Agenda and minutes

Declarations of Interest were received from Keith Grainger in respect to the Proposals for the 2017-18 High Needs Block and from Councillor Dr Gareth Barnard as Governor of Garth Hill College. 

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of 12 January 2017.

The Chairman welcomed Dominic Asater, the new 16-19 Provider Representative from Bracknell & Wokingham College.

It was clarified that the report of the High Needs Block Review was put before the Executive Committee in February which was before the anticipated date of 14 March.

The outline action plan for the High Needs Block Review would be a work stream as part of the Transformation Programme and would be shared once drafted.

Identification of an Independent Chair of the Strategic group had not yet been progressed; information had been sent to Head Teachers and a first meeting was scheduled to take place at the end of term.

In terms of including some of the Review recommendations into the 2017-18 budget proposals, this is not possible at this stage as the detailed work with schools and other providers to determine the best approach to take for each recommendation had yet to commence. Once this has progressed, it may be appropriate that some of the recommendations would be phased in throughout the year or alternatively, form part of the 2018-19 budget proposals.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2017 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To receive the proposals from the Council for the 2017-18 High Needs Block element of the Schools Budget.

This report presented proposals for the 2017-18 High Needs Block (HNB), with the key points being:

• The Department for Education (DfE) had determined that where the cost of individual education provision was above £10,000 it would be classified as high needs and be eligible expenditure within the HNB. This report therefore relates to the associated needs and budgets.
• The process of calculating each LAs HNB grant allocation remains the most complex part of the funding framework and involves a series of deductions from LA core funding in order for the DfE to directly fund a range of specialist providers for an agreed number of places that are then made available for LA pupils.
• The DfE was making one main change to funding responsibilities for 2017-18 by transferring £125m of their Departmental post-16 budget that was currently outside the DSG into the HNB baseline. The transfer related to place funding for high needs places in further education and post-16 charitable and commercial providers and transfers the risk of needing to fund any future budget pressures at these institutions from the EFA to LAs. The funding to be transferred to BFC for this is £0.258m.
• The EFA had identified additional resources to be allocated into the HNB DSG for 2017-18 of £130m. This was based on LAs population estimates of 2-18 year olds and resulted in BFC receiving £0.329m.
• The Forum was reminded that a new HNB National Funding Formula was expected to be introduced from April 2018 with initial calculations indicating a 15% reduction in funding for BFC of £2.327m. The proposed ‘Floor’ factor in the National Funding Formula will ensure no LA received less cash in the first 4 years and is therefore the crucial element of the proposals for BFC.
• As part of preparations for the implementation of the funding reforms at April 2018, the DfE had been liaising with LAs to re-base budgets to ensure that each DSG funding block – Schools Block (SB), Early Years Block (EYB) and HNB - was set to the amount being spent and not the allocation from the DfE. This review identified a benefit from transferring £0.345m of costs currently in EYB to the HNB, with the change taking effect from April 2017.
• On this basis, the EFA had calculated an initial 2017-18 High Needs Block allocation for BF of £14.669m, an increase of £0.674m on the current budget, although £0.345m would be needed to fund the costs transferred from the EYB through the base lining exercise, meaning a real increase in spending power of £0.329m. The final High Needs Block DSG would not be confirmed until the end of March, but no significant changes were expected.
• The Forum was requested to agree the revised long term funding model for the ASD Unit at Rise@GHC in Annex 1 of the report, and in particular to note the initial budget allocations for 2017-18 including the draw down of £0.093m from the SEN Resource Units Reserve and the revised plan for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

To receive and agree the proposals for 2017-18 Early Years budgets, including the structure and values to be attributed to the Bracknell Forest Council Early Years Funding Formula (EYFF).

The Forum received a report on proposals for Early Years funding from April 2017 including the proposed structure and values to be attributed to the BF Early Years Funding Formula, taking account of comments received from providers to the local consultation.

Members were reminded that the Department for Education (DfE) required changes to current arrangements in order to deliver the national policy objective of enabling more families to work by extending the free entitlement to childcare from 15 to 30 hours per week for parents that wanted to work. New requirements were being introduced to the funding framework in relation to how money could be allocated to providers, the support that must be made available for the most vulnerable children and the amount of funds that could be centrally retained by LAs.:

At the same time as making changes to how LAs must manage Early Years funds, the DfE are also introducing new arrangements for funding LAs to deliver their Early Years provisions and services for 3 and 4 year olds The DfE had calculated the hourly funding rate for BF for 2017-18 at £4.93. This would initially be reduced to £4.66 due to 2 years of transitional funding protection where those LAs receiving the largest gains had a deduction taken in order to finance funding protection in other LAs. This translates to total estimated funding in 2017-18 of £6,414,940, although this is subject to change dependent upon take up of additional hours.

In terms of the BF EY funding consultation, this was distributed in December 2016 and two evening briefing sessions were held and well attended by 61 out of 65 providers.  Annex A in the report showed that for the vast majority of the questions posed, respondents supported the proposals with at least 50% agreeing with the recommended proposal in 25 of the 27 questions. 

Annex C of the report contained detailed comments from the providers, including:

• In respect of updating provider eligibility to hourly top up supplements, the majority of respondents preferred an annual update rather than termly.
• 8 providers commented on the Disability Access Fund (DAF); 2 supported the proposals, 5 suggested changes to the allocation – although there is a strict DfE process to follow that does not permit the changes proposed - and 1 requested that the EHCP process was accelerated.
• 7 providers made comments on the SEN Inclusion Fund; 4 supported the proposals, 1 requested more notice was provided on SEN children entering settings, 1 requested that the relevant provider attended the panel and 1 requested greater clarity, particularly around children with complex needs.
• Childminders were concerned that the funding rate to be paid was below what they currently charged and would lead to a loss of income if they moved to delivering free entitlement.
• The Quality supplement should include Ofsted ratings and leadership qualifications below level 5. However, the DfE does not allow these factors to be included.
• EAL support should be available to a wider range of languages.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To receive the council’s draft response to Stage 2 of the consultations issued by the Department for Education (DfE) relating to proposed changes to education and school funding.

The Forum received a report on the council’s draft response to Stage 2 of the consultations issued by the DfE relating to proposed changes to education and school funding. The Stage 2 consultation ends on 22 March 2017.

The following Consultation questions and BFC draft comments were highlighted as the most significant:

Question: Do you agree with our (DfE) proposals to allow limited flexibility between schools and high needs budgets in 2018-19?  Where schools agree that support to HN pupils is best delivered through a strategic, area wide approach, there should be the option for the Schools Forum to agree a funds transfer.

Question: In designing our (DfE) national funding formula, we have taken careful steps to balance the principles of fairness and stability. Do you think we have struck the right balance? Whilst the Council supports targeting resources to pupils with additional needs, it does not believe there is a case to increase the proportion of funds through deprivation and low prior attainment measures from the current average of 11.9% to 16.8%.

Question: Do you agree with the proposed lump sum amount of £110,000 for all

schools?No – fixed costs funding should be linked to the inescapable costs that all schools are likely to face and should not be set at a level that only contributes to them because a per pupil funding system naturally favours schools with the most pupils. We believe that at least £160,000 should be included in this factor, to cover the cost of a Head Teacher (circa £60k), some leadership support (circa 0.5 fte £25k), receptionist / admin support (circa £20k), Finance support (circa 0.5 fte £15k), Site Manager / caretaker/ cleaner (circa 1.0 fte £20k) plus some unavoidable premises costs that are generally fixed in nature, but can also vary with pupil numbers such as insurances, utilities and repairs and maintenance (circa £20k).

Question: Do you agree that lagged pupil growth data would provide an effective basis for the growth factor in the longer term?No – neither do we agree that the 2018-19 growth factor should be based on historic spend. In Bracknell Forest, we have £0.315m of ‘implicit’ growth funding in our budget for 2017-18, but with 2 new schools opening in September 2018, we are expecting this to increase to £1.459m. So funding 2018-19 on 2017-18 budgets is totally inappropriate and unfair.

The Forum was advised there were also questions being posed by the DfE on the HNNFF.  Five questions related to the structure and weightings being proposed for the HNNFF, 2 about allowing flexibilities between schooland HN budgets and 2 further general questions. These were set out in detail in Annex5 of the report.

The Chairman advised that further comments for the Council’s draft response to Stage 2 of the consultations could be made to Paul Clark or direct to the DfE.

The next meeting is scheduled for 20 April 2017.

The Forum noted that future meetings would be held on the following dates:

20 April 2017

22 June 2017

13 July 2017

14 September 2017

19 October 2017

7 December 2017

18 January 2018

22 March 2018

19 April 2018

The Chairman advised the Forum that he was relocating out of the area and this was his last meeting as Chairman of the Schools Forum.  On behalf of all Members, Paul Clark thanked the Chairman for his contribution to the Schools Forum over the last 10 years and wished him well with the move and his future plans.

What percentage of children fell into the HNB and what percentage of the schools budget was spent on them?