avril wilson director of education, social services and ... · director of education, social...

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

Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing Civic Centre, Reading, RG1 7AE � 0118 937 2094 Fax: 0118 937 2278

Schools Forum/Agenda/July 13 Your Ref: Direct: � 0118 937 4706 e-mail: [email protected]

4 July 2013

Your contact is: Chris Pett – Council Resources - Accountancy (0118 937 4706)

NOTICE OF MEETING – SCHOOLS FORUM – 11 July 2013

A meeting of the Schools Forum will be held on 11 July at 4pm at the Meadway Room, Avenue Centre. The Agenda for the meeting is set out below. A training session on the ‘Schools Formula’ will be held at 3.30pm in the same room and this will inform item 10 on the agenda.

AGENDA Page No

1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES -

2. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 MAY 2013 -

3.

MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES/ SCHOOLS FORUM MEMBERSHIP ISSUES (STANDING ITEM) – AN UPDATE PAPER ON THE SENSORY CONSORTIUM SERVICE HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS AND MICHAEL BEAKHOUSE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

-

4. SCHOOLS FORUM TERMS OF REFERENCE UPDATE 1

5. BROADBAND CONTRACT UPDATE 10

6. 2012-13 OUTTURN CONFIRMATION & 2013-14 DSG BUDGET MONITORING 13

7. SCHOOLS BALANCES AS AT 31 MARCH 2013 21

8. EARLY YEARS FUNDING UPDATE 2013-14 25

9. HIGH NEED BLOCK UPDATE 2013-14 29

10. 2014-15 FUNDING CHANGES TO THE FORMULA 35

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

12. PROPOSED DATES/TIMES OF FUTURE MEETINGS -

13. ANY OTHER BUSINESS -

Minutes of the School Forum Meeting

(Draft: subject to agreement at the next meeting)

16 May 2013, 19:00,

Conwy Room, The Avenue Centre

In Attendance: Peter Kayes, Chair of Schools Forum Sarah Mitchell, Headteacher, Blagdon Nursery Charles Clare – Headteacher, Geoffrey Field Junior School Viv Angus, Headteacher, Reading Girls’ School Rob Ketley, Trades Union Rose Turner, 14-19 Partnership, Reading College Julie Kempster, PVI Sector, Under 5’s, Riverside Day Nursery Gill Dunlop, Head Teacher, PRU Kevin McDaniel, Head of Education, Reading Borough Council Avril Wilson, Director, Reading Borough Council Russell Dyer, Reading Borough Council John Ennis, Lead Member, Reading Borough Council Michael Beakhouse, Commissioning Officer, Reading Borough Council (part) Ricky Turner, Business Administrator (Minutes) Apologies: Lisa Telling – Headteacher, Southcote School John Casey, Blessed Hugh Farringdon AM Robson, Headteacher, Reading School Sue Bourne – The Avenue School Eileen McElligott – Governor, English Martyrs Nicola Maytum, Headteacher, John Madejski Academy Kait Nash, Headteacher, St Anne’s School Ann Snowdon, Headteacher, George Palmer Primary Rachel Cave, Headteacher, Highdown School Richard Kearsey, Headteacher, Prospect School Kate Dethridge, Headteacher, Churchend School Chris Kattirzi, Headteacher, Kendrick School Dave Fisher, Reading Borough Council Kim Bergamasco, Reading Borough Council Chris Pett, Reading Borough Council

1. Welcome and Apologies Introductions and apologies were given.

2. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 MARCH 2013

Sarah Mitchell, Headteacher, Blagdon Nursery referred to section 5 of the previous Minutes in March 2013 and stated she was not the School Forum member who talked about reductions. It was agreed that this will be changed to

‘ a member’. All meeting participants agreed they were happy with the rest of the minutes.

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES/ SCHOOLS FORUM MEMBERSHIP- ISSUES

(STANDING ITEM)

It was noted that most of the actions from the last meeting have been carried

forward.

Peter Kayes stated that the early years issue had been dealt with.

Avril Wilson, Director, Reading Borough Council said the person she was working

with on a 360 project has left the authority so she is trying to locate another

volunteer.

Peter Kayes reported he will report back on the transitional funding later on in

the meeting.

4. SENSORY CONSORTIUM SERVICE (VERBAL UPDATE FROM MICHAEL BEAKHOUSE)

Michael Beakhouse (Childrens Commissioning Officer, RBC) reported that since

he last met with the Schools Forum he has had a joint management group

meeting with representatives from other authorities; they looked at cost

effectiveness of the service.

A comparison suggested that the service worked out cheaper than a placement

within a specialist school. Service to service comparisons were noted as difficult

due to the different ways that services are priced, and how much they include as

part of their provision (i.e. other services may not offer the equipment

provision.) National best practice suggests that consortia approach to purchasing

(current used) generates better value and a better service.

Berkshire SCS will ask NATSIP to complete a comparative study of their costs,

while their position is that their prices are based on actual costs and as such any

cuts would involve loss of provision. They will work with the Commissioning

Team to review their prices; the findings & any ideas as to possible cuts will be

discussed in future Schools Forum meetings.

It was noted that while the other LAs have increased their budget to ensure that

the service can deliver the recommended amount of support with pupils with SI

(based on NATSIP guidelines), Reading has not. There is consequently a shortfall

in provision.

In conjunction with this, and previous feedback from schools suggesting that

greater joint working with the service was required, a new joint planning form

was presented for review. This should help to ensure that the service is making

the best use of their time.

No amendments were suggested, although it was noted that the service and RBC

will need to ensure that to much of their time is not taken up with

administrative work. Berkshire SCS has suggested that the form is completed

alongside IEPs.

Guidance around use of SEN funding was also presented. This suggest various

ways that schools can use the funding, and input from Berkshire SCS, to build

capacity within their schools to support SI pupils. This will be sent out to SENCOs

by Chris Stevens.

-Michael Beakhouse left the School Forum-

5. 2013-14 BUDGET BLOCKS (SCHOOLS. HIGH NEEDS AND EARLY YEARS) & DSG

2012-13 OUTTURN (PROVISIONAL)

Russell Dyer Reported that these figures are provisional and subject to closing

and audit, so may change. At the last meeting it was forecasted there would be

a £400,000 surplus but the outturn indicates a figure of has £717,000 surplus for

the 2013 year end. He referred to table 1 on page 6 of the report and stated that

£661,000 was carried forward from the previous year, which accounted for the

bulk of the variance. On table 2, he noted that there SEN pressures in year

including placements and recoupment. The authority had managed underspends

in other service areas and in the contingency to bring this back into line. The

early years underspend this year is fairly minor on the two contingency lines.

The overall DSG surplus will be carried forward to 13/14 and will be used to

mitigate pressures on the high needs block which is a risk area going forward.

As regards DSG grant in 2013/14 an announcement is awaited.

He referred to the transitional protection scheme in appendix 1 in the report. A

couple of the Schools have said they do not want to participate in the scheme

and there are a number of Schools who are not responding despite them being

chased a couple of times. One School said they would opt into the scheme if all

the other schools agreed to opt in. The scheme is on a voluntary basis. They

contacted all the schools; there was not a response from Meadow Park,

Churchend, Emmer Green, Ranikhet and New Town. Blessed Hugh and George

Palmer did not want to participate.

Peter Kayes, Redlands reported that the Schools were all written to.

Kevin McDaniel, Service Manager queried that academies might think their

money is set and ignored the letter. Sarah Mitchell, Blagdon said the Schools

money cannot be played around with. Peter Kayes stated that Schools cannot be

invoiced if they have not responded. Mo Galway, Head Teacher, Wilson Primary

School suggested that there is a phone call made to schools rather then a written

request. Peter Kayes said that the advice was that the scheme could only

progress excluding the schools which did not respond.

Russell Dyer, reported that on the early years block, he had reports that at the

last meeting interim rates were agreed. He referred to appendix 2, please see

attached. Sarah Mitchell will be at the early years meeting. Sarah Mitchell

reported the Reading has the formal 3 band. They do not have lots of

supplements, so the structure of funding will not change but aspects of that

might change. Kevin McDaniel reported that the take up of two years old’s

planning is slower as there is an uncertainty with what will happen in

September.

Rose Turner, Reading College said the SEN budget overspend is large. Russell

Dyer said that this is in terms of SEN recoupment and budget placement

demands, it is difficult to forecast the numbers of children. Historically they

have over spent for a number of years and it is a concern to the School Forum.

Recoupment Schools in west Berkshire and Wokingham often have to fund those

combination of unit costs going up and activity going up. It is a difficult area to

forecast. A surplus is there at the end of the 12/13 year to manage that

pressure. Rose Turner stated Reading College is smaller but they deal with 6

local authorities and have a list of all students that are known. There are very

few that are not known so they have very accurate costs of that area.

Kevin McDaniel reported that Russell Dyer’s team have done some work for SEN

agendas and identified it can actually be done in that area and the children who

are coming through are known. It requires one of Russell Dyer’s team to

understand and simplify this, direction and factors. Mo Galway, Wilson School

said that children are hard to predict sometimes. Kevin McDaniel reported that

children can go continue education until 17, 18 or 19. He said not all of those

children go to that extreme but it needs to be more transparent.

Mo Galway said there needs to be a provision that is right for these children, it is

more important the provision is right rather then it being overspent. Peter Kayes

stated that high quality provision attracts people to come to Reading which adds

to the problem. Mo Galway stated that if places are not available for children

then this is frustrating.

6. SCHOOLS BALANCES AS AT 31 MARCH 2013

Russell Dyer reported that Chris Pett is liaising with Schools on closing balances.

The school balances in 2011/2012/2013 are in the report, at Appendix 1, are

provisional. Changes in regulations mean the balance of control is not within the

Local Authority control but is within the remit of the Schools Forum. Charlie

Clare noted that the Schools Forum scheme had been amended and that often

schools held the funds for entirely reasonable projects.

Peter Kayes reported that this is the second year the Schools forum are

responsible for doing this. Last year Forum asked schools to justify balances

greater than 8% (Primary) or 5% (Secondary). Charlie Clare is to do research to

reassure that these are sensible plans. Mo Galway stated that she thinks it is

good to get the Schools to justify. Rob Ketley, Trade Union reported that one

school is cutting staff and that the balances need to be explained. It is a

worrying contradiction on those two. Peter Kayes noted that the School budget

allocated for the year is meant to be spent for the benefit of children in the

school that year.

Mo Galway stated that there are a lot of School major building programmes at

the moment. It was agreed to obtain further information for those schools with

excess balances, namely what the balances are held for. This would exclude the

exceptions listed in the report.

7. INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF DE-DELEGATED SERVICES

Equality Services

Richard Tyndall introduced the scope of the review. The chair noted that this

was to be treated as an open issue. Research has been done and there are

recommendations in the report for School Forum to consider, ask questions

about and decide whether to accept Richard’s recommendations or not. Rob

Ketley suggested that there is a working group to look at the recommendations

and consequences. The working group can then bring this to the School Forum

meeting with their recommendations.

The Schools Forum read through the report provided by Richard Tyndall. Richard

Tyndall referred to paragraph 6. Equality services expenditure had been broken

down and the School Forum accounts for over half with the elements of the

service supported by the School Forums listed. In his interviews he had found

there was a lack of clarity evident between what was the buy back element of

the service, the core budget and that funded by Schools Forum. He does not

think this reflects badly that people who want to buy into it. Maybe this process

will give people a better understanding.

Rose Turner stated that funding for a lot of these services comes from different

sources. She asked if the decision of the School Forum is about just the School

Forum part, whilst the council maintain the service.

Richard Tyndall drew attention to the funding table. It can be academies,

private sector etc. Managers of some services are not ready to live in a trading

services world and they are more comfortable in a traditional council block of

services. This is a different way of managing costs and some will be better suited

to a trading service operation. Peter Kayes confirmed that £78,000 would

continue regardless of the decision by the School Forum. Rose Turner said there

are a group of people doing the job who are not at the meeting. Kevin McDaniel

reported that one observation is that for specific children they need to make

sure there is always access. It is about how emergency situations are dealt with.

Peter Kayes reported that there are elements of the service that are perceived

as better than others which suggests if it was traded some services would be

bought back and others would not.

Rose Turner enquired how much of the decision about the Schools Forum will

affect the council part. Kevin McDaniel said it varies by service. Equality services

is a full time post carried out by the council, 65% is paid for by the School Forum

and if funding comes part of that, complexities come into play. Peter Kayes

stated that someone has to take a risk with the uncertainty level of buy back. Mo

Galway said that this is unpredictable if people have strings on the old budget.

John Ennis, Lead Member, Reading Borough Council reported that there is a lack

of equality in outcomes. The issue is monitoring what services are given to the

School. He asked what are the Schools Forum doing to close the gap for EAL

students. He asked what equality service does to support this.

Children’s Action Team

Richard Tyndall referred to his report. He highlighted that he interviewed staff

and they were unclear on the School Forum’s contribution and where the money

is spent. Rob Ketley, Trades Union reported that he feels Richard Tyndall’s

report is fine but he feels the budget needs to be unpicked in a different way.

CAT is a Reading creation and services have been developed over recent years,

this is not just a service individually for schools. There are difference services

within the team.

Charles Clare, Geoffrey Field Junior School stated that there are some extremely

valuable elements of the CAT Team. Avril Wilson, Director, Reading Borough

Council stated she would be uncomfortable with the School Forum developing a

debate about a multidisciplinary team. These teams were brought together for a

multi disciplinary approach of different professionals and had the growth of

family workers. She would feel uncomfortable about the School Forum having a

debate about the CAT Team. Kevin McDaniel said the Cat Team was assembled

for a particular reason. This approach includes early intervention with families;

this is a service for all communities and Schools. There is a small contribution of

cost to steer that group.

Sarah Mitchell, Blagdon asked who agreed for the School Forum to contribute

£213,000 to the CAT Team. Russell Dyer stated it was agreed by the Schools

Forum. The School Forum budget can contribute towards Every Child matters,

when it was agreed it allowed under the regulations at that stage. Sarah Mitchell

asked where is the accountability for CAT Team. Kevin McDaniel said that if the

funding was taken away from the CAT Team it would diminish.

Peter Kayes confirmed the model in Reading is similar to the model in Slough. He

confirmed there are locality teams all around the country. John Ennis that it

needs to be explained what the money is used for. He highlighted there are

issues around threshold and some schools feel unsupported by the CAT Team.

Viv Angus, Headteacher, Reading Girls School said that it is frustrating if a family

is declined when referred to the CAT Team and she feels they meet the

threshold, as then they are left with no support. Charles Clare reported that the

CAT Team has made a difference whilst MASH has not improved matters, it has

made things worse. He reported the police are more involved now but

information can’t come to school. Peter Kayes noted that the £213,000 provided

by Schools Forum is a small proportion of the total CAT budget nearly 90% of

which is centrally funded. It is not their decision how the core funding is spent

but they are entitled to the information. Rose Turner said the schools benefit

more then they put into the CAT Team. Richard Tyndall had recommended

continuing the funding in this way for at least a further 12 months.

Behaviour Support

Richard Tyndall reported he has been unravelling the budget in this area and

understanding the distinction between behaviour support and the Cranbury

College Budget. It took him a long while to unravel how the budget fits together.

Primary School Headteachers all reported the service excellent when they had

some very challenging behaviour and needed some help in a hurry. He referred

to his report. Sarah Mitchell queried why it is being recommended the service

goes back to Schools. Richard Tyndall said this is like insurance as it cannot be

predicted when challenging behaviour could be in the School. He asked how an

emergency situation could be sustained. Rose Turner stated that the quality of

the service seems to have had good feedback. She asked if this should be put in

the market place on its own to survive or should this be retained.

Rose Turner asked if the service good, shouldn’t the Schools forum retain it.

Richard Tyndall said there was no feedback that the service is poor, inadequate

or useless. There is lots of praise. He asked if the service should carry on with

retention. Kevin McDaniel said the confusion is about if they should retain a

single good service or choose where to buy a good service from.

Gill Dunlop, Headteacher, PRU asked how this is staffed when there are lots of

emergencies at the same time, if there is a skeleton service and there are

children in schools needing support this cannot be provided by inexperienced

staff. She asked how this is prioritised. She said a working party needs to

consider how an insurance policy service might work and what it might do in

terms of effectiveness.

Mo Galway said her concern would be about not having anything, which seems

drastic. Gill Dunlop said it is complex, there might be five or six teaching

assistants who have some sort of secondary coach mentors high level teaching

assistants who will go into schools. It is not just about budget. Charles Clare

confirmed when specialist people are needed they have to be there.

Richard Tyndall said that secondary, primary and foundation schools pay into the

service but primary is the main user, so there is an equality issue to consider.

The School improvement Service is to look at how this is budgeted. Nearly half a

million pounds will continue to be provided as core funding for this regardless. If

a school gets into trouble and is identified as needing help then there is the

budget to work with to respond to this. There needs to be a central pot for

everyone to draw out of. He discussed SEN and reported that there is a regime

change in funding for SEN young people. He advised this is to be kept a centrally

provided service for people to get help when in trouble.

Parent Line

Richard Tyndall reported he is not clear on how much of the duty is on the

council for Parent Line. Kevin McDaniel reported Parent Line is a number

published to parents so they can get advice. There needs to be two people who

cover the phones for Parent Line but the buy back covers one person. It is an

element of the Governor Services provision.

Richard Tyndall stated that governors speak very highly of Governor Services.

This money may jump from buy back to pot and might increase the tariff for buy

back. Kevin McDaniel stated families can deal with complaints in a considered

way with parent line. Peter Kayes reported that parent line is there for parents

to phone if they are unhappy so schools did not have any direct contact and may

not be fully aware of the service as it is not provided directly to schools. Sarah

Mitchell enquired how do parents know about parent line. Peter Kayes said

there is a complaints leaflet for parents with the parent line telephone number.

Mo Galway said she has used parent line and said the service is very good.

Peter Kayes stated that parent line needs to be available as a service but it is

about how it is funded. Although the vast majority have, not every school has

chosen to buy back Governor Services but Parent Line still needed to be

available to parents of theose schools.

It was agreed that there will be a working group to look at Richard Tyndall’s

recommendations and they will bring back recommendations to the School

Forum in July 2013. It was agreed that Viv Angus, Rob Ketley and Gill Dunlop will

be in the group. School Forum members who are not at the meeting will be

asked if they can join the group.

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Charles Clare reported he is worried about the money set aside for redundancy

for the LSS. He asked if this would cover all staff that may be made redundant.

Russell Dyer responded that funding is set aside and would apply to all staff

regardless of cluster as contributions are from all clusters. They will look to see

if there is enough in the pot and if there is a shortfall they will try and manage

the situation. Academies are being asked for their contribution.

8. AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS (STANDING ITEM)

It was noted that School Forum members were to notify the Chair any further

agenda items.

9. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

11th July 2013, 16:00 at Conwy Room, Avenue

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

TO: Reading Schools Forum

DATE:

11 July 2013

AGENDA ITEM:

N/A

TITLE:

Top-up proposal

SERVICE: Education & Children’s Services

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Michael Beakhouse

TEL: 0118 9373170

JOB TITLE: Childrens Commissioning Officer

E-MAIL: [email protected]

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

1.1 This report discusses historic changes in the caseload numbers of Berkshire SCS. It considers

the implications of possible shortfalls between the number of visits available to these students

and the number of visits that best practice recommends they receive; and makes

recommendations as to how this shortfall could be addressed.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR SCHOOLS FORUM

2.1 To re-instate the option of using “top-up” sessions to meet an identified shortfall in

the number of funded visits that Berkshire SCS provides to Reading schools.

3 POLICY CONTEXT

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.

4 BACKGROUND

4.1 “Top up” refers to additional visits formerly offered by Berkshire SCS. These are provided and

paid for outside of the current contracted hours & budget. For the financial year 2011-2012

and beyond, an agreement was reached to the effect that the then-current level of top-up

would be incorporated into the core budget, on the condition that no further top-up would be

paid.

4.2 There is currently a shortfall in available vs. required sessions; of all 6 Berkshire LAs, Reading

is the only one with a shortfall. It is likely that this will increase during the next academic

year.

4.3 RBC is rolling out some new initiatives that schools could use to reduce this shortfall (or to

minimise its impact):

• Guidance on how SEN budget can be used to support SI students & how schools can build

capacity.

• Joint planning forms for working out level of support that an SI student needs – and which

elements are provided by school/SI teacher.

5 IDENTIFIED NEED

5.1 The amount of students with severe/profound visual impairments (VI) on the Sensory

Consortium Service’s caseload has increased by 78%, while the amount of blind pupils has

increased from 0 to 7 (between 2001- 2013).

5.2 The amount of students with a hearing impairment (HI) on the SCS caseload has risen by 50%

(between 2001- 2013).

5.3 RBC do not currently fund sufficient numbers of visits to meet the increased caseload:

• No. of VI students on caseload - 55 students + support is provided for mobility in

Highdown’s VI resource and The Avenue.

• No. of HI students on caseload - 89 students + provision of Educational Audiology and

equipment for Reading students placed within Unitary Authority Resources.

• Based on best practice1, the service should provide 3410 visits to meet the students’

needs.

• 3122 visits are funded by RBC.

• Consequently there is a shortfall of 259 visits (there would be an additional 91 if SCS did

not provide unfunded support.) These apply to the VI provision; the HI provision meets

recommended levels.

5.4 A larger shortfall is projected for the next academic year:

• New referrals this academic year (to date) = 13 additional HI students, and 18 additional

VI students. It is worth nothing that every year for the following three years, there will be

another blind pupil entering school.

• Based on best practice, the service should provide 3731 visits.

• 3122 visits will be funded by RBC.

• Consequently there would be a shortfall of 609 visits, again applying to the VI provision.

The

• Possible shortfalls within the HI team cannot be identified at present; it will depend on

whether a pupil is successfully moved from one Resource to another or stays on SCS

caseload.

6 PROPOSED OPTION

6.1 This report does not propose that top-up is re-instated and used in all cases where additional

support is needed.

1 Eligibility criteria for scoring support levels (2012) National Sensory Impairment Partnership. Available at:

http://www.natsip.org.uk/index.php/doc-library-login/doc_details/469-eligibility-criteria

6.2 Instead, the proposal is that Schools Forum re-instates the option of using top-up sessions – so

that in the event that schools are unable to resolve the shortfall with the service, top-up

would be available as a “back-up” option.

6.3 In order to mitigate the need for top-up, schools could draw on the aforementioned initiatives

(see above, 4.3) which are described in more detail in 6.4 and 6.5 below:

6.4 Published guidance for schools identifies several ways for schools to build capacity, so that

they can absorb some support duties currently held by Berkshire SCS – thereby minimising the

need for Berkshire SCS’s input.

6.5 The new joint-planning sheets will enable schools to:

- Identify & plan any areas of support that could be delivered by the school.

- Challenge levels of input that appear to be too high, or that are not yielding results.

- Set firm targets for high levels of input & regularly review progress against these targets –

to assess whether the high level of support is working & necessary.

6.6 Top-up sessions may still be required in the event that these initiatives do not resolve the

shortfall. SCS estimate that the total possible number of top-up sessions that could be

required for 2013-2014 would cost £30,000 – although they do not believe that this many

would necessarily be required.

6.7 Please note that in the event that it is required, top-up can only be secured via the annual

review process, accompanied by the SCS joint planning paperwork completed by the school &

SCS teacher. In the event that both parties believe that top-up is required, both the annual

review and the SCS paperwork will be sent to the SEN case officer, for the attention &

approval of the SEN panel (as per current arrangements.)

7 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

7.1 Schools Forum could decide not to reinstate top-up. In this event, Berkshire SCS will attempt

to use the existing quota of visits to support the students on their caseload. In order to do so,

sessions would be directed mainly to the profound students who would otherwise sit within

specialist/resource provisions. This is because a high level of input is usually required in order

for mainstream schools to include the students.

7.2 This will reduce the amount of sessions available to lower-needs (moderate-severe students.)

Best practice suggests that attainment is lower amongst moderate-severe students – possibly

because they already receive less input than profound students2. Reducing input even further

could potentially widen this gap.

7.3 Best practice also suggests that reducing support is likely to trigger more requests for

statutory assessment, which can increase spending in the medium term3.

7.4 Please note that at the present time, targets set for students by the SCS are based around

what is achievable within the available sessions. As such there is currently no way to show

that the shortfall is detrimental to service outcomes.

7.5 For these reasons, this does not appear to be a viable option.

2 NATSIP outcomes benchmarking report (2012) National Sensory Impairment Partnership. 3 Protecting specialist services for children with vision impairment (2012) Royal National Institute for the Blind.

1


REPORT BY COUNCIL RESOURCES


DATE: 11 July 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 4

TITLE: Schools Forum Terms of Reference

SERVICE: Education & Children’s

Services

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Chris Pett

TEL: 0118 937 4706

JOB TITLE: Principal Accountant -

Schools



1.1 This report seeks agreement from Schools’ Forum to changes to the Terms of

Reference for Schools Forum.


2.1 To agree proposed changes to the Terms of Reference for Schools Forum

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 TERMS OF REFERENCE CHANGES

4.1 The Terms of Reference have been updated to reflect the latest legislation

and guidance regarding Schools’ Forums.

4.2 A revised Terms of Reference is shown under Appendix 1.

4.3 Sections 1.3 and 1.4 reflect the new powers Schools Forum has been given

through recent legislation.

2

4.4 Please note a new section (section 6 Responsibilities of school members) that

has been added to reflect recent guidance from the DfE.

4.5 The Terms of Reference does not include reference to an expanded role that

has been suggested in previous meetings.

4.6 The number of academy members will be reviewed in the Autumn following

the conversion of George Palmer School to academy status.

3

APPENDIX 1

SCHOOLS FORUM

TERMS OF REFERENCE (Draft July 2013)

1 PURPOSE OF SCHOOLS FORUM

1.1 These Terms of Reference are written in accordance with The Schools Forums

(England) Regulations 2012.

1.2 Reading Borough Council shall consult the Schools Forum on:

a) any proposed changes to the schools funding formula and the Early

Years Single Funding Formula and the financial effect of any such

change

b) the terms of any proposed contract for the supply of goods or services

to Reading schools or changes to existing contracts

c) The financial implications of RBC’s functions in relation to the School

Budget including:

i) the arrangements to be made for the education of pupils with

special educational needs

ii) the arrangements for the use of pupil referral units and the

education of children otherwise than at school

iii) arrangements for early years education

iv) administrative arrangements for the allocation of central

government grants paid to schools via the authority

d) Any other matters concerning the funding of schools which the Council

sees fit.

e) Exemptions to the rules governing the Minimum Funding Guarantee.

The final decision rests with the DfE.

1.3 RBC must obtain Schools’ Forum approval for: -

a) central spend on: -

i) the Growth Fund

ii) equal pay back-pay

iii) places in independent schools for non-SEN pupils

iv) early years expenditure

b) central spend up to the value committed in the previous year on: -

i) admissions

4

ii) servicing of Schools’ Forum

iii) carbon reduction commitment

iv) capital expenditure funded from revenue (CERA)

v) contribution to combined budgets

vi) termination of employment costs

vii) prudential borrowing costs

c) changes to the Scheme for the financing of schools.

d) carry forward of a deficit on central expenditure to the next year to be

funded from the Schools’ Budget.

1.4 RBC must obtain Schools’ Forum approval from members representing the

relevant phase of maintained schools for the following de-delegations from

mainstream maintained schools: -

a) contingencies for support for new/closing/amalgamating schools,

schools in financial difficulty, closing school deficits

b) staff costs – supply cover (including union duties)

c) support for minority ethnic pupils/underachieving groups

d) behaviour support services

e) insurance

f) licences/subscriptions

g) administration of free school meals

h) library and museum services

1.5 Where RBC requires Schools’ Forum’s approval and that agreement is not

forthcoming, the Council has the option of approaching the DfE to adjudicate.

2 MEMBERSHIP

2.1 In accordance with the Regulations the Schools Forum shall consist of 21

members comprised as follows:

Group Sub-group Schools members

Non schools members

Total

Head teachers 1 1 Nursery

Governor 1 1 Head teachers 5 5

Primary Governors 2 2

Secondary Not applicable 2 2 Academy Not applicable 5 5 Special Not applicable 1 1 PRU Not applicable 1 1 Non Schools Joint Trades Union 1 1

14-19 Partner ship

1 1

Early Years PVI 1 1

Total 18 3 21

5

2.2 The proposed membership is in accordance with the following requirements of

the Regulations: -

• that Schools’ members and Academies members must together comprise at

least two thirds of the membership of the forum.

• that its schools members represent all types of school which RBC maintains

including the PRU.

• that at least one member must be a representative of the governing

bodies of maintained schools and at least one member must be a

representative of the head teachers of such schools.

• Primary schools, secondary schools and academies must be broadly

proportionately represented, having regard to the total number of pupils

registered at them.

3 METHOD AND TERM OF APPOINTMENT

3.1 Schools Members – Maintained primary and nursery schools

3.1.1 RBC will invite head teachers and school governors to nominate their

representatives. In the event that more nominations are received than places

available, elections will be held to achieve an appropriate number of school

representatives. Where a vacancy for a schools member (head teacher or

governor) arises, the Head of Education and Commissioning, in consultation

with the Lead Member, will have delegated authority to appoint a

replacement elected by the members of the relevant group or sub-group.

3.1.2 Each representative sub-group shall be responsible for the method by which

they elect and nominate their representatives, ensuring that everyone who is

eligible for election has the opportunity to stand for election and /or vote

should they so wish. RBC will make a formal written record both of the

composition of the Schools Forum and the methods by which each sub-group

chooses to elect and nominate its representatives.

3.1.3 If an election does not take place by any date set by RBC or any such election

results in a tie between two or more candidates, RBC must appoint the

schools member to Schools’ Forum instead.

3.1.4 The term of appointment for all school members is as set out below. If during

the period of appointment a member ceases to be eligible to the appointment

then they will be required to resign from the Forum and a replacement

representative sought for the remainder of the vacant representative’s

normal term of appointment.

Head teachers elected annually

School governors elected for a period of 4 years

3.2 School members – Maintained secondary, special schools and PRU

6

3.2.1 The maintained secondary, special school and PRU members must be elected

by the governing bodies of their respective groups. The members do not

necessarily have to be a head teacher or governor.



maintained secondary or maintained special school member to Schools’ Forum

instead.

3.2.3 The maintained secondary and special school members would be elected

annually.

3.3 Academy Members

3.3.1 The academy members must be elected by the governing bodies of the

academies. The members do not necessarily have to be a head teacher or

governor.



academy member to Schools’ Forum instead.

3.3.3 The academy members would be elected annually.

3.4 Non Schools Members

3.4.1 RBC will invite nominations for non-school members from the Joint Trades

Union Committee, the 14-19 Partnership and the early years Private,

Voluntary and Independent (PVI) sector. Where a vacancy for a non schools

member arises, RBC will seek nominations from the relevant body for a

replacement.

3.4.2 A non schools member shall remain in office until s/he resigns or until the

relevant body makes a further nomination to replace him/her.

3.4.3 Within one month of the appointment of any non-schools member, RBC must

inform the governing bodies of schools maintained by RBC and the academies

of the name of the member and the name of the body that member

represents.

3.5 Chair

3.5.1 Forum members shall elect a person as chair and vice chair from among their

number. The Forum may not elect as chair any member of the Forum who is

an elected member or officer of RBC. The term of office of the elected chair

will be 2 years.

7

4 CONDUCT OF MEETINGS

4.1 Frequency and Time

4.1.1 The Forum must meet a minimum of four times a year. Any sub-groups

established by the Forum will set their own timetables. Meetings will take

place in the early evening or late afternoon to enable as many members and

observers to attend as possible.

4.2 Quorum

4.2.1 The Forum will be quorate if a minimum of 40% of all members is present at a

meeting. Whilst there is nothing to stop it continuing to meet if it is

inquorate, any advice given to RBC in such circumstances would not have to

be taken into account.

4.2.2 Substitute members may be sent by the representative school or non-school

members but in such circumstances the nomination must be acceptable to the

majority of members present at the meeting. In case of voting, substitute

members must be made known to the Chair at the start of the meeting.

4.2.3 The proceedings of the forum shall not be invalidated by

• any vacancy among their numbers

• any defect in the election or appointment of any member

• any defect in the election of the chair.

4.3 Observers

4.3.1 The Diocese of Oxford and Diocese of Portsmouth shall each be entitled to

nominate an observer.

4.3.2 The Education Funding Agency has been granted observer status at Schools

Forum meetings by the Secretary of State.

4.3.3 The following persons may speak at meetings at the discretion of the Chair

even though they are not members of the forum: -

a) the Director of Education, Social Services and Housing or their

representative

b) the Chief Finance Officer or their representative

c) the Lead Member for Education and the Lead Member for Children’s

Services and Families

d) the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council

e) any person who is invited by the Forum to attend in order to provide

financial or technical advice to the Forum

8

f) an observer appointed by the Secretary of State

g) any person presenting a paper or other item to the Forum that is on the

meeting’s agenda.

4.4 Voting procedures

4.4.1 Members of the Schools Forum shall determine their own voting procedures.

In the event of a vote, voting will be recorded by a show of hands on the basis

of one member one vote. Only members are eligible to vote, not observers.

4.4.2 Non-schools members, other than those who represent early years providers,

must not vote on matters relating to the funding formulae to be used to

determine the amounts to be allocated to schools and early years providers.

4.4.3 Only members representing the relevant phase of maintained mainstream

schools may vote on de-delegations.

4.5 Sub-committees or working groups

4.5.1 The Forum may set up sub-committees or working groups as required

4.6 Public attendance

4.6.1 Meetings of the Forum shall be public meetings. Meetings of sub-committees

or working groups will be private whilst ensuring that all recommendations

are reported for the approval of the Forum.

4.7 Declarations of Interest

4.7.1 Members are required to make declarations of interest whenever relevant, for

example when the Forum is considering matters relating to service contracts.

4.8 Urgent business

4.8.1 On occasions when there is an urgent business need for a decision or view to

be expressed by the Forum before the next scheduled meeting, RBC may

either:

• call an unscheduled meeting, or

• seek views from forum members by email correspondence, providing all

members of the Forum have an opportunity to participate.

4.8.2 Such instances should be kept to a minimum. When they do occur, the Chair

will be responsible for giving RBC the Forum’s view on an urgent issue, but

s/he may not make a decision on the Forum’s behalf.

4.9 Administration

4.9.1 Agendas and papers will be dispatched at least one week prior to the meeting

prior to the meeting at which they will be discussed. Delays in the dispatch of

9

papers needing to be tabled are sometimes unavoidable. The late dispatch of

papers should occur in exceptional circumstances only, but when this

happens, the Chair shall have discretion to take a view on deferring the

agenda item to give Forum members sufficient time to consider the item

properly.

4.9.2 Minutes of Forum meetings will be dispatched to members within 4 weeks of

the date of the meeting to enable them to see the outcome of any discussions

and decisions of votes. The accuracy of the minutes will be formally agreed at

the subsequent meeting of the Forum.

4.9.3 The Chair must decide upon an agenda for a meeting of the Forum following

consultation with members of the Forum.

4.9.4 RBC will publish all papers considered by the Forum and the minutes of

meetings on its website.

5 EXPENSES

5.5 RBC will reimburse all reasonable expenses of members in connection with

attendance at meetings of the Forum. The level of reimbursement will be at

the normal rate allowable to those members for the role in which they are

representatives on the Forum.

6 RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOL MEMBERS

6.1 Schools can expect to have their views canvassed and to receive feedback

from School Members, who have a responsibility to represent the interests of

their peer group rather than the interests of their individual school.

Easynet Broadband Outage

10




DATE: 11 July 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 5

TITLE: Information on recent broadband outage experienced by schools

SERVICE: Corporate ICT

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Tracey Sloan &

Rajvinder Chima

TEL: 0118 939 0398

JOB TITLE: Business Partnership

& Education Systems



1.1 This report outlines the issues experienced by schools during the recent

Easynet broadband outage and the steps currently being undertaken to ensure

that this does not happen again.


2.1 To review the attached Major Incident Report received from Easynet.

2.2 To review the attached Service Improvement plan suggested by Easynet.

2.3 To note the request to Easynet for Service Credits.

2.4 To review progress of Service Improvement plan and Service Credit

request in three months.

3 CONTEXT

3.1 Request received from C Clare Vice-chair of School’s Forum for an Officer

report on the broadband outages recently experienced by schools and the

general level of service received from Easynet.


11

4 BACKGROUND

4.1 Easynet provide managed broadband services to Primary schools (with the

exception of 1 school) and Reading Girls’ School under a call off contract with

the Local Authority. The contract runs until 31st March 2014.

4.2 Services provided under the contract are non-contended internet provision of

10 or 100Mbps, core transit line, SMTP email feed, web filtering, domain

name hosting and provision of web space. Schools are increasingly reliant on

internet provision for curriculum delivery, essential communication between

schools and the LA via email, MIS upgrades, backup services and monitoring of

building management systems.

4.3 On 18th March 2013 a number of schools reported intermittent slow internet

browsing speeds. Investigation by Easynet showed that the core transit line

(the backbone to our Reading network that all school lines ultimately feed in

to) had a bottleneck due to very high traffic. Resolution suggested by Easynet

was to increase the size of the transit line to 300Mbp which they undertook

free of charge, this change took effect on 3rd April. Investigation by Raj

Chima, Education Systems Manager showed that this had a positive impact on

schools although we continue to monitor broadband utilisation. Some schools

continue to show high utilisation although reported speeds are ok and this is

fed back to the relevant Desktop Service Provider to look in to. Suggestion is

that some school PC’s are individually drawing down Microsoft Security

Updates and virus definition files rather than these being accessed once and

then pushed out across the internal school network.

4.4 March\April Officers continue to monitor utilisation and network status.

4.5 On Sunday 19th May 2013 alarms are triggered on Easynet’s monitoring system

for a number of schools, investigations show that the lines are not actually

down but browsing speeds are very slow.

4.6 On Monday 20th May 2013 the Education Systems Manager receives a number of

calls from schools, internet browsing speed is so slow to make it unusable,

email services are still running. Issue is impacting all schools and calls are

logged on schools behalf both by Desktop Service Providers and the Education

Systems Manager.

4.7 21/22nd May - Issues are on-going, major incident process has been triggered

(report attached) and issue is escalated to Director level within Easynet and

to Kevin McDaniel and Mike Ibbitson (Corporate ICT Manager) within Reading

Borough Council. Officers continue to proactively communicate with schools

both via telephone and email.

4.8 23rd May 2013 full service is restored.


12

4.9 24th May - Schools report issues again, Easynet investigation shows a DNS

attack targeting a Reading school which is responding due to an open firewall

port on the Easynet network.

4.10 25th May - firewall issue addressed and service restored to all schools.

4.11 5th June - Easynet experiences a denial of service attack impacting on the

service for all Easynet customers. Issue resolved by end of day.

4.12 6th June - Schools report Internet available and seems stable.

4.13 18th June Service Review meeting held with Easynet (Alan Fogden and Roy

Colpaert plus two colleagues on a conference call), all schools and Desktop

Service Providers are invited, 3 out of 8 DSP’s attend (SoftEgg, Waterman

Solutions and Stuart J Green Digital Engineering), representatives from 5

schools attend (Katesgrove Primary, Southcote Primary, The Hill Primary,

Emmer Green Primary and Battle Academy). Officer representation is Raj

Chima, Tracey Sloan and Joanne Maynard. Service report for previous quarter

(not including May) is reviewed and issue of outage is discussed. Full and

frank exchange of views from Schools, DSP’s and Officers to Easynet.

4.14 Subsequent meeting is held on the 18th with Alan Fogden, Roy Colpaert, Kevin

McDaniel, Raj Chima, Tracey Sloan and Joanne Maynard. At this meeting we

explain our dissatisfaction with the service received from Easynet on behalf of

our schools and formally request service credits (£ x school x days outage).

We also request a full health check of the Reading network on a school by

school basis, and a service improvement plan (attached).

5 Next Steps

5.1 Service Credits – Issue of service credits is currently sat with Easynet’s legal

team, we expect a response by 5th July. RBC’s legal team are aware of the

situation as is SEGFL who hold the main contract for broadband provision.

5.2 Review of actions on Service Improvement Plan – on-going.

5.3 Further Service Review meeting planned in September (date to be

confirmed), Schools and Desktop Service Providers will be invited, aim is to

make this a quarterly meeting.

5.4 Discussions have taken place with Schools Forum ICT Sub-group around future

broadband provision and options for schools (individual procurement, cluster

procurement, all school procurement). Further meeting planned in

September where options will be discussed and fed back to Schools Forum.

Continuous Service Improvement Plan

Customer Reading BC

Contact Tracey Sloane

Date Plan Created 25-Jun-13

Version 1.00

RAG Status RED AMBER GREEN

CONTINUOUS SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Easynet Service Management Passionate and Responsive

2

PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to identify key areas of the service and support elements delivered by EASYNET that require additional focus to improve or enhance the overall Customer Experience. The service improvement plan is a continuous improvement document and has been formulated to begin addressing key process areas for improvement and, in line with specific requirements highlighted.

SCOPE Specific Improvement Objectives are identified via business as usual meetings, specific issues that have arisen or, via feedback through Client Satisfaction programs or other analysis methods such as MoSCoW. Items are then outlined in this improvement plan to identify the underlying cause together with the necessary steps required to develop the service offering. Each objective is assigned sponsors and owners who are responsible for ensuring the objective is met within the timescales outlined.

RESPONSIBILITY The EASYNET Service Manager will ultimately remain responsible for all items identified within the plan and communicate any corrective actions taken/ completion of objectives to nominated personnel within.

CONTINUITY The Service Improvement Plan is a continuous planning and support document that will continue to address items and output to new projects or work streams that will develop or enhance the overall Customer Experience.

RAG STATUS The CSIP will carry a Red Amber Green status against each improvement objective and an overall status to reflect the cumulative total.

RED Overdue Completion / Dissatisfied

AMBER At Risk / Some Dissatisfaction

GREEN On Schedule /

Satisfied

CONTINUOUS SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Easynet Service Management Passionate and Responsive

3

1. Improvement Objective Improved network performance and customer satisfaction Objective Rag

Measure Of Success All schools satisfied with the performance of their individual connection. OWNER Roy Colpaert

Date Objective Added 25.06.2013 SPONSOR

ID RAG Date Added Key Area/Issue or Problem Underlying Causes Improvement Action Task Owner Comments PCD ACD Status

A Red 25-Jun-13 speed and latency issues impacting the schools

Full audit of the Reading solution

Problem Management

30-Jul-13

Open

B Red 25.06.2013 High latency to the Easynet DNS servers

Investigate why there is high latency to those servers

Problem Management

30-Jul-13

Open

C Red 25-Jun-13 Southcote upload speed is8.5Mb on a 10Mb Leased Line

The full audit should bring to light any issues impacting Southcote

Problem Management

30-Jul-13

Open

D Red 25.06.2013 Lack of direct contacts with the schools and their DSP's

Update the Customer Informaion Guide with the school and DSP contact details

Roy Colpaert 15-Jul-13

Open

E Red 25.06.2013 "DNS applied rule" should not have been enable on the REading BC firewall.

Check whether the "dns implied rule" was part of the original conf of the FW or if this was applied following a FireWall Change Request

Roy Colpaert

15.06.2013

Open

Incident reported by: Reading BC

Easynet Reference: Parent ticket: 327531 (19/05)

Product/Service: Reading BC schools

Affected Service/Circuit ID:

Ticket Type & Priority: P2 – High Priority

Incident Description

Loss of connectivity or degraded service for Reading BC schools

Cause of Incident

19?05: Domain Name System (DNS) attack impacting Reading BC only.

05/06: Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack impacting multiple customers.

Summary 19/05:

Pro-active ticket 327531 is logged (9pm) as 11 schools are showing alarms in Spectrum (monitoring tool)

Initial tests indicate that the schools aren’t actually down but that the alarms are due to a FW flap on the Reading cluster.

This is raised with the on-call Network Security Team. No further issues are identified but ticket is left open for further monitoring.

20/05:

All schools are reporting performance and/or connectivity issues. Initial checks of several routers come back clear and both FW’s can see each other so there seem no obvious network issues.

Following more schools reporting performance issues both FW’s are remotely rebooted.

The remote reboot has made little difference to the reported issues so a physical reboot of both FW’s and the Management Platform is requested.

21/05:

MDSI confirms physical reboot of the requested devices (1am). All schools are up with no drops or packet loss though due to the time there is very little traffic on the Reading BC network. Ticket is left open for further monitoring and feedback from schools later in the day.

All schools report performance issues again. To rule out any FW issues traffic is forced on the secondary FW but connectivity remains intermittent. This seems to point to an utilisation issue and not a FW issue. Interface duplex setting are checked but no errors found.

Ticket is escalated to the Network Security Team in DE to check whether the FW is being over utilised resulting in the packet loss and drops or if there are any issues with the FW’s themselves.

During the day the alarms cleared, school were reachable but there were incrementing CRC’s on the LAN interface, no drops on the WAN connection, but several of the schools impacted over the past 2 days seem to have speed and duplex mismatches. No issues seen or identified on the Easynet core network.

Engineers to check with Reading BC and schools whether any internal work has been done over the weekend that would explain the identified mismatches.

Company Name: Reading BC Issued by

Roy Colpaert

Report Requester: Tracey Sloan Date of Report:

13/06/2013

E-mail address: [email protected] Date of Problem:

19/05 & 05/06

22/05:

Reading advises that no changes have been applied over the weekend and the schools are still reporting issues.

SM escalates ticket to Problem Management as there is still no clear indication as to what the root cause may be.

Engineers Identified HSRP flaps on the Reading PE's for all Vlans for Reading BC.

No other customer are impacted or reporting any issues. Investigating a possible layer 2 issues.

Engineers have also systematically shut/unshut different ports between the MPLS switches and the customer switches and also the Ether channel between the 2 Reading switches but still no root cause.

Following extensive trouble shooting Problem Management escalates the ticket to the Engineering Department (5pm)

Engineering was unable to identify any issues and during testing all connections that had issues during the day were working fine.

23/05:

Reading confirms that everything seems ok again with schools reporting no connectivity or performance issues.

Ticket is left open for further monitoring.

24/05:

Reading calls in to report recurrence of exactly the same issue for all schools.

SM escalates ticket to Problem Management (PM)

Further investigations by Problem Management identified that a device at Southcote Primary is targeted by an IP in the Netherlands which is sending DNS requests to that Southcote device which is responding to these requests uploading large UDP packets to the internet.

This does not mean that Southcote is the cause of this, it simply means that a device at that school has been targeted externally and is doing the job that it is supposed to do, i.e. reply to dns requests.

This high volume traffic (of dns requests) is flooding the entire Reading school network slowing down access for all schools.

25/05:

The Tech Ops team confirms they identified a DNS attack on Reading public ranges.

Logs show, that there had been on-going DNS with spoofed IP DoS Attack.

There were hundreds of DNS requests per second destined towards random IPs on the school end.

The fix was to disable the “DNS implied rule” on the firewall, based on the premise that only explicitly permitted traffic should be permitted, otherwise dropped/denied.

Tech Ops also added a DNS drop rule to the Reading firewall clean-up rule (disabled logging).

After the implied rules were disabled we saw that inbound traffic dropped to a bare minimum.

As the schools are on half term this week Reading won’t be able to confirm that the fault is resolved until the schools are back.

Schools using their own DNS servers will need to call in to get these added to the FW or have some changes applied following the blocking of any to any DNS requests to stop the DNS attack.

03/06:

Several schools call in for DNS issues which are logged in separate tickets and DNS servers added or changes applied to allow DNS traffic following the above fix.

No other performance issues are reported but parent ticket is left open for further monitoring.

04/06:

No issues reported

05/06:

At 11am the Easynet Service Desk can see alarms for multiple Reading schools indication loss of service. Reading BC is contacted and confirms this.

SM escalates ticket to TCOPS and Problem Management (PM)

ARBOR monitoring tool indicates a DDOS Attack which is confirmed by PM.

This is also impacting other customers so is different from the previous DNS attack which impacted Reading BC only.

Engineers confirm that multiple connections dropped due to a widespread DDoS attack originating from multiple prefixes and entering the Easynet network from all public Internet Exchanges points.

That attack generated a huge amount of traffic saturating a backbone link going to the Easynet Slough access router. The attack was mitigated by null routes applied to public IX entry points.

The destination prefix was identified and engineers stopped the DDOS Attack by blocking first those entry points passing the highest levels of traffic and then targeting the minor entry points in decreasing order.

At 12:20 Reading confirms that schools are coming back online.

At 14:00 DDOS attack has re-occurred impacting multiple customers and sites.

Engineers applied additional filters to stop traffic flooding the Slough Access Router again.

Reading confirms schools are back on line and stable.

Ticket is left open for further monitoring.

Easynet Resolution DNS port blocked on the Firewall (DNS attack)

Affected IP Addresses filtered within Easynet Core Network (DDOS attack)

Date & Time Ticket Opened

19.05.2013 - 20:12

Date & Time Ticket Closed

12.06.2013 - 15:06

Escalations Performed Up to Level 4 – Director Level

Outturn and Budget Update

13




DATE: 11 July 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 6

TITLE: Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) 2012/13 Outturn, 2013/14 DSG and

2013/14 Budget Blocks


Services

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Russell Dyer

TEL: 0118 939 0398

JOB TITLE: Head of Finance,

Education and Children’s

Services



1.1 This report identifies the position on the pre audit outturn for the schools

budget in 2012/13. It also identifies the latest position with regard to the

DSG in 2013/14 and any other schools budget related budget issues in the

current financial year.


2.1 To confirm the outturn position for 2012/13, a £690k surplus

2.2 To note the latest DSG figure for 2013/14.

2.3 To note the early budget monitoring figures for 2013/14, namely a £500k

pressure on the high needs block before the £690k surplus rolled forward

from 2012/13 is taken into account.

3 POLICY CONTEXT



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.


14

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 October 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.

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 PRE AUDIT OUTTURN ON SCHOOLS BUDGET 2012/13

5.1 The table below is the pre audit outturn position as at the end of 2012/13.

These figures have changed slightly since the last meeting. We previously

reported a £717k surplus, however the surplus being reported now is £690k.

Table 1: RBC’s pre audit outturn position on the Schools Budget as at 31 March 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 -0.029 14.615

Less Other Income (1.096) 0 (1.096)

Total 70.847 -0.690 70.157

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

underspends on individual schools budgets are carried forward on the schools

budget. There is a separate report on the agenda on ISB outturn called

schools balances as at 31 March 2013.

5.3 The variances on the Centrally Retained Budget are highlighted in the table

below:


15

Table 2: RBC’s pre audit outturn position on the Schools Budget as at 31 March 2013 with key variances

Total Budget

(£m)

Variance

(£m)

Outturn

(£m)

External Placements 2.781 +0.318 3.099

SEN Recoupment 3.200 +0.918 4.118

Support for Schools in difficulty 0.200 +0.003 0.203

Contingency 1.898 -0.507 1.391

PRUs 0.959 -0.026 0.933

Support for Inclusion 0.567 -0.127 0.440

Behaviour Support 0.426 -0.011 0.415

Education out of school 0.524 -0.014 0.510

SEN Provision With statements 1.226 -0.004 1.222

SEN Support Services 0.207 -0.047 0.160

School meals & milk & kitchens 0.219 -0.066 0.153

Admissions 0.108 0 0.108

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 -0.094 0.320

SEN Transport 0.100 0 0.100

Combined Budgets 0.803 -0.096 0.707

Support to underperforming

groups

0.419 -0.186 0.233

Miscellaneous 0.070 0 0.070

Redundancy 0.025 -0.025 0

Carbon Tax 0.100 -0.034 0.066

Capital + Prudential Borrowing 0.247 -0.021 0.226

Schools Forum 0.020 0 0.020

Other 0.015 0 0.015

Total 14.644 -0.029 14.615

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

£3.15m in 2013/14 (excluding contingency amounts as noted below).

Variances of the actual versus budget for early years are shown in the

contingency table below.

5.6 The contingency balance is broken down as per the below:

Table 3 Contingency Outturn (Pre Audit) 2012-13

Category 12-13

£000 Variance

£000 Infant Class Size allocations 159 (75)


16

Newly Qualified Teachers 261 (69) Statemented Pupils adjustments 111 7 General Contingency 104 (44) DSG adjustments and formula errors 53 (151) Language Link 20 (20) SEN overspend 50 (21) ASD resource unit at a primary school 16 0 Resource units 50 (7) CRB checks 27 14 Expanding Schools 343 77 The Avenue expansion 224 0 Possible expansion of Phoenix 90 (90) In year admissions 50 0 Early Years 250 (76) Early Years Full time places 90 (52) TOTAL 1,898 (507)

5.7 An application to the contingency panel for the Ridgway School in respect of

an early years overpayment was not granted, however the Panel agreed that

the clawback period should be extended from 6 months to 2 years instead.

6 DSG 2013/14

6.1 As the DSG is now based on October census numbers the DfE are able to

confirm DSG amounts for the Schools Block and Early Years Block prior to the

beginning of the financial year.

6.2 Recoupment for academies and adjustments to the High Needs Block for

direct funding by the EFA have also been published.

6.3 The allocations published most recently for Reading Borough Council are

summarised in the table below.

Table 4: RBC’s final DSG allocations for Schools and Early Years Blocks for 2013-14

Allocations

before

recoupment

(£m)

Allocations

after

recoupment

(£m)

Schools Block 68.9 49.4

Early Years Block 7.4 7.4

High Needs Block 16.1 14.4

Additional (mainly 2 year old) 2.0 2.0

Total 94.4 73.2


17

6.4 The Authority transferred funding between the blocks as summarised in the

table below.

Table 5: RBC’s transfers between blocks for 2013-14

Schools

(£m)

Early

Years

(£m)

High

Needs

(£m)

Total

(£m)

Amount per DfE 68.9 9.4 16.1 94.4

Academy Resource Unit funding adjustment -0.4 0.4

Delegation of bands 4, 5 and part of 6 1.1 -1.1

AWPU of pupils in resource units -0.3 0.3

Learning Support Service funding previously

held by Norcot Nursery

0.2 -0.2

Funding transfer for nurture groups -0.1 0.1

Amount after inter-block transfers 69.4 9.2 15.8 94.4

6.5 The High Needs block figure includes £157k additional funding to meet

existing commitments that was added to the DSG after the Authority wrote to

the DfE. This funding is in addition to the budget figures shown in Appendix 1.

7 SCHOOLS BUDGET 2013/14

7.1 Schools have now been notified of their budgets and were due to make

returns by 31 May. A small number of schools have not made returns due to

issue of special needs funding and this is considered on a separate report on

the agenda. In addition a number of schools have set deficit budgets and the

Authority are presently in discussion with those schools regarding recovery

plans.

7.2 We have communicated with schools participating in the transitional

protection scheme noting the arrangements as agreed at the last meeting and

have issued invoices to those schools who are contributors.

7.3 In addition we have written to schools in the West for contributions towards

running the Learning Support Service for a period of time, including Academy

contributions towards the costs of restructuring.

8 BUDGET MONITORING 2013/14

8.1 The detailed budget monitoring in new format is attached as appendix 1 to

the report. This shows that the high needs block is presently forecast to

overspend by £0.5m. This may be offset by the surplus of £690k from 2012/13

noted above, however this would need to be subject to approval by Schools

Forum.


18

8.3 Whilst presently there is an underspend on growth fund/ infant class size

adjustments in the schools budget (see Appendix 2), this is at present being

held back in case any pressures flow from set up costs for free schools. Infant

class size funding adjustments will be made termly.

8.4 A future pressure may arise on redundancy costs for the Learning Support

Service if these costs are in excess of the funds that have already been

provided for (circa £100k).

8.5 Schools Forum is asked to note the current position on budget monitoring and

given any comment on the new style format as shown at Appendix 1. Further

updates will provide to future meetings of Schools Forum.

05/07/2013 20

Appendix 1: 2013/14 DSG BUDGET MONITORING

Total Budget

(£m)

Variance

(£m)

Outturn

(£m)

Early Years

Block

High Needs

Block

Schools

Block

High Needs top up funding 8.648 0.500 9.148 9.148

Other AP provision 2.266 2.266 2.266

SEN support services 1.065 1.065 1.065

Pupil Growth – Infant Class Size 1.027 1.027 1.027

Contribution to Combined Budgets 0.801 0.801 0.801

Central Expenditure Under 5s 0.702 0.702 0.702

Support for Inclusion 0.362 0.362 0.007 0.322 0.034

Behaviour Support 0.240 0.240 0.240

Equal Pay – Back Pay 0.200 0.200 0.008 0.002 0.190

Capital Expenditure from Revenue 0.197 0.197 0.039 0.016 0.142

Support to UPEG and EAL 0.170 0.170 0.035 0.135

Contingencies 0.135 0.135 0.135

Hospital Education Service 0.115 0.115 0.115

Schools Admissions 0.108 0.108 0.004 0.001 0.103

Carbon Tax 0.100 0.100 0.004 0.001 0.095

SEN Transport 0.100 0.100 0.100

Staff costs supply cover 0.050 0.050 0.050

Prudential Borrowing Costs 0.050 0.050 0.002 0.001 0.047

Exceptions Agreed by SoS 0.031 0.031 0.031

Termination of Employment Costs 0.025 0.025 0.025

Servicing of Schools Forum 0.020 0.020 0.020

Total 16.412 0.500 16.912 0.766 13.072 3.075

12/13 Surplus (0.690)

Total 16.412 (0.690)

Individual Schools Budget 70.201 3.800 66.401

SEN Placements (First 10k) 3.030 3.030

Early Years 2-4 year old Funding 4.598 4.598

Total 77.829 77.829 8.398 3.030 66.401

Total ALL 94.241 (0.190) 94.051 9.164 16.102 69.478

05/07/2013 20

Appendix 2

Expanding school allocations 2013-14

School cost

centre School Name Expanding/bulge

class

Funded number

of children

Expected number

of children Year group(s)

In-year allocation

3084 Katesgrove Expanding 45 45 15 Yr 5 & 30 Yr 3 84,689

3128 New Christchurch Expanding 9 9 Rec. 2 & 7 Yr 6 16,937

3126 Wilson Expanding 30 30 Yr 3 56,459

3106 St Johns Expanding 22 22 Yr 2 41,403

3050 Alfred Sutton 2nd Bulge 30 30 Yr 1 56,459

3074 EP Collier Bulge 30 30 Reception 56,459

3076 Geoffrey Field Infant Expanding 20 20 Yr 1 37,639

3088 Micklands Bulge 30 30 Reception 56,459

3090 Moorlands 2nd Bulge 30 9 Yr 1 56,459

3092 New Town Bulge 30 0 Reception 56,459

3102 Southcote Bulge 30 18 Reception 56,459

3112 St Michaels 2nd Bulge 30 30 Yr 1 56,459

3116 The Hill Bulge 30 30 Reception 56,459

3118 The Ridgeway Bulge 30 30 Reception 56,459

Total 396 333 745,258

Budget Available 877,000

Excess available -131,742

Infant Class adjustment budget is £150,000 giving a total budget of £1,027k per Appendix 1

21


REPORT BY DECS -FINANCE DEPARTMENT


DATE: 11 July 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 7

TITLE: School Balances at 31st March 2013


Services

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Chris Pett

TEL: 0118 939 0900 Ext 74706

JOB TITLE: Schools Accountant E-MAIL: [email protected]


1.1 To report back to Schools Forum regarding schools that held excess surplus

balances in the context of the balance control mechanism.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

To note the contents of the report.

To advise the LA regarding schools that held excess surplus balances as detailed

in Section 4.2 (Schools Forum has decision making powers)

3 POLICY CONTEXT



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 SCHOOL BALANCES

4.1 Background

4.1.1 The previous meeting requested the Schools’ Accountant collect information

regarding committed balances from schools holding excess revenue balances as

at the 31st March 2013.

4.1.2 The Schools’ Accountant sent a form to schools holding excess balances

requesting information regarding those balances with the exception of the

schools below. The reason for the exceptions being that Schools’ Forum had

accepted these schools were holding excess balances for properly committed

purposes during the previous meeting: -

22

a) Coley Primary

b) Katesgrove Primary

c) The Ridgeway

4.2 Summary

4.2.1 The table on the next page summarises the responses received from schools:-

School Balances at 31 Mar 2013

23

Responses from schools re committed balances

School

Excess

balance

at 31st

March

Accepted

as

committe

d by

Schools

Forum at

May

meeting

Receive

d (Y or

N)

Capital

projec

t

Maintenance

&

Refurbishmen

t

Furniture,

IT and

other one

off

expenditur

e of a

capital

nature

Staffing/

remodellin

g

Specific

Curriculu

m

Resources

Contingenc

y in case of

falling

numbers

Funds

held on

behalf

of

other

schools

2012-

13

costs

Legal

Fees

Lotter

y grant

recd.

Ring

fenced

exp

13-14

Breakfas

t club

set-up

costs Total

Excess

balance

remainin

g

All saints 68,217 Y 41,000 39,250 5,000 5,000 90,250 0

Coley 23,447 Y

Geoffrey Field

Junior 18,215 Y 89,674 89,674 0

Katesgrove 258,406 Y

Moorlands 25,739 Y 85,000 85,000 0

Oxford Road 71,164 Y 74,855 40,541 1,500 16,363 7,558 14,000 154,817 0

St Martins 1,134 Y 37,025 10,000 47,025 0

The Ridgeway 13,871 Y

Wilson 11,133 Y 7,600 38,168 77,284 123,052 0

Holy Brook 9,908 Y 22,500 4,406 5,932 32,838 0

Blagdon 157,881 Y 71,967 85,914 157,881 0

Blagrave 6,235 Y 6235 6,235 0

Norcot 13,913 Y 48,551 48,551 0

Total 679,263 835,323 0

School Balances at 31 Mar 2013

24

4.2.2 All Saints capital project refers to an expansion planned for September 2013.

4.2.3 Funds held on behalf of other schools by Geoffrey Field Junior are for the

Learning Support Service (£60k) and WEC (£30k).

4.2.4 Oxford Road ‘2012-13 costs’ relate to rates charge for their new nursery

accommodation and also includes the 2013-14 charge. Their formula allocation

for rates will be increased in 2014-15 to reflect these charges.

4.2.5 Additional information and documentation has been provided by several of the

schools.

4.2.6 Schools Forum is requested to advise the LA on the next steps to be taken with

regard to the balance control mechanism.

25


REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF RESOURCES


DATE: 11 JULY 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 8

SUBJECT: EARLY YEARS BLOCK FUNDING RATES


Services

WARDS: All


TEL: 0118 937 2398

JOB TITLE: Head of Finance (DECS) E-MAIL: [email protected]

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of the report is to update Schools Forum on the review of 2, 3 and

4 year old funding rates, as agreed at the March Schools Forum meeting,

following the work of the EYSFF group in the intervening period.


2.1 For consultation: In consultation with Schools Forum The LA to

implement revised hourly funding rates for 2, 3 and 4 year old places

from September 2013 and agree a further review of rates from 1 April

2014.

2.2 For noting: Progress in relation to the provision of 2 year old places.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 At the last meeting of Schools Forum we noted the current funding rates:

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

3.2 We 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

26

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.

3.3 We therefore proposed at the May meeting that current 2, 3 and 4 year old

rates continued for the Summer 2013 term, to give provider near-term

certainty.

3.4 It was agreed that new hourly rate proposals for the 2, 3 and 4 year olds were to

be brought forward to School Forum in July, with supporting evidence, for

revised rates to apply from September 2013 which are affordable within

designated budgets and viable for providers in all sectors. This should also

address the funding anomaly identified above.

4. REVIEWING AND AGREEING RATES FROM SEPTEMBER 2013

4.1 At its May meeting the EYSFF Group (which includes Schools Forum members

Sarah Mitchell and Julie Kempster) considered both the DFE consultation and

the issue of 2,3, and 4 year old payment rates. The existing EYSFF and

approach take to central retentions was already considered to be consistent

with the DFE direction of travel.

4.2 With regard to funding rates, a range of options was considered:

• Option 1: One flat rate for 2 year olds and a flat rate for 3 and 4 year

olds for all settings (2 year old rate would be higher due to higher

staffing costs)

• Option 2: To increase the 2 year old rate to a higher rate than the

current 3 and 4 year old rates.

• Option 3. To reduce the deprivation element in the 3 and 4 year old rate

(a lower deprivation rate spread across a greater number of children (40%

vs 25%))

• Option 4: To set a block funding element for the nurseryschools and the

set one rate for all schools and a rate for PV and child minders.

• Option 5: To reduce the rate for 3 and 4 year olds as ours is high by

comparison to other LAs.

4.3 The Group found as follows: 3 was most feasible (deprivation being reduced and

spread). 1 was too complex, 2 could be unaffordable, 4 was a backward step

given work already done and 5 was unpalatable and could lead to supply

problems. The Group agreed that Option 3 was the best option and should be

modelled.

4.4 At its June meeting the Group considered the modelling undertaken on Option

3, including some sensitivity analysis. This is attached as Appendix 1 to this

report showing full year impact and impact from September.

4.5 The key points to emerge from the analysis were:

27

• The PVI tend to treat the deprivation supplement as a premium and use it to

support certain activities

• Maintained settings appear to have more certainty over funding so can be using

it to fund posts and/or services

• There appeared to be a shift from South to the West

• The 40% cut off meant less settings lose but that those ones lose more – 30%

meant more lose but the losses are smaller

4.6 The general consensus of the group was to agree the 30% option from

September, to allow time for settings to manage the change, whilst meeting the

objective of addressing the gap between 2 year old and 3 and 4 year old is

addressed. A review as to whether to move to 40% would be appropriate would

also be conducted later the calendar year and any proposal that resulted would

be subject to a wider consultation with all settings.

4.7 Therefore as a result of the above, and subject to consultation with Schools

Forum, the funding rates from September 2013 are to be set as follows (the

April to August period rates would continue to be as notified at the previous

meeting):

Provider type SFF hourly rates 2012-13

Deprivation supplement -

Rate including deprivation supplement

Maintained Nursery 4.83 1.20 6.03

Newbridge Nursery 5.19 1.20 6.39

Primary classes 3.30 1.20 4.50

Private and Voluntary settings

4.00 1.20 5.20

Independent Schools 3.56 1.20 4.76

2 year old funding rate £5.36

5 2 Year Old Update

5.1 The early years service have been developing a number of strands to implement

the creation of new places for two year olds. These include plans to provide a

capital and revenue funding allocation to providers to create new places in the

greatest areas of need. Many of the early years providers are already

participating in our pilot programme, currently delivering over 80 places each

term.

5.2 The sufficiency analysis work is being undertaken as part of a wider survey of

childcare across Reading. The team is currently undertaking a sufficiency audit

to identify where the demand is. Demographic analysis of the demand from

parents of eligible two year olds is being matched against the potential places

on offer from existing day nurseries, pre-schools, childminders and some new

settings. In areas of high demand with little or no local daycare/childcare

provision, we are also approaching schools with nursery classes with potential

for creating places for two year olds.

28

5.3 By September 2013 a transparent process will be underway to develop

associated capital projects in key areas. A clear idea of settings best able to

meet additional needs will have been identified as part of a coherent approach

to meeting our statutory obligations and developing additional local criteria.

5.4 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

years team are currently working with the health visitors service on a joint

project to support parents of children meeting the criteria to take up the free

entitlement. It is intended to embed the process with the two year old

development checks so the pathways are developed by September 2014 when

the offer extends to the 40% most deprived two year olds.

5.5 The Early years team are also working with the inclusion service to establish a

clear pathway for children with SEN to access their two year old entitlement by

September 2014.

Rates

Deprivation

supplement

Total PV

rate with

Deprivation

On-going 2

year old

rate

Approx

number of

children

with

supplemen

25% cut-off £1.39 £5.39 £5.36 750

30% cut-off £1.20 £5.20 £5.36 900

School13-14

Indicative

based on

25% cut-off

Funding

Increase/

(Decrease)

30% cut-off

% Increase

/ Decrease

Impact in

13-14 if

implement

ed from

Sept 13

(7/12ths)

Blagdon Nursery 439,767 -8,944 -2.0% -5,217

Blagrave Nursery 220,713 2,302 1.0% 1,343

Caversham Nursery 161,529 -2,742 -1.7% -1,600

New Bridge Nursery 347,829 -1,149 -0.3% -670

Norcot Nursery 366,013 11,368 3.1% 6,631

1,535,851 835 0.1% 487

Alfred Sutton Primary 92,068 -182 -0.2% -106

Battle Primary (Academy) 102,183 2,433 2.4% 1,419

Christ the King RC (VA) Primary 106,980 -2,742 -2.6% -1,600

Churchend Primary (academy) 100,426 -1,313 -1.3% -766

Coley Primary 87,640 -1,519 -1.7% -886

E P Collier Primary 62,863 52 0.1% 30

Geoffrey Field Infant 112,121 -2,132 -1.9% -1,244

George Palmer Primary 175,296 -5,632 -3.2% -3,285

Katesgrove Primary 140,317 -1,388 -1.0% -810

Manor Primary 92,374 9,034 9.8% 5,270

Moorlands Primary 93,405 1,253 1.3% 731

New Town Primary 53,445 -390 -0.7% -228

Oxford Road Primary 98,305 118 0.1% 69

Ranikhet Primary 86,206 676 0.8% 394

Redlands Primary 75,240 0 0.0% 0

St John's CE (VA) Primary 88,929 -1,012 -1.1% -590

St Mary's & All Saints CE (VA) Primary 116,144 -2,955 -2.5% -1,724

The Ridgeway Primary 55,699 -1,402 -2.5% -818

Whitley Park combined 249,902 -8,031 -3.2% -4,685

Wilson Primary 105,193 7,919 7.5% 4,619

2,094,736 -7,213 -0.3% -4,210

Total Maintained 3,630,587 -6,378 -0.2% -3,723

Abbeymore Nursery 98,790 -67 -0.1% -39

Barty Bears Playgroup 23,177 -71 -0.3% -41

Bees Knees Nursery 79,870 1,707 2.1% 996

Berkeley Gardens Day Nursery 36,691 -145 -0.4% -85

Caversham Heights Pre-School 64,648 0 0.0% 0

Caversham Park Pre-School 53,092 -108 -0.2% -63

Chiltern Nursery School 166,822 -194 -0.1% -113

Co-Operative Childcare 95,939 -495 -0.5% -289

Crawshay Playgroup 46,698 -68 -0.1% -40

Crescent Under 5's 48,745 -71 -0.1% -41

Dickory Docks Day Nursery 85,738 22 0.0% 13

Emmer Green Pre-School 79,494 150 0.2% 88

English Martyrs Pre-School 105,470 3,424 3.2% 1,997

Forbury Gardens Day Nursery 80,124 -442 -0.6% -258

Gloucester Road Playgroup 59,055 1,000 1.7% 583

Goldilocks Day Nursery 88,482 676 0.8% 394

The Grange Pre-School 102,867 5,413 5.3% 3,158

Greyfriars Day Nursery 175,528 -668 -0.4% -390

Kennet Day Nursery 42,307 393 0.9% 229

Kingfisher Day Nursery 33,643 -632 -1.9% -369

Little Dragons Day Nursery 69,982 538 0.8% 314

Little Tots Nursery 121,931 757 0.6% 442

Mary Seacole Day Nursery 60,280 -1,006 -1.7% -587

Rates

Deprivation

supplement

Total PV

rate with

Deprivation

On-going 2

year old

rate

Approx

number of

children

with

supplemen

25% cut-off £1.39 £5.39 £5.36 750

30% cut-off £1.20 £5.20 £5.36 900

School13-14

Indicative

based on

25% cut-off

Funding

Increase/

(Decrease)

30% cut-off

% Increase

/ Decrease

Impact in

13-14 if

implement

ed from

Sept 13

(7/12ths)

Micklands Pre-School 93,890 -301 -0.3% -176

Natural Steps Day Nursery 17,313 -177 -1.0% -103

Newbery Lodge Playgroup 27,067 -37 -0.1% -22

Northumberland Day Nursery 49,807 -626 -1.3% -365

Orchard Day Nursery 74,422 -262 -0.4% -153

Park Day Nursery 26,920 0 0.0% 0

Pine Rivers Kindergarten & Day Nursery 48,563 1,001 2.1% 584

Rainbow Day Nursery (royal berks) 47,861 -177 -0.4% -103

Riverside Day Nursery 77,367 -370 -0.5% -216

St. Andrews Pre-School 61,414 0 0.0% 0

St. Joseph's Nursery 32,766 598 1.8% 349

St. Michael's Pre-School 45,410 -530 -1.2% -309

Stepping Stones Pre-School 42,301 -167 -0.4% -97

Sure Start Whitley 115,771 -3,298 -2.8% -1,924

The Daisy Nursery School 4,541 -16 -0.4% -9

The Honey Bee Pre-School 63,229 907 1.4% 529

The Rocking Horse Montessori Nursery 22,332 0 0.0% 0

The Wigwam Day Nursery 22,799 -37 -0.2% -22

Victoria Road Playgroup 28,062 158 0.6% 92

Waterside Day Nursery (Norcot EEC) 11,772 630 5.4% 368

Western Elms Nursery School 54,963 -479 -0.9% -279

Willows Day Nursery (Blagdon Nurs. & CC) 1,430 0 0.0% 0

Dingley Pre-School 28,362 -183 -0.6% -107

The Lodge Day Nursery 52,222 1,158 2.2% 676

Applestar 3,289 -31 -0.9% -18

Little Kingdoms Daycare 12,265 -217 -1.8% -127

2,885,511 7,657 0.3% 4,467

Childminder Network 624 0 0.0% 0

Caversham Preparatory School 24,596 -180 -0.7% -105

Hemdean House School 58,653 -325 -0.6% -190

St. Joseph's Preparatory School 78,920 -93 -0.1% -54

The Abbey School 119,954 -379 -0.3% -221

The Deenway School 60,274 831 1.4% 485

342,397 -146 0.0% -85

Total PVI 3,228,532 7,511 0.2% 4,382

Total 6,859,119 1,133 0.0% 659

29



TO: READING SCHOOLS FORUM

DATE: 11 JULY 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 9

SUBJECT: HIGH NEEDS BLOCK 2013-14 UPDATE

SERVICE: EDUCATION & CHILDREN’S

SERVICES

WARDS: All


TEL: 0118 937 2398

JOB TITLE: Head of Finance,

Education and Children’s


1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

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

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

latest developments


2.1 FOR NOTING : Progress in relation to this block.

2.2 FOR CONSULTATION: To advise on the proposal for the operation of

Band 6 Mainstream top ups in 2013-14 following feedback received

from schools on the consultation exercise

3 DFE FUNDING UPDATE

3.1 At a recent funding conference, the following issues were noted by

representatives from the DFE, whilst noting that there are unlikely to be any

major changes to the high needs funding system for 2014-15 (with operational

guidance to follow):

• There is a continuing need for LAs to explain to their schools and parents how

the new high needs funding system works, so that they are re-assured that

funding is still available;

• Some LAs need to look again at how they derive the SEN notional budget and

how they support schools with unusual concentrations of pupils with SEN;

• The intention to make the £6,000 threshold a requirement in 2014-15 through

the finance regulations

• Officials to be available from the Department to help local authorities make

necessary adjustments and explain them to schools.

30

3.2 The Authority is addressing the issues noted above by engaging with parents and

schools with particular challenges in this area and part of this has resulted in

proposals concerning band 6 detailed later in this report. With regard to the

notional SEN budget, this will be reviewed again, however we believe the

Authority already complies with the likely threshold and exceeds best practice

requirement. We will also explore with DFE whether a representative can

attend a future meeting of Schools Forum to answer any questions/ address any

concerns in relation to this area.

3.3 A 3 year SEN strategy is shortly to be approved by Members to ensure that the

system is aligned closely with new developments and the revised funding

arrangements.

4 SPECIAL SCHOOLS AND RESOURCE UNITS

4.1 All funding for Reading based special schools and resource units has been

agreed, with exception of Phoenix College and Manor Resource Unit where

further discussions are being held before funding is finalised. Due to the

increase in places needed at special schools, it should be noted that this is

putting pressure on the top up element of the high needs block budget.

4.2 A small number of out of borough special schools and resource units funding

have not yet been agreed. We are taking the outstanding issues forward with

these providers.

5 NON MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS

5.1 The system for funding in this area has not significantly changed, however the

numbers of children placed are increasing and this may put the budget under

pressure. We are still awaiting further information from the Department on the

funding of the National Autistic School with regards to both placement and top

ups.

6 POST 16 HIGH NEEDS

6.1 Further work is being done with the Raising Participation Partnership (RRP) to

meet major providers, most notably Reading College, to explain the changes in

the funding system that will occur from August 2013. The department expects

to set out proposals for improving the post 16 system for 2014-15.

Arrangements with the RRP will be reviewed in due course.

7 BANDS 6 MAINSTREAM TOP UP IN 2013-14

7.1 As Schools Forum will be aware following the national changes the majority of

band 4, 5 and 6 is now allocated to schools via the main formula using

deprivation and pupil numbers as a method of allocation. The remaining high

end element of band 6 was transferred into the High Needs Block. The

intention was that schools would apply to the high needs block for this funding

where they could demonstrate the costs of supporting the child was greater

than £10,000, namely £4,000 AWPU plus £6,000 notional SEN.

31

7.2 Due to likely pressures on the top up budget, flowing from the early work done

with schools, and the need to give certainty the Local Authority has proposed a

method of allocating this funding based pro-rata upon the number of band 6

statements in schools with a small element of funding being held back for any

growth pressure in this area. We also note the need for Schools Forum to play a

role in considering requests for any exceptional circumstances and in

maintaining oversight of the overall budget in the context of the DSG.

7.3 A consultation paper has been issued to schools and this is attached as Annex 1

to this report. At the meeting, officers will update the Schools Forum of the

results of the consultation. We are consulting with Schools Forum as to whether

to proceed with this proposal in the light of the recommendation of officers and

feedback obtained from schools. The Council will make its decision based upon

this information.

7.4 For out borough children a significant number of top ups have been agreed and

work is ongoing on the outstanding issues.

8 EARLY YEARS

8.1 The DFE have confirmed that there is likely to be no growth in place for this,

which rather conflicts with the guidance being given out to LA early years

teams. Further work will take place between the officers within SEN to take this

issue forward, where necessary seeking the views of the EYSFF group, taking

into account the affordability of any such proposals.

32

Annex 1

Proposal for operation of Band 6 Mainstream top up in 2013-14 Kevin McDaniel

June 2013

Introduction / Summary

As part of the changes to school finance regulations, Schools Forum agreed a new local formula for 2013-

14. This formula uses a deprivation led measure to distribute money related to provision for pupils with

statements. Schools Forum agreed to distribute all of the funding allocated to band 4 and 5 statements

and some of band 6, leaving a process to be defined to distribute the remaining band 6 funding.

It was proposed that schools would apply for top up by providing the actual cost of the interventions

needed and work has been undertaken in schools to provide that. However there is insufficient funding

in the budget (High Needs block of Dedicated Schools Grant) to meet these bills for a number of reasons.

To set a balanced budget and to give staff certainty, schools need to be sure of what top up they can

expect. In turn this will allow schools to manage the expectations of parents as the statement itself

changes.

It is proposed therefore to distribute the remaining funding based on the number of band 6 pupils on roll

on a given day in each of the three big terms in 2013/14, starting in June 2013. This will be distributed

automatically and not require any application process. A small fund will be retained for exceptional

cases which may require more.

This paper asks schools for their opinion ahead of Schools Forum on 11th July where the council will seek

further input before making a final decision.

Financial Analysis

For the financial year 2013/14, a total sum of £813,400 was retained in a pool for mainstream top ups,

with 98 pupils holding the related statements. This represents a figure of £8,300 per pupil. Within that

cohort of 98 children there are a few with an exceptional level of need and we should expect some

growth in the number of students.

It is proposed therefore to plan to provide a top up of £7,470 per pupil per year, with a fund of £74,460

retained for both new pupils and exceptional requests. The SEN panel will consider the exceptional

requests and all decisions will be reported to Schools Forum. If the amount requested exceeds the

available budget this will be a pressure on the high needs block and will also be reported to Schools

Forum for consideration of how to best manage it in context of the entire DSG budget.

The £7,470 will be split into three payments based on the number of teaching days in the big term,

resulting in per pupil payments of £2,580, £2,734 and £2,156 respectively. This top up amount will be

paid automatically in July 2013, October 2013 and February 2014 based on pupil numbers on a given day

in the few weeks preceding payment. These dates will be confirmed in due course.

It should be noted that Academies only enter the new formula from September 2013 so will not receive

any additional money for the summer 2013 term as £68,796 is already in their budgets. The table at

Appendix 1 shows the budgetary estimates, based on no pupil changes, for each school.

Consultation Questions

Each school is asked to consider the questions in Appendix 2 and return a completed Appendix 2 sheet by

either “cut and paste” email or attached document to [email protected] by Friday 5th July

2013. This will enable consolidation prior to Schools Forum on Thursday 11th July 2013.

33

Appendix 1: Per School indicative allocation based on June 2013 pupils

This table assumes that the number of pupils does not change before the end of 2013/14. Actual

payments will be calculated in July 2013, October 2013 and February 2014.

School

Number

of Band

6 Pupils

as at

June

2013

Estimated

Summer

2013

(£)

Estimated

Autumn

2013

(£)

Estimated

Spring

2013

(£)

Estimated

Annual

TOTAL

(£)

Alfred Sutton Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

Battle Primary Academy 5 ACD 13,669 10,781 24,451

Blessed Hugh Faringdon 6 15,479 16,403 12,938 44,820

Caversham Primary 5 12,899 13,669 10,781 37,350

Christ the King RC Primary 7 18,059 19,137 15,094 52,290

Coley Primary 2 5,160 5,468 4,313 14,940

E P Collier Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

Emmer Green Primary 7 18,059 19,137 15,094 52,290

English Martyrs RC Primary 2 5,160 5,468 4,313 14,940

Geoffrey Field Junior 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

George Palmer Primary 2 5,160 5,468 4,313 14,940

Highdown Academy 4 ACD 10,935 8,625 19,561

John Madejski Academy 7 ACD 19,137 15,094 34,231

Katesgrove Primary 2 5,160 5,468 4,313 14,940

Manor Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

Meadow Park Academy 2 ACD 5,468 4,313 9,780

Micklands Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

Moorlands Primary 3 7,740 8,202 6,469 22,410

New Bridge Nursery 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

New Christ Church CE Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

New Town Primary 5 12,899 13,669 10,781 37,350

Park Lane Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

Prospect Academy 6 ACD 16,403 12,938 29,341

Ranikhet Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

Reading Girls' 2 5,160 5,468 4,313 14,940

Redlands Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

St Anne's RC Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

St John's CE Primary 2 5,160 5,468 4,313 14,940

St Martin's RC Primary 3 7,740 8,202 6,469 22,410

St Mary and All Saints CE Primary 5 12,899 13,669 10,781 37,350

Thameside Primary 1 2,580 2,734 2,156 7,470

The Hill Primary 3 7,740 8,202 6,469 22,410

Whitley Park Primary & Nursery 4 10,319 10,935 8,625 29,880

Wilson Primary 2 5,160 5,468 4,313 14,940

98 190,909 267,919 211,316 670,144

34

Appendix 2: Mainstream SEN top up consultation return slip (July 2013)

School Name

Contact

Do you agree that the funding should be allocated equally to

each pupil with a band 6 statement as proposed?

YES NO

Comments:

1

Do you agree that funding should be held back for net new

statements?

YES NO

Comments:

2

Do you agree that funding should be held back for pupils with

exceptional needs?

YES NO

Comments:

3

Do you agree that 10% is an appropriate level of budget for

growth and exceptions, and that SEN panel is an appropriate

group to make exceptional judgements?

YES NO

Comments:

4

Do you agree with the proposal to provide funding in three

blocks based on ‘big terms’ and using a common per teaching

day calculation as described?

YES NO

Comments:

5

35




DATE: 11 July 2013

AGENDA ITEM: 10

SUBJECT: SCHOOL FUNDING CHANGES 2014/15


Services

WARDS: All

AUTHOR: Chris Pett

TEL: 0118 937 4706

JOB TITLE: Principal Accountant -

Schools


1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To update on changes to school funding in 2014/15 decided by the DfE. To

indentify any changes to the RBC formula that the Council is required to make

as a result of the changes. To consult Schools’ Forum on other changes that the

Council might want to consider.


2.1 To note the changes decided by the DfE.

2.2 To consult Schools’ Forum on whether any changes should be made to

the local formula for 2014/15 and the best way to take these forward

(e.g. by re-instating the formula working group).

2.3 To note the proposed timetable for future Schools Forum meetings.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed the Government’s intention to have

a national formula for funding schools in 2015/16 during his statement to the

House regarding the Comprehensive Spending Review.

3.2 The changes introduced in 2013/14 and 2014/15 can be seen as steps towards

the introduction of a national formula in 2015/16.

3.3 There are far fewer changes introduced for 2014/15 than there were for

2013/14.

3.4 Details of an analysis of 2013/14 LA funding formulae can be found through the

following link: -

36

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

/schoolsrevenuefunding/a00218077/funding-settlement-2013-14

3.5 Decisions by the DfE regarding changes for 2014/15 can be found through the

following link: -

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

/schoolsrevenuefunding/a00221523/school-funding-and-high-needs-funding-

arrangements-2014-15

3.6 A new ‘sparsity’ factor has been introduced for 2014/15. A review of the data

provided by the DfE against the rules of the new factor shows the factor is not

relevant for Reading. The other allowable for factors remain as they were for

2013/14 and are as follows: -

• Basic per pupil entitlement (mandatory)

• Deprivation (mandatory)

• Looked After Children (LAC)

• Low Prior Attainment

• English as an Additional Language (EAL)

• Lump Sum

• Split Sites

• Rates

• PFI

• Pupil mobility

• Post-16 pupils

3.7 The DfE propose to keep the schools block and early years block per pupil units

of funding the same as in 2013/14.

3.8 The DfE are not proposing ‘to change the formal boundary of the high needs

block’, which we think means RBC’s high needs block will be the same as in

2013/14. This is a cause of concern for Council officers as there appears to be

no allowance for: -

a) An increase in the incidence of children with High Needs/Cost SEN in the

general population.

b) More families with children with High Needs/Cost SEN moving into the area

than those moving out.

c) An increase in the number of children in the local area which, even with the

same level of incidence of children with High Needs/Cost SEN, would lead to

more children with High Needs/Cost SEN.

3.9 Minimum Funding Guarantee protection will continue at -1.5% per pupil.

4. UNAVOIDABLE AND POSSIBLE CHANGES FOR 2014/15

4.1 The Council followed a principle of trying to minimise turbulence (gains/losses)

when making changes to the RBC formula in 2013/14. This principle was

generally supported by Schools’ Forum and schools more widely. The Council

proposes to again follow this principle in 2014/15 with one or two exceptions.

4.2 One change that is unavoidable is the mobility (non-routine admissions) factor.

The DfE have decided that from 2014/15 a 10% threshold will be applied to the

37

mobility factor so that it will only support schools that experience a significant

change in their pupil numbers. Schools’ Forum members may remember Reading

Borough Council’s formula in 2012/13 and earlier used a 10% threshold before

this had to be changed for 2013/14.

4.3 The Local Authority is one of few local authorities that does not use low prior

attainment in its formula. The Council mainly decided not to use low prior

attainment on the advice of primary school head teachers who felt Early Years

Foundation Stage Profile (EYSFP) scores was not a suitable basis for the

allocation of funding through the formula.

4.4 A new EYSFP was introduced from September 12. This means there will be two

LPA indicators at school level for primary schools: -

a) Low Prior Attainment (78) which will be derived from the numbers of pupils

in years 2 to 5 who achieved fewer than 78 points and pupils in year 1 who did

not achieve a good level of development or

b) Low Prior Attainment (73) which will be derived from the numbers of pupils

in years 2 to 5 who achieved fewer than 73 points and pupils in year 1 who did

not achieve a good level of development.

4.4 The DfE have also changed the low prior attainment measure for secondary aged

pupils from pupils that fail to achieve a level 4 or higher at KS2 in English and

maths to pupils that fail to achieve a level 4 or higher at KS2 in English or a

level 4 or higher in maths.

4.5 Given the large majority of local authorities that included a low prior

attainment factor in their formulae, does Schools’ Forum think the Lcoal

Authority should consider reversing its decision not include a low prior

attainment factor in its formula for primary schools, secondary schools or both?

4.6 If the Local Authority does propose to re-introduce a low prior attainment

factor in its formula the proposal would be for funding to be transferred from

the deprivation factor to provide funding at similar proportions that existed in

2012/13 prior to the changes in 2013/14 (i.e. 1.2% primary and 1.4% secondary).

4.7 Reading Borough Council has one of the lowest (if not the lowest) lump sums in

England. The Local Authority was informed by the EFA it had a relatively low

lump sum during the budget setting process and responded as follows: -

‘Our general approach to formula changes, supported by Schools’ Forum and

schools more generally, was to limit turbulence as much as possible by using the

nearest available factor to each factor used in the current formula and to re-

allocate funding within phase. This approach resulted in the pro-forma lump

sum amount. As the geographic boundary of Reading Borough Council lies

entirely within the boundary of the town in a relatively compact urban area, we

would expect our lump sum to be lower than local authorities whose boundaries

include rural areas or for larger urban areas’.

4.8 In a change from 2013/14 local authorities will be allowed to differentiate the

lump sum by phase (i.e. use a different lump sum for primary schools and

secondary schools).

38

4.9 Given just how low Reading Borough Council’s lump sum is in comparison with

other local authorities, does Schools Forum think the level of the lump sum

should be increased in 2014/15 for primary schools, secondary schools or both?

4.10 If the Local Authority does propose to increase the level of lump sums in its

formula the proposal would be to fund the increase through a reduction in the

relevant AWPU.

4.11 The Local Authority does not propose to change the level of any other formula

factor from 2013/14 except where it becomes necessary in order to balance the

formula funding with funding available, in which case the primary and

secondary AWPUs would be amended.

4.12 Are there any other formula changes Schools’ Forum thinks the Local Authority

should be considering changing for 2014-15?

5. TIMETABLE

5.1 The timetable below has been taken from operational guidance for local

authorities with a column added for proposed consultation dates with Schools’

Forum and schools: -

Date DfE/EFA Local authorities/RBC

July 2013 Details published on high

needs implementation for

2014-15

September 2013 Consult schools on proposed

changes to formula and de-

delegations/continued

retentions

30 September 2013 Deadline for submitting

requests for:

• MFG exclusions

• Exceptional premises

factors

• Sparsity factors

• Lump sum variations for

amalgamating schools

• Pupil number variations

for re-organising schools

or schools changing their

age range

3 October 2013 School census day

Mid-October 2013 LAs to gain Schools Forum/

political approval for provisional

2014-15 funding formula

17 October 2013 7pm Schools Forum meeting

October/ November

2013

DfE and LAs check and validate School Census

39

31 October 2013 Deadline for LAs to submit

provisional 2014-15 school

budget pro-forma to EFA

28 November 2013 School census data base

closed

29 November 2013 Census data available

10 December 2013 Pupil data and factors

published.

LAs can estimate their 2014-15

DSG Schools Block allocation

12 December 2013

4pm

Schools Forum Meeting

18 December 2013 DfE confirms DSG Schools

Block allocations for 2014-15

(prior to academy

recoupment)

16 January 2014 7pm Schools Forum meeting

By mid-January 2014 LAs to gain Schools Forum/

political approval for final 2014-

15 funding formula

21 January 2014 Deadline for LAs to submit final

2014-15 school budget pro-

forma to EFA

28 February 2014 Deadline for LAs to confirm

budgets for their maintained

schools (post-16, EYSFF and DFC

allocations might need to follow

in March)

20 March 2014 4pm Schools Forum meeting

31 March 2014 Deadline for EFA to confirm

academies budgets

April 2014 First DSG payments to LAs

based on final 2014-15

allocations, net of academies

recoupment. DSG allocations

updated termly for in year

academy conversions.

15 May 2014 7pm Schools Forum meeting

June 2014 Early Years Block updated for

January 2014 Early Years

pupil numbers.

10July 2014 4pm Schools Forum meeting

April 2015 Early Years Block updated for

January 2015 Early Years

pupil numbers (pro rata

7/12ths as this only covers

Sept 2014 – March 2015)

avril wilson director of education, social services and ... · director of education, social...

Documents