To: All Members of the Schools Forum Other School Heads and Governors for information

Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing

PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB � 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118 937 2168

Schools Forum/Agenda/Mar 13 Your Ref: Direct: � 0118 9374706 e-mail: chris.pett@reading.gov.uk

15 March 2013

Your contact is: Chris Pett - Education & Children’s Services (0118 9374706)

NOTICE OF MEETING – SCHOOLS FORUM – 21 March

A meeting of the Schools Forum will be held on Thursday 21 March 2013 at 4.00pm at the Avenue Room, Avenue Centre, Reading. The Agenda is set out below.

AGENDA Page No

1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES -

2. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10 JANUARY 2013 1

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES/ SCHOOLS FORUM MEMBERSHIP ISSUES (STANDING ITEM)

4. SENSORY CONSORTIUM SERVICE (INFORMATION ITEM) 8

5. BUDGET MONITORING 2012/13 (INFORMATION ITEM) 12

6. SCHOOLS BUDGET 2013/14 UPDATE (INFORMATION, CONFIRMATION OF DECISIONS AND DECISION ITEM)

16

7. EARLY YEARS BLOCK 2013/14 (INFORMATION AND DECISION ITEM) 25

8. HIGH NEEDS BLOCK 2013/14 (INFORMATION ITEM) 34

9. REVIEW OF THE 2013-14 SCHOOLS FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PAPER (INFORMATION ITEM)

37

10. TRAINING FOR SCHOOLS FORUM MEMBERS (DISCUSSION ITEM) -

11. AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS (STANDING ITEM) -

12. DATE OF NEXT MEETINGS -

1

Draft minutes of the School Forum Meeting (Subject to agreement at next Schools Forum)

10th January 2013

7pm – 9pm

Conwy Room, Avenue Centre In Attendance: Donna Boseley Minute Taker Russell Dyer (RD) RBC Chris Pett (CP) RBC Sue Bourne (SB0 Head Teacher - Avenue School Cllr John Ennis (JE) Lead Member for Children Peter Kayes (PK) Chair and Governor for Ridgeway Primary Bev Pennekett (BP) EFA Lisa Telling (LT) Head Teacher – Southcote Primary Ann Snowdon (AS) Head Teacher – George Palmer Charlie Clare (CC) Head Teacher – Geoffrey Field John Cosgrove (JC) Representing Mo Galway – Wilson Primary Sarah Mitchell (SM) Head teacher - Blagdon Eileen McElligott (EM) Governor for English Martyrs Rose Turner (RT) Vice Principal – Reading College Mhairi Lavender (ML) Representing Viv Angus – Reading Girls Kate Detheridge (KD) Head Teacher - Churchend Kim Bergamasco (KB) Reading Borough Council Rob Ketley (RK) JTUC Chair Avril Wilson (AW) Director of Education, Social Services and

Housing Kevin McDaniel (KMc) Reading Borough Council Neil Dimbleby (ND) Deputy Head Teacher - Highdown Ashley Robson (AR) Reading School Nicola Maytum (NM) JMA Apologies: Mo Galway Wilson Primary School John Casey Blessed Hugh Faringdon

1. Welcome and Apologies Bev Pennekett from the EFA was welcomed to the meeting. Eileen McElligott was welcomed to Schools Forum.

2. Minutes of meeting held on 6th December 2012 Minutes of 6th December were approved.

2

3. Matters arising from the minutes/Schools Forum Membership Nurture Groups – KB advised of current proposal – A nurture group has been piloted at English Martyrs, running for approximately 6 months, this has been successful. The Nurture Group pilot at Whitley Park has not been as successful. KB advised the information about 4 nurture groups being set up will go out in the Schools Bulletin next week. Item 3: Item to be discussed later in the meeting. Item 4: DSG monitoring report – it was decided not to bring to meeting as change has been minimal. Item 4: KMc looking into his actions relating to access to the additional places at The Avenue and will provide an update at a later meeting. Action: KMC to provide update on places. Item 4: SEN Provision: KB advised there are discussions currently taking place regarding the future of SEN and it being officer led. KB advised a SEN strategy is being looked at and that Head Teachers need to be involved in decision making process. KB requested that Schools Forum delegates a Head teacher to attend meetings and felt it would be beneficial to have a small group of Head Teachers attend the commissioning meetings to ensure that the decision making is robust and decisions are challenged. SM advised there is a timetable in place for these meetings. Dawn Cox has expressed an interest in attending. KB requested that those Head Teachers interested in taking should contact KB or PK (Secondary) or MG (Primary). LT asked if SENCOs could also be involved. KB felt this would be very helpful. Item 5: Underspend in Early Years – KD advised there was still no clear understanding of why this happened in last years budget. It was agreed that this will be explored at the next Schools Forum meeting. Action: Early Years Underspend to be discussed further at March Schools Forum meeting. Item 5: Schools Forum was advised that a meeting had been set up for next week regarding further actions. Item 6: School Meals consultation has been sent.

3

AOB Item – How Schools Forum is working - Suggestion is to hold an open discussion that is facilitated on how Schools Forum operates, if anything needs changing or whether the Forum takes on a more strategic role. AW advised 360 degree process is web based and it takes around 40 minutes to complete and feedback is a further 20 minute process. AW advised it would take around 1.5 hours. PK advised for Schools Forum if they agreed to 1 extra meeting to complete this task. AW explained the 360 degree process to Schools Forum. AS said that now is the time for Schools Forum to look at how it operates. Action: School Forum agreed to organise a further meeting to complete the 360 degree review process.

4. 2013/2014 Budget Settlement and Timetable (information item) RD spoke to report. Schools Block – Funding announced. RD referred to appendix and highlighted that money transferring between blocks is outlined for transparency. High Need – appendix 1 in report – further work underway in relation to this. Early years – Meeting next week to discuss. Pupil Premium – link attached within report. Appendix 2 – RD drew attention to the calculation of growth fund. Carbon reduction scheme – unclear when the scheme is going to end – will keep rolling for the time being. Growth Fund – Flagged up that it maybe a requirement to fund new academies and free schools – further clarity being sought from the department regarding this. Timetable – Same as last meeting. Action: 2 year old funding to be discussed at next School Forum Meeting. 6.1 – SM queried the figures and asked why there is an impact on the EY block as result of LSS costs. CP explained inter-block transfer further and advised that the money will go to the West Primary Schools. KD asked if the money would go to individual schools. CC advised the money will no longer go through the cluster but direct to schools. LT

4

advised this has huge HR implications and that there are huge costs involved. KD asked when decision regarding money will need to be made. CP advised it will be for the coming financial year (2013/2014). CC asked who the compensatory authority is? LT advised past meetings and discussion had concluded that it was the cluster that picked up costs. KMcD explained that the Local Authority is the responsible employer for community schools so staff would not loose out; however as community schools are part of the LA, the process is that redundancy is funded by the departmental budget – i.e. the DSG. AS advised that people need letters alerting them that their jobs are at risk. LT feels it will be difficult to have a joint decision in the West. LT explained historic difficulties. RD advised de-delegation of funding could take place for schools in difficulty which offers budget protection. SB asked how many staff this affects – LT advised 5. Action: Local Authority will go back to HR to discuss issues further and report back to Schools Forum. KMcD to ensure follow up. Action: Conversations in each of the Clusters to take place. JC asked about high needs block funding – CP explained funding and how provisions are made. EP –Carbon reduction credit – unlikely to take place in 2014/2015. Growth fund – for maintained school and academies and free schools where there is a requirement/basic need. CP asked if we are expected to pay anything out of the DSG – KMc explained further.

Schools Forum Noted Report 5. De-Delegations and Central Expenditure (decision item)

KMc handed out supplementary report. Responses received in total 23 – just under ½ schools in Reading. Summary of responses have been handed out. LT asked how buy back feeds into this – KMc explained these services are in addition to buy back. CC – Historic Liabilities data in error – KMc advised it should be a gap of 15 and therefore out of place on list. KB – behavior support – summary p3 – KB spoke to item and explained consequences of not buying back. Behavior support figures – KD felt there must be a reason why people are

5

unhappy with the service and questioned if further explanation is required to find out why a lot of schools are not buying into behavior support. KMc advised that feedback to SLA workshop prior to Christmas found that those who use the service value it, but a limited number of people used it. KB advised that a number of schools using the service regularly. JC advised that Cluster discussions had taken place and it was felt that if all Schools money was put together they could do some very good work without using behavior support services. AW felt there needs to be further discussion and consideration about making financial decisions without thinking about implications. AW outlined concerns regarding CATs and School Improvement. AW asked Schools Forum to identify items of concern as a group to take and look into further over a period of 3-6 months. NM agreed with AW and advised more information is needed to make decisions. RT asked if this is something the group can look at in the future. CP advised budgets need to be delegated by 01.04.13. KB asked if the identified issues could come back to schools forum next year and until then Schools Forum can complete a scrutiny of Head Teachers and report back with an informed decision in a year’s time. KMc agreed with AW and felt that alternatives should be looked at for the next financial year. PK asked if the decision was made to disband the service could this then happen part way through the year – KB advised No. ML explained that it could take up to a year for clusters/schools to set up a new service so it would be useful to spend the next year analyzing the service. AW suggested 4 areas to that needed to be focused on: Behavior Services CATS School Improvement EAL Item 6 - Schools Forum voted on Central Expenditure Decisions - all schools were asked to vote: In Favor – 10 Against - 0 Abstentions – 1 School Forum agreed for School Improvement and CAT Teams funding to be retained for 13/14

6

Item 7 – Schools Forum voted on funds to be De-delegated for Central Expenditure Decisions, only maintained schools eligible to vote by phase. The votes for each of the four areas taken separately were the same as follows: Primary schools votes : In Favor – 5 Against – 0 Abstentions – 0 Secondary School votes: In Favor – 1 Against – 0 Abstentions – 0 Schools Forum agreed to Behavior Services, EAL funding, Union Facilities Agreement and the final year of Whitley Park transitional funding to be retained for 13/14. Action: Review of services to take place on: Behavior Services CAT Team EAL School improvement In time for decisions to be taken in Autumn 2013 for budget setting 14/15.

6. Transitional Protection Scheme (decision item) PK explained this is a consultation for Schools Forum to make a decision at March meeting – Schools Forum being asked to approve the consultation proposal. CP explained the consultation and spoke to report. PK – explained the adopted formula – protection has to done on a voluntary basis and the table within the report shows how this can be done. Under the formula a small number of schools will lose a large sum of money. Schools Forum had previously agreed that transitional funding should be provided to avoid individual schools suffering substantial losses in one hit . Llimiting the loss for any school to no more than 1.5% was proposed but EFA had advised this could not be part of the formula. Therefore the method proposed was to ask schools whether they were willing to make a voluntary contribution from their budget to achieve this. Schools to be consulted about whether they are happy to go along with the process. JE asked if the big losers are the smaller schools – not necessarily, however JC said that proportionately the schools that are losing have fewer pupils. KD asked if the figures include pupil premium. CP advised they do not. KD asked where the extra money had come from. CP explained and advised that most schools are better off. Consultation asks the Schools receiving more money will give up a small

7

portion of their money for those Schools hit the hardest. KMc recommended transparent information and explanation of the principals is included in the consultation. KMc said as a group could School’s Forum advise him and CP what information they would like included. ACTION: Consultation paper to be simplified and distributed. CP and KMcD

Schools Forum agreed to the consultation as proposed 7. AOB

NQT Funding – SB asked if the funding for the last financial year for academies would be provided. Action: EP to obtain further information regarding the provision of NQT funding for the last financial year. ICT working group – KMc would like a Schools Forum Representative for the working group. LT agreed to attend.

8. Date of next meeting Thursday 21st March 2013 – 4pm – 6pm – Avenue Room, Avenue Centre.

8

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

TO: Reading Schools Forum

DATE: 21 March 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 4

SUBJECT: SENSORY CONSORTIUM SERVICE

SERVICE: Education, Social Services

& Housing

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Michael Beakhouse

TEL: 0118 9373170

JOB TITLE: Childrens Commissioning

Officer (DESH)

E-MAIL: michael.beakhouse@reading.gov.

uk

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To inform the forum of RBC’s intention to award a new contract for the Sensory

Needs Support Service to the Berkshire Sensory Consortium Service.

1.2 To allow the Schools Forum an opportunity to give their thoughts on the service,

thereby informing future contract monitoring. The service is funded via the high

needs block, which is within the schools budget.

1.3 The Local Authority has decision making powers over this area, but has a duty to

consult with Schools Forum.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2.1 For the contract for the Sensory Needs Support Service in Reading to

be awarded to Berkshire Sensory Consortium Services for a three year

period commencing on 01 April 2013 and expiring on 31 March 2016.

2.2 For the Schools Forum to have a vehicle for delivering feedback on the

service to the Commissioning Officer, so that their views can inform

contract monitoring.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Provision of a sensory need support service is a statutory duty and to date the

Government has requested that this provision is not delegated to academies.

3.2 Reading’s Sensory Support Need Service is provided by Berkshire Sensory

Consortium Service (Berkshire SCS), a pan-Berkshire joint arrangement hosted

by RBWM since 1998. Based around their particular needs, each authority

purchases a different amount and type of support from the BSCS (based on local

need). Reading’s share of the contract value is 20.97% of the total cost of the

9

service based on past usage which results in a projected figure of £296, 837 per

year from 01 April 2013.

3.3 The current contract expires on 31st March 2013. A new contract is proposed,

commencing on 01st April 2013 and expiring on 31st March 2016. There is an

option to extend the contract for a further two years, to 31st March 2018.

3.4 Berkshire SCS offer a specialist education support service for young people aged

0-19 with hearing, visual or multi-sensory impairments. The service maintains

specialist qualified staff, which is a statutory requirement for learners with

sensory impairment. Schools and parents have ready access to advice, expertise

and a wide range of provisions for learners with sensory impairment:

• Information, advice and guidance following identification of sensory support

needs.

• Maintenance and distribution of specialist equipment.

• Tiered levels of support provided to pupils with visual- and hearing

impairments within mainstream and specialist schools.

4. PERFORMANCE TO DATE

4.1 Thus far Berkshire SCS has improved outcomes for young people throughout

those boroughs purchasing their provision, while a recent audit of the service

against national quality standards commended their ethos, partnership work and

track record of empowering families. The service has consistently been reported

as an example of good practice in national reports, including the Green Paper

Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and

Disability (Department for Education, March 2011).

4.2 Berkshire SCS has provided value by reducing the need for expensive out-of-

borough or non-mainstream placements for learners with sensory impairments;

and by reducing the need for spot-purchases from commercial providers.

Management costs have been kept to a minimum via the consortia approach to

purchasing.

5. MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS

5.1 Berkshire SCS is monitored by a Joint Management Group (JMG) consisting of

representatives from the purchasing authorities. The JMG meets twice a year to

scrutinise and contribute to the service’s strategy and delivery. RBC will

maintain a strong presence at these meetings to ensure that the service meets

the authority’s requirements and continues to deliver value for money. A

comprehensive range of targets have been attached to the service spec,

providing a more detailed insight into their performance:

• Positive feedback from schools demonstrating that sensory impaired (SI)

pupils maintained or made progress as a result of SCS intervention.

• Positive feedback from parents demonstrating that their SCS teacher had

helped them to feel confident in helping their child.

10

• % learners attaining Key stage, GCSE or A Level results equivalent to non SI

learners.

• SCS staff meeting all their appraisal targets including those identifying pupil

progress.

• National Association of Sensory Impairment Providers (NATSIP) outcome

reporting showing that outcomes for SI learners supported by SCS do as well

or better than 80% of other sensory need support services.

• Service delivery occurring within the agreed budget.

5.2 In addition to this, RBC is currently working with the service to develop their

communication & partnership working with schools, following receipt of

feedback which indicated that these were an area for improvement.

Additionally RBC will meet with the service every term to review the

effectiveness of these joint working arrangements; outcomes achieved for high-

needs pupils; and proposed equipment purchases. This will also provide more

opportunities for RBC to progress any ideas and feedback received from schools.

6. PROPOSED ACTION

6.1 Berkshire SCS has been successfully delivering the service. There appear to be

no clear alternative providers who could provide a better service while offering

better value for money. The service’s targets include the requirement that they

match and exceed other national sensory needs support services. The additional

new targets attached to the service, combined with RBC’s increased level of

service monitoring, will ensure that the service continues to meet the public’s

needs.

6.2 The current joint purchasing arrangement offers savings and a greater range of

expertise, with staff able to move across authorities to match expertise where

required and respond to significant changes in caseload. This model has been

referred to by the Department for Education as an example of good practice. It

is therefore the recommendation of this report that the contract with Berkshire

SCS is renewed.

7 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

7.1 To put to the service out to tender = At present Berkshire SCS appear to be the

sole provider of sensory support need services in Berkshire. Tendering could

cause a temporary instability in the service and not necessarily lead to better or

more cost-effective provision.

7.2 To bring the service in-house = It is unlikely that the local authority would be

able to employ the right skills mix within the existing budget to meet the needs

of the local population. This could result in a higher number of spot purchases

at independent and non maintained special schools at higher cost from

commercial providers.

7.3 To stop providing the service = There would be a failure to meet the statutory

needs of SI learners. Additionally the lack of sufficient expertise to support 0-5s

11

could mean that children would not reach attainment levels by the start of

school to support entry to local provision.

12

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY COUNCIL RESOURCES

TO: Reading Schools Forum

DATE: 21 March 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 5

TITLE: 2012/13 Budget Monitoring

SERVICE: Education & Children’s

Services

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Russell Dyer

TEL: 0118 937 2398

JOB TITLE: Head of Finance DECS E-MAIL: Russell.Dyer@Reading.gov.uk

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

1.1 The report summarises the 2012/13 latest view for monitoring purposes.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR SCHOOLS FORUM

2.1 To note the position on the 2012/13 schools budget (incorporating the

contingency) namely a forecast £430k underspend.

2.2 To note that any surplus at the year end will be carried forward into the

new financial year.

3 POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 The Council has strategic aims to establish Reading as a learning city and a

stimulating and rewarding place to live and visit, to promote equality, social

inclusion and a safe and healthy environment for all. Education and the

funding of education is a key factor in the achievement of this aim.

4 BACKGROUND

4.1 The DSG funds schools and is ring fenced for school pupil activity. The DSG is

based upon actual pupil numbers from the January pupil count preceding the

actual financial year. The grant received is split between the:

• Individual School’s Budget – the ISB or delegated budget – this is formula

driven;

• Centrally Retained School’s Budget – the non delegated budget.

13

4.2 Overspends on the DSG are carried forward and are a first call on the new

year’s allocation of DSG. Underspends on the DSG are carried forward to

support the future year’s school’s budget.

4.3 The Authority must ensure that DSG is correctly spent and needs to describe

the outturn position as to inform the impact upon the new years budget

position. The budget monitoring of the Authority distinguishes between how

services are funded, namely by DSG or by the Local Authority.

5 BUDGET 2012/13

5.1 The budget for 2012/13 is prepared on the basis of an estimate of grant

(based on pupil numbers in January 2012) as is indicated in the table below.

The difference below can be funded from the funds of £53k set aside for that

purpose.

Table 1: RBC’s final DSG allocation (before academy recoupment) for 2012-13

DSG

allocation

(£m)

Total DSG budgeted 2012/13 90.126

Final total DSG confirmed by

DfE

90.083

Over / (under) estimate 43

6 CONTINGENCY UPDATE

6.1 The key changes made on contingency since the last meeting are: -

• The Ridgeway have made a £15k claim on the contingency fund – this is

currently being considered by the Panel

6.2 The table below gives an update on the forecast outturn position on

contingency. We would note that currently we have provided for a £50k

deficit for Upcroft School following academy conversion, this is subject to

completion on the balance and may be subject to some change.

Table 2 Contingency Forecast 2012-13

Category 12-13 £000

Variance £000

Infant Class Size allocations 159 (75) Newly Qualified Teachers 261 (69) Statemented Pupils adjustments 111 0 General Contingency 104 (48)

14

DSG adjustments and formula errors 53 (10) Language Link 20 (20) SEN overspend 50 (21) ASD resource unit at a primary school 16 0 Resource units 50 (38) CRB checks 27 0 Expanding Schools 343 77 The Avenue expansion 224 0 Possible expansion of Phoenix 90 (90) In year admissions 50 0 Early Years 250 (100) Early Years Full time places 90 (50) TOTAL 1,898 (444)

7 MONITORING POSITION 2012/13 AS AT MONTH 10 (January 2013)

7.1 The table below is the forecast position as at the end of January 2013. The

only variance outside the Central Education Budget is the £661k favourable

variance arising from the surplus being carried forward from the 2011-12

financial year, as noted earlier in this report.

Table 3 RBC’s forecast position on the Schools Budget as at 31 January 2013

DSG allocation

(£m)

Varianc

e

(£m)

Forecast

(£m)

Carried forward DSG surplus 0 -0.661 -0.661

ISB Delegated (per S251) 57.299 0 57.299

Central – Education Budget 14.644 +0.231 14.875

Less Other Income (1.096) 0 (1.096)

Total 70.847 -0.430 70.417

7.2 All delegated funds are transferred to schools, and any overspends or

underspends on individual schools budgets are carried forward on the schools

budget. The current forecast variances on the Centrally Retained Budget are

highlighted in the table below.

Table 4 RBC’s forecast position on the Schools Budget as at 31 January 2013 with key variances

Total Budget

(£m)

Variance

(£m)

Outturn

(£m)

External Placements 2.781 +0.370 3.151

SEN Recoupment 3.200 +0.800 4.000

Support for Schools in difficulty 0.200 0 0.200

15

Contingency 1.898 -0.444 1.454

PRUs 0.959 -0.055 0.904

Support for Inclusion 0.567 -0.090 0.477

Behaviour Support 0.426 0 0.426

Education out of school 0.524 0 0.524

SEN Provision With statements 1.226 +0.025 1.251

SEN Support Services 0.207 -0.050 0.157

School meals & milk & kitchens 0.219 -0.060 0.159

Admissions 0.108 +0.020 0.128

Licenses and Subscriptions 0.004 0 0.004

Staff supply costs 0.112 -0.010 0.102

14-16 More Practical Learning

Options

0.414 -0.070 0.344

SEN Transport 0.100 0 0.100

Combined Budgets 0.803 -0.030 0.773

Support to underperforming

groups

0.419 -0.175 0.244

Miscellaneous 0.070 0 0.070

Redundancy 0.025 0 0.025

Carbon Tax 0.100 0 0.100

Capital + Prudential Borrowing 0.247 0 0.247

Schools Forum 0.020 0 0.020

Other 0.015 0 0.015

Total 14.644 +0.231 14.875

7.3 The reported variances as noted above have remained relatively stable since

the last meeting with any changes in either direction being largely

immaterial, with the exception of an increase in the level of contingency.

The underlying pressures within the budget remain SEN related, which are

offset by the carried forward surplus and underspends in other service areas.

The outturn surplus will be carried forward into the 2013/14 financial year.

7.4 Funding for 3 and 4 year olds within the maintained and PVI amounts to

£3.15m in 2013/14. As this is based upon participation levels under the EYSFF

this does make it somewhat difficult to forecast. However, at present we

anticipate that the outturn will be broadly in line with the budget, with any

variances being noted within the early year’s lines of the contingency as

noted above in table 2.

7.5 A report on the provisional outturn will be given to the Schools forum meeting

in May.

16

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY COUNCIL RESOURCES

TO: Reading Schools Forum

DATE: 21 MARCH 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 6

SUBJECT: 2013-14 SCHOOLS BUDGET UPDATE

SERVICE: Education & Children’s

Services

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Russell Dyer/Chris Pett

TEL: 0118 937 2398

JOB TITLE: Head of Finance E-MAIL: Russell.dyer@reading.gov.uk

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To update Schools’ Forum regarding the Schools’ Budget for 2013-14. To confirm

two decisions taken by Schools’ Forum members by e-mail since the last

meeting. To seek a formal decision regarding the methods of allocations from

the Growth Fund.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2.1 FOR NOTING: To note the contents of the report.

2.2 FOR DECISION: To agree methods of allocation from the Growth Fund.

2.3 TO CONFIRM: The decisions on LSS restructuring costs de-delegation and

Schools Kitchens and Equipment Capital from Revenue retentions.

2.4 TO ADVISE: On next steps with regard to the Transitional Protection

Scheme flowing from the consultation results.

3. FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENTS

3.1 The Department for Education announced the School Funding settlement for

2013-14, including allocations for the Dedicated Schools Grant and illustrative

allocations for the Pupil Premium. Details, including a letter to Directors of

Children Services, can be found at:

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/financialmanagement/schoolsrevenuef

unding/a00218077/funding-settlement-2013-14

3.2 The Early Years block figure (£7,433k) is indicative based on January 12 census

data. The allocations will be updated during the financial year so that by the

end of the year the funding received for the three and four year old element of

17

the Early Years block will based on a combination of the January 13 and January

14 census pupil counts.

3.3 These figures are before inter block transfers (identified at Appendix 1 of this

report).

3.4 Additional funding for the new free entitlement for two year olds from deprived

backgrounds (£1,908k) will be added to the three and four year funding in the

Early Years block. This funding is based on a target number of eligible children

determined by the DfE. More information regarding the Early Years block is

provided in a separate report.

3.5 The provisional high need block allocation of £15,809k for 2013/14 has been

announced. This figure is before inter block transfers (identified at Appendix 1

of this report). Further adjustments to the High Needs block are expected. More

information regarding the High Needs block is provided in a separate report.

4. SCHOOLS BLOCK

4.1 The final schools block allocation of £68,899k in 2013/14 has been announced

together with an allocation of funding for NQTs of £24k. These allocations are

before inter block transfers (identified at Appendix 1 of this report).

4.2 The final Pro-forma formula details was submitted to the DfE by the deadline on

the 22nd January 13. The EFA have since confirmed the formula was compliant

with the regulations. Schools have been notified of their final formula budget

allocations including de-delegations.

4.3 In addition to their formula allocations schools will receive the following where

applicable: -

a) Pupil Premium. The DfE have confirmed the rate as £900 per pupil known to

have been eligible for FSM during the previous six years, £300 per pupil from an

Armed Services family and £900 per ‘Looked After Child’.

b) Allocations from the Growth Fund.

c) Top-ups for High Cost pupils.

d) Funding for Resource Units, both the place element and top-ups.

e) Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) allocations.

18

4.4 Please see below a table showing the allocations from the Schools’ Block.

Primary

£m

Secondary

£m

Total

£m

Schools Block funding net of inter-block transfers

(see appendix 1)

69.475

Formula allocations

Formula allocations before de-delegations 44.386 22.610 66.996

Less de-delegations approved by Schools Forum -0.556 -0.039 -0.595

Formula allocations net of de-delegations 43.830 22.571 66.401

Central Budgets

De-delegations

Behaviour Support 0.214 0.025 0.239

Support for under achieving EAL groups 0.158 0.012 0.170

Staff supply cover – Union Duties 0.049 0.002 0.051

Learning Support Service restructuring contingency

(approved by e-mail)

0.090 0.000 0.090

Whitley Park Primary transitional protection 0.045 0.000 0.045

Total De-delegations 0.556 0.039 0.595

Other Central Budgets

Growth Fund 1.027 0.000 1.027

Equal Pay claims 0.168 0.022 0.190

Prudential Borrowing 0.042 0.006 0.048

Termination of Employment costs 0.021 0.003 0.024

Admissions 0.091 0.012 0.103

Carbon Reduction Commitment allowances 0.084 0.011 0.095

Servicing of Schools’ Forum 0.017 0.002 0.019

Capital Expenditure from Revenue (Kitchen

Equipment) – approved by e-mail

0.142 0.000 0.142

Contribution to combined services 0.708 0.093 0.801

CLA and MPA copyright licenses 0.021 0.009 0.030

Total Other Central Budgets 2.321 0.158 2.479

Total Central Budgets 2.877 0.197 3.074

Total allocations plus central budgets 69.475

4.5 Please note that apart from de-delegations all figures in the above table include

recoupment academies.

4.6 The above table includes an amount de-delegated from primary schools to

create a contingency for Learning Support Service re-structuring costs that

might result from the funding changes. The de-delegation was approved by

relevant Schools’ Forum members by e-mail.

19

4.7 The above table also includes an amount for Kitchen Equipment costs (reported

as CERA). A decision was deferred from the last meeting of Schools’ Forum

pending the results of the School Meal Service buy-back consultation. The

retention was approved by Schools’ Forum members by e-mail.

4.8 The above table includes an amount set aside for charges from the DfE for CLA

and MPA licenses that they have negotiated on behalf of schools. Schools will be

the licensee but will not need to pay for these particular licenses. Note there

will be other licenses required by schools not included in this agreement that

schools will still need to fund from their delegated budgets.

5. GROWTH FUND

5.1 The last meeting of Schools’ Forum approved the retention of £1.027m for a

Growth Fund. Please see appendix 2 for a breakdown of the calculations

supporting the figure of £1.027m.

5.2 The observer from the EFA felt that although Schools’ Forum had agreed the

amount to be retained, the method of allocation had not been agreed.

5.3 The Council requests Schools’ Forum approval to allocate funds from the Growth

Fund using each of the following three methods: -

a) Formula basis – For each expanding school or school taking a new bulge class

from September 13 additional funding will be provided using the following

formula: Number of children (usually 30 per class) * AWPU * 7/12ths. For a

primary school taking an additional class of 30 children from September 13

this would equate to £56.5k.

b) If a school faces exceptional costs as a result of agreeing to expand, and it

would be unreasonable for the school to meet these costs from its delegated

budget, the school could apply to the Schools’ Forum contingency panel for

additional funding. A contingency of £50k for this purpose has been included

in the calculation of the amount for the Growth Fund.

c) Formula basis for in-year Infant Class Size adjustments. Allocations would be

made each term to qualifying schools using the formula described in the

retention consultation document. A contingency of £100k for this purpose

has been included in the calculation of the amount for the Growth Fund.

5.4 As academies are funded on an academic year basis an expanding academy will

need additional funding for a twelve month rather than seven month period. If

an academy expands from September 13 as well as providing funding using the

formula in 5.3a) above from the 2013-14 Growth Fund, the LA will seek Schools’

Forum approval to retain 5/12ths funding for the period April to August 14 in the

2014-15 Growth Fund to be paid to the academy.

6. TRANSITIONAL PROTECTION

6.1 A proposal was presented to the previous meeting of Schools Forum for a

transitional protection scheme that would operate outside of the formula and

Minimum Funding Guarantee protection arrangements.

20

6.2 The scheme would involve some schools voluntarily giving up some delegated

budget to other schools based on calculations showing the impact of formula

changes after MFG on schools.

6.3 The Council has consulted schools and academies regarding the proposed

scheme. Appendix 3 shows the financial impact analysis included in the

consultation document.

6.4 The consultation asked three questions: -

a) Do you agree with the transitional protection scheme as outlined?

b) If you agree, which approach do you prefer: scaling or capping?

c) Please indicate your willingness to take part in the Scheme.

6.5 The Council received responses from 28 primary schools (from 36) and 3

secondary schools (from 6). Of the eight primary schools that did not respond to

the consultation four would benefit from the scheme.

6.6 Of the schools that responded to the consultation all except two thought there

was a need for the scheme. Of the schools that thought there was a need for

the Scheme all bar one expressed a preference for the scaling option.

6.7 As this is primarily a voluntary scheme Schools Forum is asked for their views as

to how to implement for those agreeing to take part. We would suggest the

following:

• only those consenting and responding positively take part in the scheme

• the scaling option is used

• net gainers contributory payments are held as appropriate at the suggested

level; and

• that protection payments to net losers are scaled back as appropriate.

7 CAPITAL

7.1 On Friday 1st March, the DfE confirmed the capital allocations for 2013/14 and

also in parts for 2014/15. Reading has been allocated around £10m in this fund.

The department also announced a new national ‘Targeted Basic Need

Programme’, which has £982m to be allocated towards new places. Each local

authority can lead the bidding process and seek funding for: -

a) New academy/free schools;

b) Expansion of academy schools;

c) Expansion of good/outstanding community schools.

7.2 All bids for this programme have to be in by 30th April, with decisions due in

June/July 2013 and the space in use by September 2015. Overall this is

potentially good news for Reading, however, there is a lot of competition for

the funding and we’ll have to move fast. Kevin McDaniel has already started to

talk with schools in the area of need with potentially viable schemes.

21

7.3 The formula for Devolved Formula Capital allocations will be unchanged from

2012-13 that is £4,000 per school plus a per pupil amount that is weighted for

the type of pupil: £11.25/£16.875/£33.75 for primary/secondary/special & PRU.

8 EDUCATION SERVICES GRANT

8.1 The grant has been announced as £1.8m for the 2013/14 year. This is used to

support LA funded Education Services and may change during the year subject

to any academy conversions as this forms part of the new LACSEG

arrangements.

22

Appendix 1

Inter Block Transfers

Schools Block Reconciliation

Total Schools Block per DfE DSG

notification 68,899,000

Funding for induction of NQTs 24,000

Total per DfE notification before

transfers 68,923,000

Inter-block transfers

Academy Resource Unit funding to High

Needs/Cost* -382,913

Delegation of bands 4,5 and part of 6

from High Needs 1,100,958

AWPU of pupils in Resource Units to

High Need -271,054

LSS funding previously held by Norcot from

Early Years block 157,010

Transfer of funding for nurture groups

to High Needs block -52,000

Net Inter-block transfers to Schools

Block 552,001

Schools Block after inter-block

transfers 69,475,001

* Academy Resource Unit funding

Technical adjustment required as this funding was part of academy formula funding that was not

deducted from total 12-13 DSG to create the High Needs/Cost block baselines. The Schools Block

baseline was the remaining balance after baselines were calculated for the High Needs/Cost and

Early Years block baselines: -

Prospect 2012-13 Resource Unit funding 292,648

Highdown 2012-13 Resource Unit funding 90,265

382,913

23

Appendix 2

Additional Growth Fund Requirement

Centrally retained (subject to Schools Forum approval)

Growth Fund

Retention of expanding schools

contingency 343,000

Retention of Infant Class Size contingency 159,000

Retention of expanding schools formula

allocs 117,143

Funding retained from 2012-13 619,143

Estimate of additional funding required ** 407,842

Total Growth Fund 1,026,985

** Calculation of additional growth fund requirements

12 New classes of 30 pupils per class from September 13 677,499

Cost of existing expanding schools: -

Katesgrove (15 Yr 5 + 30 Yr 3) = 45 pupils 84,687

New Christchurch 9 (used to be funded 12 per year, but

now only need 9 more children to be at full capacity) 16,937

St Johns 22 Yr 2 41,403

Wilson 30 Yr 3 56,458

Allowance for exceptional applications 50,000

Infant Class Size contingency 100,000

Total 1,026,985

Less already set aside -619,143

Extra funding required 407,842

24

Appendix 3: Financial Impact Analysis for Transitional Protection Scheme

-1.50% 4.31% -5.11%

New

formula after MFG

Total adjusted 2012-13

plus new delegation

s

Gain/ -Loss

% Gain/ -Loss

Transitional protection

Cap option

Scaling

option

A B C D E F G

E P Collier Primary 665,990 695,606 -29,616 -4.26% 19,182 0 0

St Mary's & All Saints CE (VA) Primary 1,466,341 1,509,819 -43,478 -2.88% 20,831 0 0

Coley Primary 816,194 838,579 -22,385 -2.67% 9,806 0 0

Meadow Park Academy 1,101,912 1,130,131 -28,220 -2.50% 11,268 0 0

Caversham Park Primary 752,601 768,712 -16,111 -2.10% 4,580 0 0

Churchend Primary 883,554 901,278 -17,723 -1.97% 4,204 0 0

St Anne's RC (VA) Primary 746,058 760,293 -14,235 -1.87% 2,831 0 0

St Martin's RC (VA) Primary 557,629 567,724 -10,094 -1.78% 1,579 0 0

All Saints CE (VA) Infant 334,544 337,279 -2,735 -0.81% 0 0 0

Highdown School 5,024,685 5,012,571 12,114 0.24% 0 0 -619

Reading Girls' School 3,278,877 3,263,602 15,275 0.47% 0 0 -780

Ranikhet Primary 1,161,592 1,153,798 7,795 0.68% 0 0 -398

Geoffrey Field Junior 1,213,844 1,203,605 10,239 0.85% 0 0 -523

Emmer Green Primary 1,645,796 1,630,073 15,723 0.96% 0 0 -803

English Martyrs RC (VA) Primary 1,435,969 1,421,556 14,413 1.01% 0 0 -736

Christ the King RC (VA) Primary 1,342,921 1,326,885 16,036 1.21% 0 0 -819

Kendrick School 2,283,581 2,252,782 30,799 1.37% 0 0 -1,573

Reading School 2,562,333 2,514,899 47,434 1.89% 0 0 -2,422 Blessed Hugh Faringdon Catholic School 3,538,152 3,466,983 71,169 2.05% 0 0 -3,634

Prospect School 5,922,679 5,798,026 124,653 2.15% 0 0 -6,365

Manor Primary 1,252,348 1,225,012 27,336 2.23% 0 0 -1,396

Oxford Road Primary 1,033,482 1,010,092 23,390 2.32% 0 0 -1,194

New Christ Church CE (VA) Primary 850,223 830,897 19,326 2.33% 0 0 -987

The Ridgeway Primary 894,718 873,631 21,086 2.41% 0 0 -1,077

New Town Primary 1,005,850 980,715 25,135 2.56% 0 0 -1,283

George Palmer Primary 1,723,911 1,679,595 44,316 2.64% 0 0 -2,263

Redlands Primary 915,971 890,918 25,053 2.81% 0 0 -1,279

Alfred Sutton Primary 1,711,160 1,663,472 47,688 2.87% 0 0 -2,435

St John's CE (VA) Primary 1,211,428 1,177,501 33,927 2.88% 0 0 -1,732

Micklands Primary 1,350,300 1,312,304 37,996 2.90% 0 0 -1,940

Wilson Primary 1,222,186 1,184,593 37,593 3.17% 0 0 -1,920

The Hill Primary 1,448,634 1,399,315 49,319 3.52% 0 0 -2,518

Battle Primary 1,699,708 1,639,559 60,149 3.67% 0 0 -3,071

Park Lane Primary 1,539,579 1,480,207 59,372 4.01% 0 0 -3,032

Caversham Primary 1,570,589 1,508,666 61,923 4.10% 0 0 -3,162

Katesgrove Primary 1,909,201 1,833,688 75,513 4.12% 0 0 -3,856

St Michael's Primary 987,961 946,274 41,688 4.41% 0 -903 -2,129

Geoffrey Field Infant 974,748 931,230 43,518 4.67% 0 -3,382 -2,222

Thameside Primary 1,331,092 1,271,303 59,789 4.70% 0 -4,996 -3,053

Southcote Primary 1,496,061 1,428,275 67,786 4.75% 0 -6,228 -3,461

Whitley Park combined 2,373,472 2,262,138 111,334 4.92% 0 -13,835 -5,685

Moorlands Primary 1,758,038 1,642,249 115,789 7.05% 0 -45,008 -5,912

Total 66,995,913 65,725,834 1,270,079 74,279 -74,353 -74,279

25

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF RESOURCES

TO: Reading Schools Forum

DATE: 21 March 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 7

SUBJECT: EARLY YEARS BLOCK FUNDING

SERVICE: Education & Children’s

Services

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Russell Dyer

TEL: 0118 937 2398

JOB TITLE: Head of Finance (DECS) E-MAIL: russell.dyer@reading.gov.uk

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of the report is to update Schools Forum on the development of

free entitlement to child care for two year olds, clarify statutory duties and

financial arrangements for 2, 3 and 4 year old places, and to note interim rates

to be paid for 2, 3 and 4 year old places until end August 2013. The report

outlines proposals on existing and new funding to be retained centrally for the

early year’s block where Schools Forum has decision making powers.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2.1 For noting: Reading’s statutory duties to provide free early years

provision from September 2013 for an expanded cohort of two year

olds; the challenges faced and proposals for overcoming those

obstacles to enable sufficient sustainable provision from September

2013.

2.2 For noting; To maintain current hourly funding rates for 2, 3 and 4

year old places (as set out in para 3.6 below) until September 2013,

pending further research and consultation with the EYSFF group to

develop credible, affordable and sustainable rates from September

2013. A proposal will be made to Schools Forum to either the May or

July meeting.

2.3 For decision: To approve central expenditure retention of the early

years block for 2013/14, including trajectory funding of £537k to

enable further place development work and confirm approval for £60k

of other central costs.

26

3. BACKGROUND

Statutory Duties and Financial Arrangements

3.1 Reading has a statutory duty from September 2013 under the Childcare Act 2006

to provide free early education to all two year olds (from the term after they

turn two) whose family circumstances would qualify them for free school meals,

children with protection plans and looked after children. per Appendix 1

3.2 This entitlement will apply to an estimated 448 children, of whom DfE estimate

85% will take up their entitlement. This is a challenging increase in scale from

the current programme, which is delivering free places to 72 eligible children.

3.3 In line with national guidance, and the evidence showing that high quality

provision makes the most difference, Reading proposes to offer places in

settings rated as “good” or “outstanding” by Ofsted. In areas with a shortage of

such provision, more intensive quality improvement support will be required.

3.4 The main funding for this programme within the current Financial Year (2012-

13) comes from the Early Years Block within the Early Intervention Grant. For

the Financial Year 2013-14 funding arrangements change significantly, and

resources earmarked for the programme will consist of:

• The early years block within DSG, the statutory funding for 2,3 and 4 year old

places

• The high needs block within DSG, which funds additional needs for 0 -19 year

olds, within current funding levels, recognising that any additional growth

will need to be funded

• Trajectory funding within DSG for 2013-14 which is aimed at developing the

two year old programme

• capital funding

3.5 The detailed breakdown is shown below:

Description 2013-14 (£000s)

Early Years Block - for 2 year old places 1,908

Early Years Block - Statutory funding for 3 and 4

year old places

7,433

Less: LSS transfer (157)

Full Time Places (see section 6 of the report) (90)

Central Retentions for Early Years Block (see Section

4)

(60)

Trajectory Funding to for two year old places (see

Section 4)

(538)

Available to fund 2 year old core participation

activity

1,370

Available to fund 3&4 year old core participation

activity

7,126

27

High needs block (covering 0-19) TBC

Capital Funding for 2 year old places (LA to

determine use)

357

3.6 Schools forum is now responsible for some funding decisions most notably with

regard to central retentions for revenue. The local authority also consults on

other areas notably the rates.

3.7 3 and 4 year old funding is participation based. Therefore, the amounts of

funding through the EYSFF included within the final budget are indicative and

will be updated during the year after each pupil census in May 2013, October

2013 and January 2014. The funding allocations for 2 year olds are fixed and

don’t reflect uptake.

Challenges to Delivery

3.8 There are two major work strands in successfully developing the programme:

• Increasing the number of available two year old places; and

• Identifying and engaging eligible parents to take up the offer.

Increasing Two Year Old Provision

3.9 Additional places will be commissioned from existing providers, across the

maintained, voluntary and private sectors who either have vacancies, or who

are able to expand or reconfigure their provision to increase the number of

places for two year olds. Terms and conditions of funding are in place setting

out requirements and expectations of providers. The Council needs to make an

affordable and sustainable offer, which is clear and viable for providers. This

entails:

• a base hourly rate for each type of provision;

• a credible and responsive package of financial and other support where

additional needs will require additional resources.

Setting Hourly Rates

3.10 Current 3 and 4 year old rates are as follows:

Provider type SFF hourly rates 2012-13

Deprivation supplement -

Rate including deprivation supplement

Maintained Nursery 4.83 1.39 6.22

Newbridge Nursery 5.19 1.39 6.58

Primary classes 3.30 1.39 4.69

Private and Voluntary settings

4.00 1.39 5.39

Independent Schools 3.56 1.39 4.95

Current 2 year old funding rate is £5.00

28

3.11 It should be noted that the Reading allocation from the DfE provides a rate for

two year old places which is very similar to most other non-London local

authorities, but the Reading rate for 3 and 4 year old places are significantly

above average, other than for Primary classes. The DfE assumed rate for two

year old places is approximately on par with Reading’s current 3 and 4 year old

rates. This may not be sustainable in the medium to longer term.

3.12 It is therefore proposed that current three and four year old rates continues for

the Summer 2013 term, to give provider near-term certainty.

3.13 New hourly rate proposals for the 2, 3 and 4 year olds will be brought forward to

School Forum in May/June, with supporting evidence, for revised rates to apply

from September 2013 which are affordable within designated budgets and viable

for providers in all sectors.

3.14 With two year old rates confirmed until September 2013, the Early Years service

team will seek to steadily expand the number of providers in the programme,

and the number of places they are able to offer. Progress will be reported to

Schools Forum in the May and July meetings.

Identifying and Meeting Additional Needs

3.15 The two year old development check by health visitors currently provides the

best universal means of assessing needs prior to taking up a place. The early

intervention currently takes a multi-agency approach to those children in Early

Years with high levels of need. It is proposed that this multi-agency approach

will continue. As part of the programme development, we need to develop a

more consistent approach to meeting needs, we will report back to School

Forum on the development of this in May/June.

Increasing take up.

3.16 Reading’s eligibility criteria have evolved during the pilot phase, in line with

national criteria and the availability of data to check eligibility under Free

School Meals criteria for families with two year old children. Details are shown

below.

3.17

Term Needs criteria Eligible Super Output

Areas

Spring 2012 By needs assessment 10% most disadvantaged

Summer 2012 By needs assessment 15% most disadvantaged

Autumn 2012 Entitlement under FSM

criteria + children with

protection plans + looked

after children

20% most disadvantaged

Spring 2013 Entitlement under FSM

criteria + children with

protection plans + looked

after children

30% most disadvantaged

29

Summer 2013 Entitlement under FSM

criteria + children with

protection plans + looked

after children

All SOAs

Autumn 2013 onwards Statutory Entitlement

under FSM criteria + SEN

+ looked after children

All SOAs

3.18 The current intake for 2 year old funding comes from Early Years Providers,

health visitors, social care and children centre’s, as a result of meeting the

criteria or family circumstances.

3.19 While this intensive assessment and multi-agency approach is excellent for

those with high levels of need, new ways need to be found to increase

participation amongst those who are, or will become eligible.

3.20 Anecdotally, encouraging an eligible parent with a two year old to take up free

entitlement is straightforward – it is a limited period of time (up to 15 hours per

week), enjoyable and beneficial for the child, and gives the parent time for

other things.

3.21 General promotion of the offer is difficult. The criteria can be stigmatising to

those who are eligible. For those who are not, news of free childcare they

cannot get may not be well received.

3.22 The challenge is therefore to identify eligible families, and engage with them

on an individual basis – and in particular to target those from vulnerable

families. This will involve developing partnerships and active roles for:

• Health visitors, particularly at the time of the two year development check;

Health Visitors are bringing in additional 9-12 months post-natal checks

enabling earlier identification and engagement of eligible two year olds

where risk factors have been identified;

• Primary Schools, who will know families meeting Free School Meals criteria,

and may be aware of younger siblings;

• JobCentrePlus, who know which parents are on eligible benefits, and may be

in a strong position to promote the offer;

• Children’s Centres, to determine eligibility via the council, and broker places

for parents;

• Social Care, to ensure looked after children and those on child protection

receive their entitlement

• the Turn Around Families Initiative, to redouble efforts to increase the

participation of younger children in educational opportunities at all ages.

4. CENTRAL EXPENDITURE RETENTIONS

4.1 Two main areas to examine and make a decision to approve:

30

• Early years block historic ongoing funding (£60k). These areas have been

discussed and agreed at the EYSFF meeting on 4 March and adjustments have

been subsequently made to the approval request following discussion and

agreement with the group where it felt that the services were not relevant.

The bulk of the expenditure (some £40k) relates to School Meals and Kitchens,

the central retention of which has already been approved (see 2013/14 budget

report on this meeting’s agenda). The remaining amounts are small notional

amounts held for statutory services and liabilities which were considered by the

group to be relevant.

• One Off Trajectory Funding (£537,733) – The purpose of this funding is to

develop the two year old offer. It is envisaged this will be used for:

o supporting providers to develop new two year old places, or improve the

quality of their offer

o workforce development

o IT processes and systems for the recording, tracking and making payment

o funding a steadily increasing participation in the pilot programme, in the

lead up to September 2013

o meeting additional needs until April 2014

The EYSFF group discussed and agreed these areas at their 4 March Meeting,

recognising that the plans are evolving and subject to change.

5. HIGH NEEDS

5.1 Current funding for statemented children under 4 of £170k comes from the high

needs block. We want to develop a way of funding any 2 year old children who

need additional support in 2013-2014 using the trajectory funding, but this is

only a short term measure and sustainability will need to be built into the

funding system. We will consult the EYSFF group on this as well as SEN and

Commissioning.

6. FULL TIME PLACES

6.1 A report on progress in relation to the £90k previously set aside for full time

places is attached as Appendix 2 to the report. Having reviewed the uptake in

this year and use of the budget, it has been agreed that budget provision can be

reduced to £50k for financial year, which the balance being released into the

general funding pot for provider’s rates.

31

Appendix 1 – Criteria for 2 year old funded Children from April 2013

The 2 year old entitlement starts at the beginning of each term following a child’s 2nd

birthday.

Below shows when a child becomes eligible to claim.

Born Between Eligible Term

1st January—31st March Summer (April to July)

1st April—31st August Autumn (September to December)

1st September—31st December Spring (January to March)

To be eligible for the funding, families must meet either criteria below and be

registered with their local Children’s Centre.

Criteria one

The parent or carer must be in receipt of one or more of the following benefits:

• Income Support

• Income Based Job Seekers Allowance

• An income-related Employment and Support Allowance

• Support under part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

• Child Tax Credit (provided they are not entitled to Working Tax Credit) and

have an annual income (as assessed by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) that

as of 6 April 2011 does not exceed £16,190

• The Guarantee element of State Pension Credit

Criteria two

In order to ensure we reach the most vulnerable 2 year olds, Reading has also set a

local criteria. Children claiming under the new criteria two need to be recognised as

one of the following:

• Child on the child protection register

• Looked after Child

32

Appendix 2

Report for Schools Forum - Update on Full time places – April 2012 to March 2013

During the past year 43 children nursery aged children benefited from an additional

10 hours of funded education. 19 of the children living in deprivation funding

areas).

Funding was allocated to 12 settings. Of these 4 were maintained nursery schools

and classes and 9 were day nurseries. All the settings were judged as good or better

as stipulated in the guidance.

The cost during 2012-2013 for additional hours was £38,437.60

Reports on the impact of the funding were received once the children had left. 23

children have left during the year, 22 of those left in July 2012.

12 Impact of funding reports were received (see summary below and overleaf)

Summary of impact of progress

In every case attendance improved.

Impact on progress:

All the reports identified that the children made good progress. , especially with

developing confidence and social skills. Many had learnt routines and coping

strategies.

Impact on language development

Additional time was key for language development with many accessing SLT and or

some 1:1 support. The additional funding impacted in improvements in speaking and

listening skills.

Bilingual children had longer working in a rich in English environment.

Impact on health and wellbeing

Many children benefited from a nutritious hot meal. All the children had improved

health and wellbeing.

Feedback from parents

10 of the forms included feedback from the parents. Most parents commented on their

child’s happiness and increased confidence and language development. One parent

said her child was calmer and was more interested in doing new things. Another

believed the additional hours has meant he can go to a mainstream school.

Conclusion

The full time places group looked at every application in detail and a number of

applications were rejected because the children did not meet the strict criteria. For

those children who have received the additional hours, all children made progress and

were much more ready for the next stage of their education.

33

SJM on behalf of the full time places group – January 2013

Appendix 1 - Impact of funding

2012-2013

12 returns

Impact on progress – improvements in the following areas

Social skills- 9

Increased confidence - 7

Concentration and listening skills - 4

Opportunities for focussed 1:1 work – 1

Fine motor control – 1

Attainment on leaving was age expected – 2

Following routines - 4

Fine motor control – 1

Opportunities to reinforce concepts - 1

Impact on language development - improvements in the following areas

Non verbal skills – 1

Specific speech and language targets met – 5

Social communication – 2

Use of PECS -1

Increased language (including EAL where applicable) – 5

Impact on health and wellbeing - improvements in the following areas

Experience of having lunch and receiving a nutritious hot meal – 7

Managing transition to next setting – 3

Independence with personal hygiene & clothing – 1

Self esteem – 2

Expressing and controlling emotions - 2

Other specific benefits- Parents comments:

Increased contact gave the time to ensure the correct next placement and transition

arrangements.

Additional support has prevented my child having to go to special school

34

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF RESOURCES

TO: READING SCHOOLS FORUM

DATE: 21 MARCH 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 8

SUBJECT: HIGH NEEDS BLOCK 2013-14 UPDATE

SERVICE: EDUCATION & CHILDREN’S

SERVICES

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Russell Dyer

TEL: 0118 937 2398

JOB TITLE: Head of Finance,

Education and Children’s

E-MAIL: russell.dyer@reading.gov.uk

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To update on progress in relation to the above. This builds upon the last report

previously reported in October and brings the Schools forum up to speed with

the latest development

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION – TO NOTE

2.1 The breakdown of the £15.4m high needs block for 2013-14.

2.2 The funding risk framework for the high needs block for 2013-14

2.3 Progress in relation to developing the arrangements for this area in

the areas highlighted.

3 BREAKDOWN OF HIGH NEEDS BLOCK

3.1 The budget breakdown of the high needs block is shown in the table below:

Table 1 High Need block 2013-14

13£000

Top up funding (funding over and above placement funding)

8,193

Placement led funding (first £10k per place) 2,980

Cranbury College (PRU) 1,758

School Contracts (Speech & Language, Sensory Consortium Service, OT and SEN Transport)

680

School SEN Services (Pre School Teachers, ASD, hard to place fund and Travellers)

540

Post 16 478

Projects for Transition and Prevention (nurture groups, Haven, Snowflakes. JMA)

360

Central costs 187

35

Personal Education Allowance 113

Hospital Education 111

TOTAL 15,400

3.2 There is a separate report on the agenda on the Sensory Consortium Service

(annual cost of £297k pa) which is funded in the high needs block.

4 FUNDING RISK FRAMEWORK

4.1 Because of the change in funding systems, all of the funding risk around high

needs now falls to the local authority as the safeguards previously put in place

to share risk have now been removed and are no longer available to us.

However the funding pot for schools (the DSG) is a set allocation, so if the high

needs block was to overspend in year it would need to be recovered from the

DSG in the following year, which under the present regulations is subject to

Schools Forum approval or failing that Secretary of State approval. The

mechanisms to do this would be to reduce the top up banding values or move

funding from the schools block to the high needs block. This would in effect

reduce every school’s delegated budget. Increased demand against the high

needs block will affect all schools.

4.2 Given past experience of this area and the changes in the funding system, this

area will continue to represent a higher risk in terms of overspending. However

there are more opportunities to gate keep funding, although this will be in the

face of limited capacity with the Council. As identified in the sections that

follow we have disseminated the new system to all appropriate settings.

5 SPECIAL SCHOOLS AND RESOURCE UNITS

5.1 Place led funding for the above has been largely agreed. Additional funding for

£157k has been secured from the EFA following issues raised by the Council. In

addition the EFA has clarified the position on place led funding for the NASS

school. The EFA have noted the concerns raised by the Council with regard to

growth more generally for top ups.

6 NON MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS

6.1 Place led funding on these providers has been agreed. The balance of funding

for the placements will be via top ups.

7 POST 16

7.1 The Authority has submitted the place led funding returns for the relevant

schools and further education providers. With the exception of Reading College

where 15 places have been agreed, all funding will be provided via top ups to

allow maximum flexibility. This approach has been agreed with the EFA and

RRP and the approach will be communicated to all of the providers.

8 BANDS 4, 5 AND 6

36

8.1 Schools have now been written to with regard to their notional SEN funding

allocation, clarification that the £10k per child (£4k core funding plus £6k

additional needs) is included within the formula budget and the system for

accessing top ups where costs exceed £10k. The letter also included frequently

asked questions about the new system of funding to ensure that there is clarity

over process.

8.2 In addition other local authorities with Reading high cost children have been

written to with regard to the revised system.

9 EARLY YEARS

9.1 This is considered in a separate report. It is expected that any additional

growth in this area will need to be considered as part of the 2014-15 budget

setting process with trajectory funding being in place for the 2013-14 financial

year.

10 WORKING WITH OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES

10.1 A further meeting hosted by Hants CC was held with neighbouring authorities to

ensure a consistent approach between local authorities and to identify issues by

comparing budgets and practice across the group. In some cases this identified

areas of common practice and for other areas it identified areas that were not

common practice. Two area which require further investigation were:

• The comparatively high level of top ups at this authority, thought to relate to

Special School within the borough

• The fact that this council did not use lower prior attainment within its formula

as an indicator of high need, although this largely flowed from consultation

responses from schools in this regard and this is also being examined as part of

the national funding consultation for 2013/14 which is also on the agenda for

this meeting.

37

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF RESOURCES

TO: READING SCHOOLS FORUM

DATE: 21 MARCH 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 9

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE 2013-14 SCHOOLS FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

SERVICE: EDUCATION & CHILDREN’S

SERVICES

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Russell Dyer

TEL: 0118 937 2398

JOB TITLE: Head of Finance,

Education and Children’s

E-MAIL: russell.dyer@reading.gov.uk

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To update Schools Forum on the recent funding consultation paper and propose

a suggested response.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION – TO NOTE

2.1 The summary of the key issues on the consultation paper.

2.2 The comparison with other local authorities (attached as Appendix 1

and 2).

2.3 That the response will be made to the consultation questions, as noted

within the report, by the due deadline of 26 March, subject to

consultation with Schools Forum at this meeting.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 On 13 February 2013, the Department for Education (DfE) published a review of

the 2013/14 School Funding arrangements. The document summarises how the

2013/14 funding arrangements have been implemented, outlines some specific

concerns that have been raised and considers making small changes in 2014/15

to address some of the concerns raised.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/financialmanagement/

schoolsrevenuefunding/a00221523/review-of-2013-14-school-funding-

arrangements

1.2 The document also seeks views on 23 specific questions and the closing date for

responses to these is 26 March 2013. Our funding consultant has prepared a

draft response to the questions and we are seeking the views of the Schools

38

Forum as to the suggested responses. Schools, Academies and Schools Forum

are of course free to make separate representations to the DFE.

2 NATIONAL FUNDING FORMULA AND THE MOVE TOWARDS PUPIL LED FUNDING

2.1 DfE reaffirms its desire to move towards a pupil led funding system that targets

the funding of needs of the pupils and not the circumstances of the school. It

also reaffirms that a national formula will be introduced sometime after 2015

2.2 In an Annex to the document, DfE presents an analysis through a series of charts

of how funding is currently being distributed across the country based on an

October pro forma that authorities had to return to the DfE. Specifically, DfE

wants to understand whether we are moving towards a more pupil-led system,

and where the greatest variation has arisen. The annex is included as appendix

1 to this report and we have shown on each chart Reading’s position relative to

others.

2.3 The data shows that there is still variation in how local authorities have

distributed their Dedicated Schools Grant, which DfE states is to be expected

given that per-pupil funding allocations vary across the country, making each

local authority’s starting point different from its neighbours.

2.4 The majority of primary Age Weighted Pupil Units (AWPUs) are in the range of

£2,250 to £3,250 and overall, the proportion of funding being spent on the

AWPUs varies between 60% and 87%, with half of local authorities allocating

between 75% and 80%.

2.5 DfE states that the data shows that good progress is being made towards the aim

of moving to a more pupil-led system. It cites the fact that authorities are

allocating at least 77% of funding through a combination of the pupil-led factors

(i.e. the AWPU, deprivation, prior attainment, EAL, looked after children and

pupil mobility) and around 49% of authorities are allocating between 90% and

95% of funding in this way.

2.6 DfE is keen to ensure that even more money is targeted to the needs of pupils,

rather than to the circumstances of schools and so is considering whether to set

a minimum threshold for a combination of all the pupil-led factors.

Q1: Should we set a minimum threshold for the pupil-led factors and, if so,

at what level?

Response: This proposal should be rejected on the basis that LAs and Schools

Forums should be given as much flexibility as possible in determining funding

allocations as they are best placed to judge the needs of pupils and schools.

2.7 There are two other questions within this section

Q2: On what basis did local authorities decide on the quantum or

proportion of funding to target to deprived pupils?

39

Response: To limit turbulence Reading allocated funding through the nearest

equivalent factor to the 2012-13 formula. Therefore, the proportion of funding

targeted to deprived pupils is similar to the proportion of funding targeted

through the 2012-13 formula.

Q3: On what basis did local authorities decide on the per-pupil amounts for

the prior attainment factors?

Response: As a result of consultation responses from primary school head

teachers who raised concerns about the use of the Early Years Foundation Stage

Profile as a suitable basis for the allocation of funds and the small proportion

of 2012-13 funding that was allocated through low prior attainment Reading

decided not to allocate any funding through low prior attainment in the new

formula.

3 AREAS OF CONCERN AND POSSIBLE CHANGES FOR 2014/15

3.1 Prior Entitlement

3.1.1 DfE asks whether the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) is a suitable

factor to identify low cost SEN in primary schools and if not, what is an

alternative factor. It asks:

Q4: Do you agree that local authorities should continue to use EYFSP data as

an attainment-related proxy or should we consider use of a different

indicator to identify low cost SEN in primary schools? If so, what indicator?

Response: Reading does not use EYSF but we note that there has been

considerable criticism nationally of its use with some authorities pointing to

the turbulence that it has caused while others have questioned its relevance.

Further, there is not a currently available alternative which is sufficiently

robust and quantifiable.

3.2 Pupil Mobility

3.2.1 The current pupil mobility factor is intended to address the administrative costs

incurred by schools that experience high levels of pupils leaving and joining

throughout the academic year. DfE has received concerns that the factor, as

currently designed, does not differentiate between a school that has few mobile

pupils (and therefore incurs significantly lower administrative costs) and a

school that has significantly larger numbers of mobile pupils (and therefore

incurs higher costs).

Q5: Would it help to allow an additional weighting to be given if a school

experiences in-year changes to pupil numbers above a certain threshold? If

so, where should this threshold be set?

Response: We use a mobility factor and are content with the current weighting

40

3.3 Lump Sum

3.3.1 DfE introduced the single lump sum predominantly to provide sufficient funding

for those necessary small schools, particularly in rural areas, that may not be

able to operate on the basis of their per-pupil funding alone. It has, however,

become apparent that the current lump sum arrangements are causing

concerns, particularly in relation to small schools in rural areas, and DfE is

considering the possibility of introducing an optional school-level sparsity factor

for 2014-15, specifically to target funding at necessary small schools in rural

areas.

Q6: In areas with large numbers of small schools, could the problem of having

a fixed lump sum be overcome by reducing the relevant AWPU?

Response: This is not of relevance to Reading but in principle one option could

be for Local Authorities with a large number of small schools to reduce the

AWPU to increase the lump sum. Another option could instead be to base

funding levels on a set number minimum number of pupils per school with

different minimum numbers for primary and secondary schools.

Q7: Would having the ability to apply a separate primary and secondary lump

sum avoid necessary small schools becoming unviable? If so, how should we

deal with middle and all-through schools?

Response: This is not as issue for Reading but in principle the costs that the

lump sum is intended to fund will inevitably vary between the primary and

secondary sectors and having a differential rate would allow this variation to

be accounted for.

Q8: We said in June that we would review the level of the lump sum cap

(currently £200,000) for 2014-15 in order to establish whether it is the

minimum cap needed to ensure the sustainability of necessary small schools.

If we continued with one lump sum for both primary and secondary, what

would be the minimum level of cap needed to ensure the sustainability of

necessary small schools? If we had separate lump sums for primary and

secondary, what would be the minimum cap needed for each in order to

ensure the sustainability of necessary small schools?

Response: Again this is not an issue in Reading and because of this we have

never carried out the detailed work in this area to respond to this question

Q9: Would using a school-level sparsity measure to target a single lump sum,

based on distance between pupils and their second nearest school, avoid

necessary small rural schools becoming unviable?

Response: No view

Q10: What average distance threshold would be appropriate?

Response: No view

41

Q11: If we had a sparsity measure, would it still be necessary to have a lump

sum in order to ensure that necessary schools remain viable? Why? What is

the interaction between the two?

Response: No view

Q12: What alternative sparsity measures could we use to identify necessary

small schools in rural areas?

Response: No view

Q13: Would the ability for both schools to retain their lump sums for one or

two years after amalgamation create a greater incentive to merge?

Response: Yes, there should be an incentive for schools to merge but rather

than two years, local authorities may prefer to retain flexibility to fund a lump

sum over a longer period to ensure that economies of scale have been fully

realised before the lump sum is removed.

3.4 Targeted Funding to Deprived Pupils

3.4.1 Some local authorities have expressed concern that the 2013-14 arrangements

have resulted in funding moving away from schools with high numbers of

deprived pupils. DfE recognises that the removal of certain factors (such as floor

space and other premises-related issues) and a greater focus on pupil-led

factors may cause some schools to experience changes to their budgets and it

want to understand why the 2013-14 arrangements could have resulted in

deprived schools losing funding and asks

Q14: If you think local authorities will be unable to use the allowable

deprivation indicators in order to prevent significant losses to schools with a

high proportion of deprived pupils, why do you think that is the case?

Response: I would be surprised if this is an issue in Reading or most authorities

given that there are various indicators such as FSM, Ever6 and IADCI that can be

used to channel resources to deprived areas. So if this is the case then the

suggested response is ‘no evidence of significant losses arising from this in

Reading’

3.4.3 DfE has received a number of representations from schools with large numbers

of service children that have expressed concerns that they are set to lose

funding as a result of the new arrangements. DfE asks therefore:

Q15: Do you have any evidence that service children (once we account for

deprivation, mobility and pastoral care through the Pupil Premium) require

additional funding in order to achieve as well as non-service children?

Response: This is not a significant factor in Reading and we are not aware of

any of our schools having such problems.

42

3.4.4 DfE is also concerned that it is not overlooking vulnerable groups of children and

asks:

Q16: Have the 2013-14 reforms prevented local authorities from targeting

funding to groups of pupils that need additional support? If so, which?

Response: No evidence for this in Reading

3.5 Falling Rolls

3.5.1 The government’s policy is that successful expanding schools should be

rewarded, and that pupils should be free to attend the school of their choice

without the funding being locked in at a different school. If a school has falling

rolls, DfE advises that it should consider its longer term viability and may

consider merging or federating with other schools in order to save money but

also to improve its leadership capacity and quality. The DfE’s changes to the

Minimum Funding Guarantee have enhanced this policy, removing protection

from schools with falling rolls.

3.5.2 The review document has highlighted one potential issue with this policy –

where the demographic trend has meant that secondary school pupil numbers

have reduced but a bulge is imminent as more primary pupils move up. DfE

suggests that in such cases, local authorities can retain a small fund for schools

in financial difficulty and be used to help bridge the gap between the falling

rolls and the imminent bulge. And it also asks:

Q17: In cases where a population bulge is imminent, what is preventing good

and necessary schools from staying open?

Response: One possibility is where a school loses a significant number of pupils

which when combined with high pupil entitlements results in a significant loss

of funding; which is not matched by an equivalent reduction in costs over the

same timeframe.

Q18: Are there any other circumstances in which falling rolls are unavoidable

in the short term?

Response: Not aware of any.

4 ADJUSTING FOR HIGH NEEDS FUNDING IN 2014-15 AND BEYOND – ISSUES FOR

2014/15 AND BEYOND

4.1 Top up Funding

4.1.1 As part the 2013-14 reforms, DfE introduced a new framework for funding

provision for children and young people with high level needs, including special

educational needs (SEN), learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD) and those

requiring alternative provision (AP). DfE believe it is too early to consider

43

changes to High Needs SEN “Place Plus” and will therefore look at this as part of

a subsequent review. Whilst we agree that there has been significant change to

this aspect of school funding, there are still a significant number of issues and

concerns that are outside the scope of this review. There are still many points

to be resolved before the new system can achieve what the DfE intended it to

do.

4.1.2 Turning to the issues that are considered in the document, the first issue relates

to the concerns that some local authorities have expressed relating to

limitations on the formula factors which they can use, which they argue do not

allow them to target funds to those pupils with particular needs or to schools

which attract a higher number of pupils with high needs because they have a

good reputation for meeting those needs. DfE therefore has allowed local

authorities flexibility to use their high needs block to make additional

allocations outside the formula to schools that have a disproportionate

population of pupils with high needs, after consulting the Schools Forum.

4.1.3 DfE is also planning to introduce to the schools census, from 2014, a marker that

will indicate those pupils who receive top-up funding. According to the

Department, this high needs marker could be used to target extra funding to

schools that have a disproportionate number of high needs pupils, but cannot be

introduced before 2015-16 because the census data will not be available.

Q19: Would a formula factor that indicates those pupils who receive top-up

funding be a useful addition to help deal with the funding of high needs?

Response: The inclusion of a marker on the census in 2014/15 will provide

useful but limited information. It would indicate the number and location of

children with a top-up but it would not record the level of top up. But any

additional data on high needs pupils is to be welcomed but it must be left to

the Forum to decide whether to use this indicator to target funding.

4.1.4 DfE notes that while it has recommended that authorities should construct their

schools’ notional SEN budgets so that schools are required to contribute up to

£6,000 towards the additional support costs of their pupils with SEN, some

authorities have adopted a different threshold as a transitional arrangement.

This then creates differences in the base funding between neighbouring local

authorities, and therefore in the top-up funding levels they are implementing.

This according to DfE could be a problem as commissioning authorities, are

likely to be dealing with schools in more than one authority area. It asks:

Q20: To address the variation in base funding between neighbouring local

authorities, how fast should local authorities be required to move towards

the £6,000 threshold? Should it be made a requirement from 2014-15?

Response: If there is to be a county wide or regional agreement, there needs to

be consistency in the base position from which the top up is funded and so

consideration can be given to moving to the £6,000 threshold from 2014-15.

Q21: Should the Department play an active role in spreading good practice

and model contracts/service level agreements?

44

Response: Yes, a collation and dissemination of good practice by DfE would be

useful and the publication of model contracts and service level agreements may

help reduce some of the extra administrative burden associated with carrying

out these tasks.

4.2 Pre and post-16 arrangements

4.2.1 The Department is aware that the administrative processes pre- and post-16, in

the run-up to 2013-14, have not been co-ordinated as helpfully as they might

have been. It is looking to improve this substantially for 2014-15 but also wishes

to look at how arrangements can be brought closer together so that they are

easier to understand and use for local authorities, colleges, schools and

Academies. It asks:

Q22: Do you have ideas about how the pre and post-16 high needs systems

might be brought closer together?

Response: DfE needs to develop a much more consistent approach at a national

level to pre and post 16 frameworks with a proper and accepted link between

the two. A uniform funding period would further remove complexity but in the

longer term consideration, may be given to introducing a uniform funding

system.

5 SCHOOL FORUMS

5.1 DfE heard concerns that Schools Forums were not always operating fairly or

transparently in the past (examples include meeting papers and agendas not

being published and voting rights being spread too widely across a range of

members) and in response made a number of changes which came into effect on

1 October 2012.

5.2 It is not proposing to make any further changes for 2014-15 but asks:

Q23: Do you think that Schools Forums are operating more democratically

and transparently? If not, what further measures could the Department take

in order to improve this?

Response: We do not recommend any changes but it should be recognised that

LAs and Schools Forums now have less scope and discretion to allocate out

funding because of the rigidities of the new funding regulations.

6 GENERAL COMMENTS

6.1 We are concerned that this is once again a consultation with a very short

timescale, which on this occasion, is taking place at a time of year when

finance staff are very busy finalising budgets for schools and contributing to the

Council budget setting process.

45

6.2 It is also difficult to see the value of the consultation given that the new system

will not take effect until 1 April 2013 and all the consequences both foreseen

and unforeseen will not have had time to manifest themselves. Surely it would

have been better if DfE had waited until the end of April so that local

authorities, schools and academies would have had the time to properly

understand and evaluate the implications of the Schools Funding Reforms on

their school.

6.3 Finally the scope of the review is not sufficiently broad enough, ignoring many

issues previously raised by this and other local authorities in relation to Schools

Funding issues.