Meeting documents

Debra Rutley, Karen Collett, Mr A Gillespie, Mr S Kearey, Andrew Nobbs, Fiona Brooks, Claudia Glasgow, Michael Moore, Janice Freeman, Kathryn Tamlyn, John Banjina, Karen Duckworth, Amanda Picillo.

Wendy Terry declared an interest for the BLT item, as she is a BLT Trustee.

27 September 2016 to be agreed as a correct record.

Minutes of the meeting held on 27 Sept we agreed as an accurate record and signed by the Chairman.

Action from the last meeting - Councillor Zahir Mohammed agreed to circulate a response that was sent to the Secretary of State on the National Funding Formula along with the reply after today’s meeting.                                    

    ACTION: Councillor Mohammed

None.

Update from Amanda Picillo, CEO for BLT and Steve Porter, Director of Finance for BLT

Mrs Kate Rumboll, Director of Education Standards BLT and Mr Steve Porter, Director of Finance and Corporate Governance BLT attending the meeting to provide an update. During discussion key points were raised as follows:

Headline information from last year

·         Continued/sustained improvements in all areas.

·         Reports were provided to BCC on a termly basis, including KPI’s.

·         Percentage of pupils attending schools rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted was increasing, summer 2014 =79%, summer 2015 = 82%, summer 2016 = 86%.

·         Percentage of good or outstanding ratings by Ofsted for Primary schools, Aug 2016 = 93% which was the top of the South East.

·         BCC had commissioned BLT for a 5 year period, due to come to an end 2018.

·         Last year BCC had commissioned an upper school project, how best to build a sustaining network. To support this BLT had put forward £100k for the network of schools working closely with BLT

·         Reputation of BLT was strong, particularly outside of Buckinghamshire. Strong leaders working in partnership, increasing number of schools being judged good or better.

·         Most areas nationally did not have a school improvement service they can call upon similar to BLT.

·         Decreasing number of schools being judged as inadequate.

·         Sample comments by external Ofsted validators were available in the report.

Headline for early years

·         Rapid improvement reflected.

·         Currently 0 inadequate.

·         5 require improvement.  

·         Good or o/standing had increased from 86.5% to 97.5%.

SEN and inclusion

·         KPI’s were well met.

·         The challenge remained high.

·         Last year’s grant was adjusted, service was running but exceeded the original commission set out initially.  

Finances

·         BLT had been running for the last 3 years.

·         Year 1: made a substantial profit

·         Year 2: 14- June 15: made a substantial loss c.£1.5m. Principle reason, series of actions were taken to take costs out of the organisation as were not sustainable.

·         Year 3: 15- June 16: clean audit, result was break-even.

·         Validation that actions in 14/15 to adjust cost base, for that year costs were on even keel.

·         Current year predicting break-even also.

·         Balance sheet - net assets of £800k - substantially un-distributable amount, offset by a small deficit of BLT’s useable reserves. This was not a strong position but had improved slightly.

·         Years beyond the current year BLT were trying to understand what the landscape would look like.

·         BLT would continue to address significant financial challenges going forward.

Proposal - for BLT to bring to a future meeting

·         BLT Blueprint for future landscape

·         Implications of funding changes.

·         Disadvantaged pupils.

·         Update on other BLT services (e.g. CPD/training, Governors, Music)

During discussion Schools Forum members raised the following:

·         Great to see progress being made however with a third of children still attending schools which require improvement, what was the focused approach planned to tackle this issue.

·         Mrs K Rumboll advised BLT accept that there had been progress but that there was still more to be done. BLT were investing their surplus of £100k into the upper school project. A working party was looking at how best  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Update from Emma Wilding, Senior Accountant

Mr J Huskinson presented the report, PowerPoint slides attached. During discussion key points were raised as follows:

·         As previously reported to Schools Forum in September 2016, by the Director of Education, the high needs block budgets within DSG were under considerable pressure.

·         The latest forecast showed a pressure above budget of c £1.9m predominantly on the budget for Independent Schools, despite having increased budgets in 2016/17 to cope with demand.

·         Overall the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budget was projected to be c £3m over budget.

·         The budget for high needs was at present indicating £1.9m overspend, despite increases in budgets in 2016/17. This had not factored in potential additional growth in post 16 since the start of year.

·         Pressures on the DSG would be carried forward; however where there was a DSG reserve this would be used first.

·         High needs pressure in 2015/16 had used the remaining DSG reserve.

·         The deficit contingency in 2016/17 was £900k over the budget available, with no reserves available to cover this cost. A £0.3m timing issue regarding school rates also appeared as a pressure.

·         Trend data suggest c. 100 additional pupils would need support in 2017/18 (dependant on scenarios).  Most of these would be in relatively costly provisions.

·         The additional budget impact (over the 2016/17 pressure) was c. £2.4m. The recurrent pressure from 2016/17 was currently forecast at £1.9m, therefore the estimated recurrent pressure for high needs in 2017/18 would be increased to c £4.3m (dependant on scenarios).

·         The financial benefit of any SEND reform project was unlikely to be realised in 2017/18, so any additional pressure would need to be offset by savings in DSG budgets in 2017/18.

·         DSG budgets for 2017/18 will be discussed in more detail in November.

·         Positive: the de-delegation issue was a nonrecurring issue.

·         Negative: High Needs pressure was a recurrent pressure.

Recommendations

Option 1: The Schools Forum could agree to carry forward the £3.0m 2016/17 budget pressure to 2017/18 and deal with on top of any additional pressures in 2017/18, estimated at £4.3m.

Option 2: Alternatively, the Schools Forum could agree to redirect £3.3m of capital contribution from DSG revenue budgets (£1.65m in 2016/17 and £1.65m in 2017/18) to offset the 2016/17 pressure. This would create an impact on the £300m capital programme over the next 5 years. It would not solve the recurrent c £4.3m 2017/18 pressures.

The officer recommendation would be to support Option 2, as the ability to manage pressures would be relatively easier from capital over a longer term, than from 2017/18 central and schools budgets and the combined effect of 2016/17 and 2017/18 pressures may be too great to be managed just from 2017/18 revenue budgets.

During discussions further points were clarified as follows:

·         Mr J Huskinson advised BCC’s CEO, Rachael Shimmin, was in support of option 2, as the Capital programme would receive government funding. Last year the Government provided £9m funding on Capital, therefore the £3.3m pressure could potentially be offset with the government funds provided around the growth  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Update from Emma Wilding, Senior Accountant

Mr J Huskinson provided an updated. During discussions key points were raised as follows:

·         The Government had announced the IDACI data would be reviewed again this year, following issues that were created during last years review.

·         Good news as would be looking at re-banding, which would result in small changes only.

·         Subject to real data being available in mid December 2016, unless a school radically changed the nature of its cohorts, there should be no school significantly affected by the change.

·         Following discussions at the last Schools Forum Funding Group, it had been suggested that the bands return to roughly a similar size, in terms of pupil proportion for each band.

·         The revised bands were shown on the accompanying table, renamed "A" to "G", with the more deprived neighbourhoods being captured by band "A", relating to roughly 6 children in the total

Recommendation

That the Schools Forum agree with the banding values proposed in the table above, for the purposes of modelling the 2017/18 schools formula, notwithstanding that any announcements regarding national fairer funding may result in a further review of these bands.

DECISION

The forum voted unanimously (12) and AGREED to the above recommendation.

Member Comment

·         It was suggested that the IDACI formula also be used for the early years formula for deprivation for consistency. Mr J Huskinson confirmed this would be investigated.

  ACTION: Mr J Huskinson

Update from Nick Wilson, Service Director Education

Mr N Wilson provided an update on the SEND review. Points were raised as follows:

·         Details were available on website for consultation.

·         Over 50 responses received so far.

·         Consultation due to close 24 October 2016.

·         Encouraged Members of Schools Forum to comment.

·         Strategy will then be redrafted based on the comments received during the consultation.  

Covered in earlier discussions.

Update from Michael Moore

None.

The next meeting with take place on 29 November 2016, Knight Hall, Coach House, Green Park, Aston Clinton.

Future meeting dates 2017

17 January

31 January

21 March

16 May

11 July

26 September

24 October

28 November