A declaration was received from the Chair for agenda item 6 “Standing Item - Bradford Education Improvement Commissioning Board” (New to English Hubs), (minute 166).

ACTION:       City Solicitor

The Chair reported that he has written to the Education Funding Agency (EFA) on the issue of the funding of additional High Needs Block places (the additional 360 places) and additional free schools. In response, a seminar has been arranged with the EFA and the DfE on 22 September to discuss this further. He encouraged all that are interested (and interested in new free school provision) to attend.

The Chair also indicated to Members that, in his correspondence, he has detected that the DfE may be considering softening its position on the proposal for the ring-fencing of the Schools Block in transition to National Funding Formula arrangements.

In his introduction to the meeting, the Business Advisor (Schools) advised that a number of agenda items were to be reported verbally (rather than via written reports) due to fluidity and uncertainties e.g. with academy conversions and the timescales for publications, especially National Funding Formula.

The Business Advisor (Schools) then reported on progress made on “Action” items as follows:

·        The Council’s National Funding Formula 1^st stage consultation response was published on Bradford Schools Online, as agreed by Members.

·        Vice Chair Election – Dianne Rowbotham was the sole nominee. Dianne therefore, is confirmed as Vice Chair of the Schools Forum for 2016-17.

·        Report to Scrutiny Committee on the take up of 2 Year Old Places (purple document): The Business Advisor explained that the Forum has previously had sight of the annual reports to the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee. The most recent report presents a 73% total take up of the 2 year old entitlement in spring 2016, up from 66% in spring 2015, with a target take up of 80% in the autumn term. The report states that the rate of take up varies by ward and that the Council’s support work and incentivisation strategy is now focused on lowest take up areas. The Forum was advised that, although this report is tabled primarily for awareness, Members should consider the position of the take up of the 2 year old offer under agenda item 8 and the Forum’s thinking about the use of DSG one off monies.

·        Review of SEND – Following from the presentation of the Deputy Director Education, Employment and Skills presentation at the meeting of 18 May 2016, indicating 68 additional places for September plus a further 360 places by September 2018, the Business Advisor explained that he would provide a verbal update under agenda item 8 and that SEND review will also come up under agenda item 9 (National Funding Formula), focusing on cost pressures. He reported that the Forum’s SEN Reference Group has met since the last Forum meeting and that Members will also see, in the BEICB report under agenda item 6, that the SEND review is a strand of work to be financially supported by the BEICB monies.

·        School’s Outturn Revenue Balances – A verbal update will be provided under agenda item 10 on the budget positions of maintained schools and academy conversions, and a report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The Business Advisor (Schools) reported that a letter to the Schools Forum has been received from the Chair of Governors at Oastler School, which asks the Forum to provide financial support for the school’s cumulative deficit balance, setting out the reasons why support should be given. Members were referred to a copy of the letter in their paper packs.

The Business Advisor recommended that the Forum considers this letter and request under agenda item 10 and in the context of the report back on the recommendations of the Working Group, which met to discuss academy conversion financial matters on 15 July. The Business Advisor reported that this Working Group, as well as recommending general approaches and principles, also considered the letter from Oastler School.

Resolved –

That the letter to the Schools Forum from the Chair of Governors of Oastler School be considered under agenda item 10 (2016/17 School Budget Positions and Academy Conversions – Update).

No allocations from the Growth Fund were proposed to this meeting.

No resolution was passed on this item.

Document GB was presented, to update Members on the activities of the Bradford Education Improvement Commissioning Board (BEICB); the financial allocations agreed with objectives and impact so far.

The Forum also received PowerPoint presentations from representatives of 2 of the recently established New to English hubs (Southfield Grange and Bowling Park Primary School), which have been funded in their initial start up periods by the BEICB. The Primary Achievement Officer reported that 6 hubs have now been established, each having identified their programmes and outreach support offers and developing and employing expertise in e.g. pastoral support, language provision, and community support / engagement. She stated that presentations are taking place in forums across to District to further advertise the support services available for schools and that each hub has a space on Bradford Schools Online.

Forum Members made the following comments and asked the following main questions:

• The Vice Chair stated that she was very impressed with the provision at Bowling Park following a tour
• It was confirmed that the hubs can help schools to correctly complete the language assessment elements of their censuses.
• What additional value is expected to be delivered by the hubs by the end of the investment period (what return will be had on the BEICB’s investment)? The Primary Achievement Officer stated that each hub uses a Gantt chart to record impact and that each will be required to present case study evidence back to the BEICB. So far, the hubs have had 3 times the contact with schools and pupils than previous support services.
• Understanding that the first 2 lots of £20,000 start up monies have been allocated by the BEICB to each hub, is it the case that by the time the 3^rd lot of £20,000 is required the hubs will be in a position to trade services to generate this? The Primary Achievement Officer responded that this is the expectation (that the hubs will be self sustaining).
• A number of Members commented that impact is crucial to future success and sustainability (schools will buy in if the services add value). A Member identified that, if this strategy has an impact but is not financial sustainable through a trading model, the Authority and the Forum should consider how it can be financed rather than losing the value through the cessation of services.

Resolved –

That the information in Document GB be noted.

The Business Advisor (Schools) introduced this item by explaining that the Council is seeking to secure the Forum’s approval to progress an application to enter into a Social Impact Bond. It was reported that the Council’s Corporate Management Team has approved the application and that approval is now being sought from education (the Schools Forum) and from health.

Using the PowerPoint, the 14-19 Lead Officer Vulnerable Children and an analyst from Social Finance Ltd presented the proposal and the business case. It was explained that the Social Impact Bond would finance a new service to help young people with learning disabilities and behaviours that were at high risk of residential education and / or care entry to achieve better outcomes by supporting these young people to remain at home. It was explained that this will also help control the increase of / reduce the Council’s spending on these placements. The education element of the cost of the Bond would be financed from the High Needs Block, but with savings achieved also benefiting this Block.

Forum Members made the following comments and asked the following main questions:

• That the emphasis of rationale for the Bond needs to be on improving outcomes for young people, not financial affordability.
• That the Bond needs to be joined into a wider District strategy (part of a holistic sustainable strategic approach, not just a single initiative). The Director of Finance responded that the Bond is a targeted experiment that the Council is very keen to try.
• How significant is the High Needs Block element in the Bond? The Business Advisor (Schools) clarified, using estimates, that the bigger elements were health and social care; the DSG currently spends c. £4.5m on out of authority provisions (of which £220,000 of spend would be affected by the Bond). The analyst from Social Finance Ltd clarified the rough % splits of contributions: 10-15% lottery funded, 60% Council social care, 5% each of the CCGS (health) and 10% High Needs Block.
• Who would be the commissioner of the education element if the Schools Forum was not to exist in the future? The Business Advisor clarified that the Authority is actually the commissioner of the education element (as it is the decision maker on the High Needs Block) and that the Forum is being consulted on this.
• Would the referral process be specific to Bradford? The analyst from Social Finance Ltd confirmed that this would and that the details of the process would be worked out locally.
• Is the Bond’s target group young people with learning disabilities? The analyst from Social Finance Ltd confirmed that this is the case.
• That the measure of success will be simply whether an identified young person stays out of residential care? Yes
• Would 3 young people from 1 family be seen as 1 or 3 separate units?

Resolved –

(1)          That the Schools Forum gives its support, in principle, to the Council’s application to enter into a Social Impact Bond, where a proportion of the contribution  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

An update was presented to the Forum verbally on Dedicated Schools Grant matters, including the reconciliation of the 2015/16 DSG spending position (and available one off monies) and the forecasted spending position of the High Needs Block in 2016/17. This updated incorporated discussions at the SEN Reference Group on 29 June, which followed from the presentation made to the Schools Forum on 18 May about the requirement to increase SEND places provision from September 2016 and to fund these from the 2016/17 DSG.

The key matters that were reported verbally on the 2015/16 one off monies reconciliation were:

• Following the close down of accounts, the confirmed value of the DSG’s underspend at 31 March 2016 is £1.6m higher than estimated; £0.4m from additional general underspends across DSG headings, but an additional £1.2m underspend specifically within the DSG’s earmarked budget for 2 year old places (where the DfE has previously allocated to the DSG sizeable sums to support the introduction and development of 2 year old places, where we have earmarked this budget for this purpose but have not fully spent it and not yet released it).
• The Forum has a fund of £750,000 in 2016/17 to continue to support the development and take up of 2 year old places, in addition to the £1.2m. Referring to the Scrutiny report tabled for the Forum under matters arising, there is work to do to raise the take up of the 2 year old offer in certain parts of Bradford, and the £750,000 is being used for this.
• Critically then, the Forum will need to take a view on whether the £1.2m additional monies should continue to be held for the 2 year old offer or whether it can now be released back to the DSG for re-allocation, including to other pressures. Having discussed this with the Council’s Early Years strategic leads, their advice is that the £750,000 is sufficient and that the £1.2m should be released back to the DSG to support other pressures.
• The Forum is not asked to take decisions on the use of reserves at this meeting. This item is just flagging up that an additional £1.6m of one off monies is available from the reconciliation of the 2015/16 accounts and that recommendations on the use of this should be taken ‘in the round’.

Members responded to recommend that the position of the £1.2m under spending in the DSG’s 2 year old budget be referred to the Early Years Working Group for consideration. It was also identified that a piece of strategic work should be carried out to look at the impact of the 2 year old offer on the mainstream sector (including the affordability of the offer at current funded rates and the funding of SEND).

The key matters that were reported verbally on the High Needs Block spending position in this current financial year were:

• Members were reminded of the presentation to the last meeting from Judith Kirk, which stated that a further 68 places are needed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The Business Advisor (Schools) reported that the Department for Education’s 2^nd stage consultation has not yet been published and therefore, there was little further to report at this stage. It is believed that the EU referendum and receipt of more than 6,000 responses to the 1st stage consultation are behind the delay.

The Business Advisor expressed his concern about the difficulties that further substantial delay in announcements may cause especially in taking decisions about our funding of high needs places. He also expressed concern that nothing has yet been announced on early years funding reform or how the new 30 hours entitlement from September 2017 is to be financed.

Member asked that they be informed of announcements if these come over the summer break.

Resolved –

(1)          That the information provided be noted.

(2)          That Members are kept informed (by email) over the summer break should further announcements be made on the National Funding Formula.

ACTION: Business Advisor (Schools)

The Business Advisor (Schools) explained that the purpose of the item is to provide an update verbally on discussions around the financial implications of conversion of maintained schools to academy status, including the Working Group meeting, and also to provide some re-assurance about the position of maintained school budgets in 2016/17 and the Authority’s tracking, support and challenge of budget issues in schools. In this context, the Business Advisor reminded Members of the Financial Classification of Schools, which is presented under agenda item 12.

The key matters that were reported verbally on the budget positions of maintained schools in this current financial year were:

• At March 2016, as reported to the last Forum meeting, 6 schools held cumulative revenue deficit balances, with a gross total value of £1.13m, of which we reported the deficit of one secondary school accounts for £0.8m. The remaining schools held gross surpluses of £20.0m.
• At March 2017, for the same set of schools (remembering that not all will still be maintained by the Authority at the end of the financial year), there are 9 schools currently forecasting revenue deficit balances, with a gross value of £3.56m. The remaining maintained schools forecast gross surpluses of £12.88m, which is (as per the normal pattern of how forecasted balance increase during the year) probably significantly pessimistic (in the 2015/16 financial year, schools predicted to hold £12.3m in their initial budgets at 31 March 2016 and actually closed with £18.9m).
• The Business Advisor stressed that these are only forecasts of balances based on information from schools. Both schools and the Authority are working to minimise deficits where these have been initially predicted. We are currently collecting quarter 1 budget monitors and continue to have detailed discussions with schools.
• This gives a general picture of financial stability in the vast majority of schools. However, there are challenges. Members will see this simply in the revised Financial Classification, where the number of Category C schools (indicating future year budget issues) has increased from 46 to 53. This is 30% of schools.

The key matters that were reported verbally on the budget positions of maintained schools that are planned to or may convert to academy under sponsored arrangements were:

• The Authority has identified that possibly 69 schools currently maintained may be considered to be ‘sponsored academies’ by the DfE should these convert. These are our priority 3 and 4 schools under the School Improvement Classification system. Members are reminded that the financial risk, including deficit, is mostly present in sponsored academies. This is only a rough guide, as there are priority 3 and 4 schools that are being treated by the DfE as converter academies. However, this identification helps us with our tracking / prioritisation of support and challenge of budget issues.
• At March 2016, 1 of these 69 held a cumulative deficit revenue balance. The rest held cumulative surplus balances.
• At March 2017, based on original budget submissions (as reported above), 4 of these 69 forecast to hold a cumulative revenue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

The Business Advisor (Schools) presented a report, Document GC, which provided the Forum with an update on the compliance of maintained schools with the Schools’ Financial Value Standard (the SFVS) at 31 March 2016. This was presented for information and Members did not ask any questions and did not make any comments.

Resolved –

That the information presented be noted.

The Business Advisor (Schools) presented a report, Document GD, which provided the Forum with a summary of the categorisation of maintained schools within the Local Authority’s Financial Classification of Schools for the 2016/17 academic year. The content of this report was referred to and considered under item 172.

Resolved –

That the information presented be noted.

No further updates were presented on the Forum’s standing items.

No resolution was passed on this item.

No additional items of business for consideration were tabled.

No resolution was passed on this item.

The next meeting of the Schools Forum is Wednesday 21 September 2016.

committeesecretariat\minutes\SF\20July