1

SCHOOLS FORUM

Minutes of the meeting held on 24th February 2009

Present Primary School Teachers:

Sue Meckiff, Elaine Hamilton and Ron Lawrence

Secondary Head Teachers:

Meryl Davies and Kathy Griffiths

Primary Governors: Paul Chick Secondary Governors:

Andrew Downes (Chairman), Janet Bell and Jenni Mogridge.

Non-School Representatives:

Diana Manville (Joint Teacher Liaison Committee), David Bridger (Church of England) and Mrs Mary Riley (Catholic)

Also present

Gillian Pearson (Director of Children & Young People Services) Rob Carling (Head of Children and Young People Finance)

Mandy Russell (CYP Finance Group) Helen Long (Democratic Services)

Hilary Ryder , Norrine Redfern and Angela Chapman (Observing) 1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies had been received from Karen Raven, Viv Hinchcliffe, Tony Corkett, Sue Robertson and Alison Regester. 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were none. 3 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27th JANUARY 2009. The Minutes of the meeting held on 27th January 2009 were agreed subject to one amendment that under minute 5 should read “For MFG changes affecting up to 50% of pupils” The Head of Children and Young People Finance reported that the Local Authority would approach the Secretary Of State for approval to adjust the Minimum funding guarantee for all schools with regard to pockets of deprivation funding. The Schools Forum supported this decision.

2

4. THE DEDICATED SCHOOLS’ GRANT 2009/10 - 2010/2011 –

OUTCOMES FROM CONSULTATION REPORT NO. DCYP 09031 The Forum considered a report which contained information on the outcomes from consultation on the use of the Dedicated Schools’ Grant (DSG) 2009/10 to 2010/11. The report made specific recommendations on the use of the DSG for 2009/10.

The Children and Young People Portfolio Holder had considered a report at his meeting on the 11 December 2008 that contained the Director of Children and Young People Services proposals for the use of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for 2009/10 and 2010/11. The Portfolio Holder approved the release of that report for consultation with the Schools’ Forum, Head Teachers, Governors and other interested parties.

As part of the consultation processes, focused meetings were held with Head Teachers, Governors and the Schools’ Forum where the following issues were raised:

with regard to the increase in the SEN budget, it was hoped the proposal to use the Woodbrook site, as an extension of the Riverside School, to provide specialist provision for children with autism would reduce future increases in spending;

there was concern as to funding the extension of the free entitlement to 3 and 4 year olds in areas of deprivation (25% of children). This would be funded from Standards Fund Grant in 2009/10 and would be the subject of a report to the Children and Young People Portfolio Holder in March 2009;

there were questions on the Personalised Learning Funding within the DSG and the need to use this earmarked funding to support children with SEN;

a question was raised on the proportion of the SEN budget spent on out-of-borough placements - Approximately £7m from a total of £25m;

the need to benchmark SEN spend against other local authorities;

reassurances were sought on how the local authority will ensure that SEN in-house provision is best placed to meet current and future demand;

questions on who sets the Minimum Funding Increase (MFG) at 2.1% - this is a prescribed figure from the Government;

3

questions on Bromley’s proposals to address the long-term capital issues in schools;

officers were challenged on the local authority keeping its support costs to a minimum.

Only five consultation responses were received from individual schools. Most of the proposals were fully supported, and only one issue was raised that had not already been raised by Governors. This was on the issue of funding for college places and ensuring attendance is regulated.

In order to calculate schools’ 2009/10 indicative budget, information was collected on the number of pupils from the January census. This identified an estimated increase in DSG as a result of higher pupil numbers. This increase is passed to schools as part of their MFG. Apart from this change the consultation process had not identified any alternatives for the use of the DSG, the proposals in the report were the same as those presented to the Children and Young People Portfolio Holder at his meeting in December.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the proposals on the use of the DSG for 2009/10 are agreed

(2) the proposed use of the DSG for 2010/11 as detailed in Appendix 1, to be reviewed in time for the start of the 2010/11 financial year is noted.

5 ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR SCHOOLS INSURANCE REPORT NO. DCYP 09032 The Forum considered a report which provided information on the proposed increase insurance charges to schools for 2008/09. They were asked to decide whether these additional charges should be funded from the 2008/09 Dedicated Schools' Grant, or whether schools should be required to meet the additional costs from their existing budgets.

Funding for insurance was delegated to all primary and secondary schools based on the cost of buying back into the Local Authority Insurance Scheme. Schools then have the choice of buying back in, or using the funding to purchase insurance from an external provider. At present, all primary and secondary schools, except one, bought back into the Bromley scheme.

The funding to schools was calculated in February/March each year as part of the budget process and schools were then invoiced for the cost later in the financial year. Schools were funded in this way for 2008/09.

However since the funding was calculated the Children and Young People finance department had been notified by the Insurance Department that there would be an increased cost to schools this year. This was mainly

4

due to an increase of £100,000 in the Council's contribution, of which 50% related to building/premises giving an increase of around £38,000. The contribution to the Fund had been increased in order to help to preserve the Fund, as, in recent years, the balance had decreased significantly due to increased claims payouts.

In addition, the actual premium for 2008/09 came in around 3% higher than estimated, which brings the increased costs up to over £40,000. When calculated on a school-by-school basis, the actual increase is £46,418 as there are two schools that have also increased their level of cover.

The Schools' Forum considered whether the additional costs should be met from schools' own budgets, or whether additional funding should be allocated to schools for this specific purpose.

Additional funding has been identified in the DSG headroom for 2009/10 to cover these costs in future years.

RESOLVED that additional funding should be allocated to schools for this purpose and noted that additional funding has been identified in the DSG headroom for 2009/10 to cover these costs in future years.

6. ADJUSTING MFG FOR BISHOP JUSTUS SCHOOL – PRESENTATION BY SCHOOL IN SUPPORT OF PREVIOUS REPORT

At the previous meeting the Forum received a report on the impact the phasing out MFG would have on Bishop Justus School. They considered background information and the proposals to phase out the additional support over a 3 year period, at which time the school would be fully operational as an 11-19 age school and would operate within the funding formula allocation.

The School had outlined the problems that would occur if the MFG was not phased out gradually. The Forum had considered these reasons but did not feel there was sufficient information in the report upon which to make their decision. As both the Head Teacher and Chair of The Finance and Facilities Committee of the Governors of the school were members of the Schools Forum, but were not able to attend that meeting, it was decided that they should be given the opportunity to address the Forum.

The Director of Children and Young People addressed the Forum. She explained that the establishment of a new Secondary school was a unique experience for Bromley and not one they had undertaken for some considerable time. Therefore the formula and its review did not take into account the effects on a new school. When it was established the school had considerable overheads; it had to provide and fund the full statutory curriculum. In addition, even thought the school was not full, it was not possible to use only part of the building and still provide a full curriculum. The Director recommended that the funding continued until the school had established its 6th

5

form which would be in the academic year 2010/11. She added that 11-18 schools tended to support their 11-16’s using 6th form funding and as Bishop Justus did not have a 6th form, and therefore no 6th form funding, they were unable to do this.

The Assistant Director then outlined the rigorous and robust investigations he had undertaken with the school. He said the school had undergone very challenging questioning to ensure that they were able to continue to run the school but with the minimum amount of funding. He re-iterated the Director’s point that in other schools 6th form funding was used to support the 11-16’s.

The Head of Children and Young People Finance explained that when they reviewed the formula they had not got a formula that supported a pre 16 school and therefore the formula did not support the school. The Head Teacher then addressed the Forum. She outlined some of the difficulties faced by the school;

When the school was established it was known that it would be an 11-18 school

Planning for up to age 19 years started when pupils were in year 9.

The school would not be full until the academic year 2010/11 and therefore they were looking for a planned “phase out” of the Additional funding. An 11-16 age school was not viable.

They have to meet statutory obligations but without the flexibility enjoyed by other schools, they were in a unique position. Other schools had benefited from being able to build up their funding and have a surplus. Even when the school was full to year 13 they would still not have a surplus.

Without the additional £500,000 for 2009/10 the school would have to run classes of over 30 and would not be able to offer pupils a subject option system.

The school would know within three weeks the 6th form figures.

By 2011 the school would “break even” and with a “healthy” 6th form they would no longer need any extra funding.

Officers explained that although the figure for this year’s funding was £500,000 this would reduce each year over the 3 years of the phasing out.

The Chair of The Finance and Facilities Committee of the Governors explained that the school had no reserves so had no way of clawing back any overspend.

The Head Teacher informed the Forum that the LSC funding would start from September 2009 and was based on assumed figure. The LSC would inform the school within two weeks of the level of funding and this would not change.

6

The Head Teacher and Chair of the Finance and Facilities Committee of the Governors left the room.

The Forum discussed the case. They appreciated the difficulties for the school. When the formula was reviewed it was based on a full school. They also noted that the funding from the LSC was considerably less. In addition, most schools used 6th form funding to subsidise the rest of the school and Bishop Justus would be unable to do. Additionally they needed to have a full compliment of staff from the outset in order to be able to offer a full curriculum.

In conclusion the Schools Forum could see the need for the MFG adjustment in the case of Bishop Justus School.

RESOLVED that funding above the Schools Funding Formula level continues for 2009/10 and that the Schools Forum reviews and agrees funding for subsequent years until the school has established both years of its 6th form for a full year which would be in the academic year 2011/12.

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None

8. DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS

All meetings are at the EDC unless otherwise stated. Thursday 23rd April 2009 @ 4.30pm Thursday 16th July 2009 @ 4.30pm Thursday 24th September 2009 @ 4.30pm Thursday 26th November 2009 @ 4.30pm Chairman The meeting ended at 6.35 pm