise settings to offer the 30 hours in a flexible way to meet

the needs of both families and children, as well as the sustainability of the business.

sufficient inclusion funding to support the increased costs associated with providing

provision to children with additional needs, especially those with complex SEND. The

provision of this funding varies significantly from LA to LA based on the funding

currently received, and an equitable rate should be available with guidance and

appropriate levels of funding being provided from central government.

Current funding rates are lower than current costs of providing childcare. Settings supplement

the hourly funding through the parental fees. By offering 30 hours, the amount of parental fees

is limited. Working parents who need more than 30 hours are likely to be paying an hourly rate


that is considerably inflated and could be unaffordable. Families who do not need more than

30 hours childcare will obviously not be paying any additional fees, which means that settings

will become more and more unsustainable and are more likely to close, causing insufficiency

of childcare places.

The funding rate must be reflective of actual, real costs of providing childcare.

Whilst we are in agreement with the principle of monthly payments, from an administrative

point of view this could be unachievable. Our current processes are successful. Monthly

payments should be optional to be used if current processes are failing to support settings.

Would you like us to keep your responses confidential?

Information provided in response to consultations, including personal information, may be subject to

publication or disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998 or

the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want all, or any part, of a response to be treated as confidential, please explain why you

consider it to be confidential.

If a request for disclosure of the information you have provided is received, your explanation about

why you consider it to be confidential will be taken into account, but no assurance can be given that

confidentiality can be maintained. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system

will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Department for Education will process your personal data (name and address and any other

identifying material) in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and in the majority of

circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Yes

No

Reason for confidentiality


19th

MAY 2016

REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) WHITE PAPER SUMMARY – EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE EVERYWHERE

1. PURPOSE 1.1 To share with the WSF the key issues in the recent White Paper. 2. KEY ISSUES 2.1 On 17

th March 2016 the Government issued a White Paper entitled 'Educational

Excellence Everywhere'. The details are in the attached link: - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/educational-excellence-everywhere 2.2 The key issues contained within the document are detailed in Appendix A. 2.3 Since the publication of the White Paper there has been a significant amount of debate and challenge to the Government on its proposals to require all schools to become academies by 2022. On 6

th May 2016 the Secretary of State announced a

change to this aspect and the link to announcement is as follows: - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next-steps-to-spread-educational-excellence-everywhere-announced 2.4 An extract of the announcement is as follows: - 'The government has decided, while reaffirming our continued determination to see all schools to become academies in the next 6 years, that it is not necessary to bring legislation to bring about blanket conversion of all schools to achieve this goal. The government will continue to require underperforming schools to convert to academy status where they can benefit from the support of a strong sponsor. We will also continue to support ‘good’ schools to convert and to take the lead in supporting other schools as part of multi-academy trusts. In addition, the government will bring forward legislation which will trigger conversion of all schools within a local authority in 2 specific circumstances: -

Firstly, where it is clear that the local authority can no longer viably support its remaining schools because a critical mass of schools in that area has converted. Under this mechanism a local authority will also be able to request the Department for Education converts all of its remaining schools.

Secondly, where the local authority consistently fails to meet a minimum performance threshold across its schools, demonstrating an inability to bring about meaningful school improvement.

These measures will target those schools where the need to move to academy status is most pressing. For other high-performing schools in strong local authorities the choice of

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/educational-excellence-everywhere

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next-steps-to-spread-educational-excellence-everywhere-announced

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next-steps-to-spread-educational-excellence-everywhere-announced

whether to convert will remain the decision of the individual schools and governing bodies in question.' 3. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 The WSF notes and discusses all the key issues within the White Paper. Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy May 2016

APPENDIX A

WHITE PAPER SUMMARY – EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE EVERYWHERE

1. The DfEs vision statement is to 'provide world-class education and care that allows every child and young person to reach his or her potential, regardless of background.' 2. Underlying this statement there are twelve priorities to be delivered through three strategies: -

Safety and Wellbeing.

Educational Excellence Everywhere.

Prepared for Adult Life. 3. The White Paper 'Educational Excellence Everywhere' is focussed on seven of the DfE's twelve priorities: -

Great teachers everywhere they are needed.

Great leaders running schools and at the heart of the system.

A school led system with every school an academy and a clearly defined role for Local Government.

Preventing underperformance and helping schools go from good to great through school led improvement.

High expectations and a world class curriculum for all.

Ambitious accountability for every child.

The right resources in the right hands: fairer funding. 4. Great teachers – everywhere they are needed. This section proposes to: -

Help schools to ensure that enough talented teachers are recruited wherever needed and to build a diverse and flexible workforce.

Strengthen university and school led training with a greater emphasis on subject knowledge and evidence based practice.

Continue to move to a school led system for training teachers.

Introduce new quality criteria for providers of teacher training.

Replace the current Qualified Teacher Status with classroom based accreditation judged by schools.

Ensure talented teachers are encouraged to work where they are most needed.

Support teachers to develop their skills through Continuing Professional Development and introduce a new national standard for training.

5. Great leaders running schools and at the heart of the system. The intention here is to: -

Encourage more leadership training to be delivered by successful schools.

Re-design a framework of National Professional Qualifications.

Incentivise leaders to work in challenging schools.

Introduce a National Teaching Service to support teachers and middle leaders to move to work in some of the country's most challenging areas.

Launch an Excellence in Leadership Fund for the best providers to develop innovative to tackle significant leadership challenges.

Support schools to develop future leaders, funding activity aimed at groups under-represented in leadership positions.

Create stronger expectations on governing bodies.

6. A school led system with every school an academy and a clearly defined role for Local Government. By the end of 2020 it is intended that every school will be an academy or in the process of becoming one. By the end of 2022, LAs will no longer maintain schools. The government proposes to: -

Ensure all inadequate schools become sponsored academies and coasting schools are tackled.

Direct schools to become academies in underperforming LAs or where schools have not started the process of becoming an academy by 2020.

Build sponsor capacity and speed up the process of conversion to academy status.

Promote greater collaboration between schools, particularly through multi-academy trusts.

Ensure the Regional Schools Commissioner intervenes promptly where academies or trusts are underperforming.

Open five hundred new free schools by 2020.

Define the role of LAs in education. This will be to ensure that every child has a school place, that the needs of all pupils are met, and championing parents and the local community.

LAs will step back from maintaining schools and school improvement.

Review the responsibilities of LAs in relation to children, including the implications for the roles of the Director of Children's Services and the Lead Member for Children.

7. Preventing underperformance and helping schools go from good to great through school led improvement. The proposal is to: -

Transfer the responsibility for school improvement from LAs to school and system leaders.

Ensure effective designation and regional coverage of system leaders (teaching schools and National Leaders in Education).

Ensure the work of system leaders if focussed on areas of greatest need.

Designate 'Achieving Excellence Areas' – where too few children have access to a good school.

8. High expectations and a world class curriculum for all. The government proposes to: -

Establish the national curriculum as ambitious benchmark.

Reform primary assessment to help ensure every child leaves primary school with the essential building blocks to succeed in secondary school.

Introduce more robust GCSEs and 'A' levels and expect the vast majority of students to study the English Baccalaureate.

Ensure the curriculum is complemented by the development of the character traits and fundamental British values that will help children to succeed.

Publish a strategy for improved careers provision for young people and further support the Careers and Enterprise Company.

Help schools provide the right support for children of all abilities and reform the alternative provision system so that mainstream schools are responsible for the commissioning of provision and remain accountable for the education of pupils.

9. Ambitious accountability for every child. This section proposes to: -

Embed reforms to primary, secondary and 16-19 education.

Work with OFSTED to ensure inspections are increasingly focussed on underperformance, where they can add most value.

Launch new accountability measures for multi-academy trusts.

Publish improved and more accessible school performance data.

Ensure Regional Schools Commissioners are able to commission support and intervention for schools identified as underperforming.

10. The right resources in the right hands: fairer funding. The government proposes to: -

Introduce fair national funding for schools and for allocating high needs funding to LAs for special educational needs and alternative provision.

From 2019-20 LAs will no longer have a role in school block funding matters both in allocations and de-delegation arrangements for maintained schools.

The ESG (Education Services Grant) general rate will be removed from both LAs and academies from September 2017.

Improve the effectiveness of pupil premium spending.

Support schools to improve their financial effectiveness.

Improve school buildings and grounds, continuing to rebuild and refurbish schools in the worst condition across the country.

11. The role of the LA is described as being clearly defined rather than removed. There remain three areas of responsibility: -

Place planning – the LA will retain responsibility for ensuring that there are sufficient school, special school and alternative provision places to meet demand. There is an expectation that LAs will work with partners to develop local transport policies and to take a lead in crisis management and emergency planning.

Ensure that the needs of all, particularly vulnerable pupils, are met – this includes identifying, assessing and making provision for pupils with special educational needs and disability and looked after children. The role of Virtual School Headteacher will remain as statutory duty.

Act as champion for parents and families – this includes championing high standards locally for all pupils. The paper states that this includes encouraging high performing providers to establish new school places and liaising with the Regional Schools Commissioner to tackle underperformance. This requires the ongoing oversight of the effectiveness of education for all learners.

Open academies - April 2016 AGENDA ITEM 12

Note: For converter academies "Sponsor" indicates involvement in a chain with this sponsor and not a sponsoring relationship WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

Sponsored academies with an application date applied as converters but were later brokered for various reasons 19th MAY 2016

*Academies without an application date were either sponsored academies or converter academies that were the products of mergers or amalgamations

**Barnfield South Academy Luton & Barnfield West Academy Luton joined a non-sponsored MAT on 1 March 2015 and are no longer associated with an academy sponsor

URN

DFE

Number Academy Name Academy Phase Open Parliamentary Constituency Academy Route Sponsor**

135913 8856905 Tudor Grange Academy Worcester Secondary 01/09/2009 Worcester Sponsored Tudor Grange Academies Trust

136469 8855403 Prince Henry's High School Secondary 01/03/2011 Mid Worcestershire Converter

136890 8854432 Christopher Whitehead Language College Secondary 01/07/2011 Worcester Converter

136897 8854435 The Chantry School Secondary 01/07/2011 West Worcestershire Converter

136898 8854010 Haybridge High School and Sixth Form Secondary 01/07/2011 Bromsgrove Converter

136924 8854017 Woodrush Community High School Secondary 01/07/2011 Bromsgrove Converter

136925 8854030 Pershore High School Secondary 01/07/2011 West Worcestershire Converter

136927 8854005 Droitwich Spa High School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary 01/07/2011 Mid Worcestershire Converter

136983 8852153 Suckley Primary School Primary 01/08/2011 West Worcestershire Converter

136984 8852105 Great Malvern Primary School Primary 01/08/2011 West Worcestershire Converter

137051 8854434 Nunnery Wood High School Secondary 01/08/2011 Worcester Converter

137101 8854500 Hanley Castle High School Secondary 01/08/2011 West Worcestershire Converter

137162 8854004 The Stourport High School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary 01/08/2011 Wyre Forest Converter

137167 8854437 Trinity High School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary 01/08/2011 Redditch Converter

137185 8853354 St Matthias Church of England Primary School Primary 01/08/2011 West Worcestershire Converter

137186 8854801 Dyson Perrins CofE Academy Secondary 01/08/2011 West Worcestershire Converter

137292 8852204 Somers Park Primary School Primary 17/08/2011 West Worcestershire Converter

137625 8854028 The Chase Secondary 01/11/2011 West Worcestershire Converter

137697 8852915 Coppice Primary School Primary 01/12/2011 Bromsgrove Converter

137825 8852904 Lickhill Primary School Primary 01/02/2012 Wyre Forest Converter

137960 8852134 The Vaynor First School Primary 01/04/2012 Redditch Converter The Vaynor First School

138026 8852135 Webheath First School Academy Primary 01/04/2012 Redditch Converter

138032 8854501 King Charles I Secondary School Secondary 01/04/2012 Wyre Forest Converter

138107 8854754 Bishop Perowne CofE College Secondary 01/05/2012 Worcester Converter

138208 8854436 Woodfield Academy Middle Deemed Secondary 01/06/2012 Redditch Converter

138505 8854008 Arrow Vale RSA Academy Secondary 01/09/2012 Redditch Sponsored RSA Academies

138660 8854007 Baxter College Secondary 01/09/2012 Wyre Forest Converter

138664 8854044 Waseley Hills High School Secondary 01/09/2012 Bromsgrove Converter

139001 8852000 Perry Wood Primary and Nursery School Primary 01/12/2012 Worcester Sponsored The Griffin Schools Trust

139029 8854422 Ridgeway Academy Middle Deemed Secondary 01/12/2012 Redditch Converter

139020 8854009 Ipsley CE RSA Academy Middle Deemed Secondary 01/01/2013 Redditch Sponsored RSA Academies

139185 8854579 Walkwood CofE Middle School Middle Deemed Secondary 01/01/2013 Redditch Converter

139286 8855404 St John's Church of England Middle School Academy Middle Deemed Secondary 01/02/2013 Bromsgrove Converter

139444 8857011 Vale of Evesham School Special 01/04/2013 Mid Worcestershire Converter Advance Trust

139749 8852078 Honeybourne First School Primary 01/06/2013 Mid Worcestershire Converter

139825 8852001 Crabbs Cross Academy Primary 01/09/2013 Redditch Sponsored The Vaynor First School

140261 8857024 Regency High School Special 01/10/2013 Worcester Converter

140041 8852005 Oasis Academy Warndon Primary 01/10/2013 Worcester Sponsored Oasis Community Learning

140258 8852127 Astwood Bank First School Primary 01/10/2013 Redditch Converter

140292 8854003 South Bromsgrove High Secondary 01/11/2013 Bromsgrove Converter

140309 8852919 Matchborough First School Primary 01/11/2013 Redditch Converter

140397 8857003 Riversides School Special 01/01/2014 Worcester Sponsored Advance Trust

140404 8857000 The Kingfisher School Special 01/01/2014 Redditch Sponsored Advance Trust

140383 8851109 Newbridge Short Stay Secondary School Alternative Provision 01/04/2014 Worcester Sponsored Advance Trust

140731 8854438 Tudor Grange Academy Redditch Secondary 01/04/2014 Redditch Converter Tudor Grange Academies Trust

140932 8853041 Bengeworth CE Academy Primary 01/06/2014 Mid Worcestershire Converter

140933 8852167 Hollymount School Primary 01/06/2014 Worcester Converter

141058 8855200 Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic First School Primary 01/07/2014 Redditch Converter Our Lady of Lourdes MAC (North Worcs)

141063 8855400 St Augustine's Catholic High School Secondary 01/07/2014 Redditch Converter Our Lady of Lourdes MAC (North Worcs)

141064 8855401 St Bede's Catholic Middle School Middle Deemed Secondary 01/07/2014 Redditch Converter Our Lady of Lourdes MAC (North Worcs)

141066 8853310 St Peter's Catholic First School Primary 01/07/2014 Bromsgrove Converter Our Lady of Lourdes MAC (North Worcs)

141169 8854013 Tenbury High Ormiston Academy Secondary 01/09/2014 West Worcestershire Sponsored Ormiston Academies Trust

141246 8852010 Heronswood Primary School Primary 01/10/2014 Wyre Forest Sponsored The Rivers CofE Multi Academy Trust

141412 8853316 Cutnall Green CofE First Primary 01/10/2014 Mid Worcestershire Converter The Rivers CofE Multi Academy Trust

141413 8853393 St Ambrose Catholic Primary Primary 01/10/2014 Wyre Forest Converter St Nicholas Owen MAC (North Worcestershire/Dudley/Birmingham)

141414 8854800 Hagley Catholic High School Secondary 01/10/2014 Bromsgrove Converter St Nicholas Owen MAC (North Worcestershire/Dudley/Birmingham)

141443 8853388 St Clement's CofE Primary Primary 01/10/2014 Worcester Converter The Rivers CofE Multi Academy Trust

141444 8853380 St Wulstan's Catholic Primary School Primary 01/10/2014 Wyre Forest Converter St Nicholas Owen MAC (North Worcestershire/Dudley/Birmingham)

142448 8853104 Tenbury CofE Primary School Primary 01/02/2016 West Worcestershire Converter Diocese of Hereford

142541 8853398 Abbeywood First School Primary 01/03/2016 Redditch Converter RSA Academies

142543 8854427 Church Hill Middle School Middle Deemed Secondary 01/03/2016 Redditch Converter RSA Academies

142706 8853328 Great Witley CofE Primary School Primary 01/04/2016 West Worcestershire Converter The Rivers CofE Multi Academy Trust

worcestershire schools forum › download › downloads › id › 6894 › wsf_… · agenda item...

Documents