The Schools Forum is asked to consider a report, Document JR, which sets out the Local Authority’s plan for the allocation of Pupil Premium Grant for Children Looked After from April 2019.

Recommended –

The Forum is asked to consider this report.

            (Marium Haque– 01274 431078)

The Schools Forum was asked to consider a report, Document JR, which set out the Local Authority’s plan for the allocation of Pupil Premium Grant for Children Looked After from April 2019. This report set out the Authority plan to retain 50% of LAC PPG from April 2019, which is in more line with the position of PPG retention regionally.

The Headteacher of the Virtual School (VSH) explained the reasons for this change and the purposes for which the monies are to be retained, focusing in particular on the feedback and challenge from HMI within the recent ILACS. He stressed that the impact of these monies will be reviewed annually.

In the discussion on this report, Members asked the following questions and made the following comments:

·         How did HMI comment on the effectiveness / impact of the currently retained 25% of PPG? The VSH responded that HMI’s feedback was very clear – that where the Virtual School intervenes there is strong evidence of impact but that the central team is too small and too many schools are not delivering sufficient outcomes with their 75%. HMI questioned why, in this position, when outcomes for LAC have been low, the VSH has not reviewed the PPG retention / allocation model.

·         Special schools no longer (from September 2019) have a mechanism for showing pupil progress. How will the VSH evidence to HMI impact on LAC outcomes and effective use of PPG for the special school sector? The Deputy Director responded that the VSH and HMI will use PEPs and will inspect impact on a detailed case by case basis.

·         The retention of 50% LAC PPG takes more resource away from schools. The VSH responded that “centrally retained” does not mean that this money is lost to schools. Schools can apply for, and the VSH allocates, additional monies from the retained funds on a pupil-specific basis to provide additional targeted support.

·         The retention of more monies penalises schools that are currently doing well. The VSH responded that this change will reduce the funding for some schools but that the VSH has to manage the resources available for the needs of all LAC across the district. Greater retention does enable more resources to be deployed in support of individual children where this is required. The VSH is also responsible for our LAC in OLA and independent provisions and our lack of capacity to monitor this currently was criticised by HMI during the inspection.

·         It would be useful for regular feedback to be given to schools where their provisions for LAC are not judged by the VSH to be adequate. The VSH responded that this will happen following the expansion of the capacity of the Virtual School. The Chair added that schools will wish to see a “more visible” VSH service on the back of increased retention.

·         What will the 50% be spent on – people or grants to schools? The VSH responded that it will be spent on both increasing the size of the central team and also on adding to targeted grants in support of individual pupils.

·         The Forum would like an annual report on the impact of the VSH’s use of funding, which clearly identifies impact on primary & secondary phases separately.

Resolved –

(1)       That the information presented in Document JR, including that Bradford’s Virtual School for Looked After Children will retain           50% of Pupil Premium Plus Grant from April 2019, be noted.

(2)       That the Virtual School’s annual report to the Corporate Parenting       Board, to be published in January, be shared with the Schools Forum.

ACTION: Deputy Director – Education and Learning