If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Wendy Merry, 020 8583 2061, wendy.merry@hounslow.gov.uk.

SCHOOLS FORUM

A meeting of the Schools Forum will be held in the Committee Rooms 1 & 2, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow on Monday, 27 November 2017 at 6:00 pm

MEMBERSHIP

Euan Ferguson (Academies) - Chair

Jo Lacey (Maintained) - Vice-Chair

Academy Representatives: Stephen Davis, Paul Enright, Marais Leenders, Kevin Prunty, Sarah Roscoe, Melvyn Tatters

Maintained School Representatives: Ritu Aulakh, Lorna Goodwin, Mike Nicholls, Richard Rodgers, Vicky Rodrigues, Sue Tysall,

Non-School Representatives: Tracy Aust (16-19 Provider), Charlotte De Lacey (EY PVI), John Wright (CofE Diocesan Board)

Non-Voting: Councillor Tom Bruce (Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services), Marilyn Bater (Teachers’ Panel), Roger Shortt (Education Improvement Partnership)

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence, Declarations of Interest and Any Other

Communications from Members

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 30 October 2017 (Pages 1 - 3) 3. Schools Forum Membership - verbal report 4. SEND Review - Emerging Findings - Presentation (Pages 4 - 45) 5. Early Years budget and hourly rates for 2018/19 (Pages 46 - 51) 6. National Funding Formula updates (Pages 52 - 66) Funding factors

Central Services Schools Block and De delegated budgets 7. Hounslow Education Partnership: Finance and Governance

Arrangements (Pages 67 - 72)

8. Financial Adjustments for Permanently Excluded Pupils (Pages 73 - 76) 9. Forward Plan for Schools Forum (Page 77) 10. Date of Next Meeting - 22 January 2018 11. Any other urgent business Recording and Reporting on Public Meetings Please note that members of public can choose to record, or report in other ways, on this public

meeting. If you wish to do so then please read the Council’s protocol which can be found on the Council’s website. Copies of the protocol are also available at the meeting. The Council asks that you avoid recording members of the audience who are not participants at the meeting. The Council will seek to facilitate this. However, anyone attending a public meeting does so in the knowledge that recording may take place and that they may be part of that record. DECLARING INTERESTS

Committee members are reminded that if they have a pecuniary interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter.

Mary Harpley – Chief Executive London Borough of Hounslow, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow TW3 4DN

30 November 2017

At a meeting of the Schools Forum held on Monday, 30 October 2017 at 6:00 pm at the Committee Rooms 1 & 2, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow.

Present:

Euan Ferguson (Chair)

Ritu Aulakh, Marilyn Bater, Cllr Tom Bruce, Stephen Davis, Paul Enright, Lorna Goodwin, Charlotte De Lacey, Joanne Lacey, Marais Leenders, Mike Nicholls, Richard Rodgers, Roger Shortt, Sue Tysell and John Wright

Apologies for Absence

Tracy Aust, Sarah Roscoe and Mel Tatters

1. Minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2017 Minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2017 (agenda item 3) were agreed.

Matters Arising Mike Nicholls noted that proper arrangements had been made by the LBH (London Borough of Hounslow) for contracts of employment, but he still had concerns about other issues, for example, dismissals. It was confirmed that the LBH HR (Human Resources) Business Partner would sign all contracts and variations of contracts. It was acknowledged that a briefing had been sent around to schools in relation to the changes in HR, but agreed that further correspondence would be sent to ensure that schools were aware of the changes. Michael Marks, Director of Education and Early Intervention, advised that he would ask Steve Williams from HR to provide some information to schools and it was agreed that the information would be shared with the Chair of Schools Forum and Mike Nicholls before it was sent out. Christine Holland, Head of Strategic Finance also advised that the service level agreement remained unchanged except for changes to contact details and this would be reissued to schools (item 3, page 1 refers). Ritu Aulakh raised concerns on behalf of colleagues about the clawback of monies from schools; she felt that there had not been any advanced warning and that the return should be sufficiently robust in the event of clawback taking place. The Chair advised that school balances had been discussed over a considerable amount of time and was well trailed. He also reminded Members that the clawback was to ensure that funding was being used on children currently in the school and relieve budget pressures. It was noted that the form for returns was being revised (item 7 page 2 refers) Christine Holland provided the Schools Forum with an update about Financial Regulations (item 6, page 2 refers).

2. Schools Forum Membership update - verbal Update The Schools Forum noted that there were vacancies for a Primary Maintained School

representative and a Roman Catholic Diocesan representative.

3. Feedback from the meeting with Nick Gibb, Schools Minister - verbal report

1

Agenda Item 2

Councillor Bruce fed back on the meeting with the Schools Minister. He advised that Ruth Cadbury would be writing to the Minister, outlining the points made and that he would be happy to share the response with the Schools Forum.

4. 2017/18 DSG budget monitoring See report by Christine Holland, Head of Strategic Finance and Rupa Raghwani, Finance

Manager (agenda item 5) Rupa Raghwani, Finance Manager, highlighted the main points in the report and responded to questions. Resolved: That the forecasted outturn position be noted.

5. SEND review update - presentation Annita Cornish, Head of Service Special Educational Needs and Disability, made the

presentation. She advised that a more detailed analysis would be provided to the next meeting and it would include information about the uptake of places and issues in special schools.

6. Early years update See report by Chrissie Elam, Head of Early Years and Childcare (agenda item 7)

Rupa Raghwani presented the report and responded to questions. Resolved:

a) That the update on the take up of early years places be noted. b) That the challenges with accurate projections in relation to forecasting the demand

for childcare places be noted and that the impact of those challenges be emphasised to the Schools Minister, although it was acknowledged that it was unlikely to affect timescales for this year.

7. 2018/19 National Funding Formula update - verbal report Christine Holland made the presentation and responded to questions. She highlighted two

options for reducing high needs costs for 2018/19 and ask the Schools Forum for their views. Option one was to transfer between the schools and high needs block and implement some measures to reduce high needs costs via the SEND review and option two was to manage pressures within the high needs block via the SEND review. Following some discussion the Schools Forum agreed that they would steer towards option two. Michael Marks advised that option two would also be the Local Authority’s preference.

8. Schools Forum Forward Plan The report was noted.

9. Date of Next Meeting is 27 November 2017 The date of the next meeting was noted.

2

10. Any other urgent business Roger Shortt tabled a paper in relation to Hounslow’s compliance with school and early years

financial regulations. He had concerns that Hounslow may not be recovering funding from neighbouring boroughs, when children were moved to the Pupil Referral Unit and asked for a paper to be provided to the November meeting.

The meeting finished at 7:30 pm. The minute taker at this meeting was Wendy Merry

3

$5hbemfke.doc 1

Report for: ACTION

Contains Confidential or Exempt Information

No

Title SEND Review – Emerging Findings

Member Reporting Councillor Bruce

Contact Details John Wood, Strategic SEND Advisor, 07786 909419

For Consideration By Schools Forum

Date to be Considered 27th November 2017

Affected Wards All

Keywords/Index High needs, SEND, SEN centres

1 Details of Recommendations

Schools Forum is asked to note the work carried out and progress made to date and that the consultation with providers will need to continue. Schools Forum is asked to approve the development of an implementation plan based on (but not exclusively) the opportunities identified in Section 4 below. That Schools Forum approve the setting up of joint LA/school working groups/project teams as appropriate to support the delivery of the implementation plan. These are likely to include:

Reconfiguration of SEN centres

Review of Special Schools

Assessment and Placement Process Improvement

Introduction of Universal Banding System

Review of Commissioning Arrangements

4

Agenda Item 4

$5hbemfke.doc 2

2 Report Summary

3 Analysis and Findings

3.1 Work on the High Needs Review has covered the following areas:

a. Supply and demand modelling

b. Review of specialist provision

i. Role and purpose of SEN Centres ii. Vacancies iii. Funding and staffing iv. Banding and Top ups

c. High Needs Block Funding

i. Cost projections ii. Service review

In addition, where possible visits have been undertaken to SEN centres and special schools. The following sections summarise the key findings and issues. More comprehensive information is contained a separate set of annexes.

3.2 Supply and Demand a. Work has been undertaken to update and improve the SEN place planning

model ‘MIME’ and the accuracy of the previous report was checked with the latest projection and showed reasonable degree of accuracy see Table 1: Table 1

b. The model has been reworked (Table 2) so that it considers all specialist places together inclusive of centres and special schools. The model also takes into account that there will always be a number of CYP for whom the

Based on work carried out over the last few months to review the High Needs Funding, a series of opportunities to improve specialist provision and core processes have been identified. Whilst these measures will not realise significant financial savings in the short term, they will increase confidence that limited resources are being used efficiently and are properly targeted. The work to develop and implement these opportunities needs to start immediately, firstly to allow sufficient time for consultation and secondly, to be able to impact on the 2019-20 budget setting process.

5

$5hbemfke.doc 3

only suitable provision will be in independent/out of borough settings. It should therefore be more realistic than previous forecasts:

Table 2

The potential gap in specialist place provision is shown in the final row. This projection assumes that the current cohort’s profile of complexity and need is maintained eg it does not allow for the fact there may be CYP in specialist settings who could attend mainstream settings. Annex E Table 1 contains a detailed breakdown of the supply of places. Trends in the SEN population are harder to predict than for the mainstream population and so whilst a slowing down in the mainstream school population is expected over the next few years, there is no firm evidence that demand for SEN places, especially for ASD, are slowing down too. However, projections will continue to be reviewed at least twice per year. c. By Primary Need

i. Previous analysis has shown that the bulk of the increased demand is

for ASD with the trend for other needs being line with the general population movement ie a gradual increase or slowing down.

ii. Table 3 summarises the current supply/demand projections for CYP with ASD (see also Annex E):

Table 3

Specialist ASD Supply Sep-17 Sep-18 Sep-19 Sep-20 Sep-21 Sep-22 Sep-23 Sep-24 Sep-25 Sep-26

All 351 373 390 404 417 434 441 441 441 441

Dedicated 262 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264

ad hoc 89 109 126 140 153 170 177 177 177 177

Total LBH ASD Demand 428 490 547 607 654 710 762 810 858 908

Potential Gap in ASD

specialist provision -76 -117 -157 -204 -237 -276 -321 -369 -417 -466

‘Dedicated ‘= SEN Centres and The Rise ‘Ad hoc’ = CYP with ASD placed in other LBH special schools – forecast assumes that the current share of places for ASD remains approximately the same.

6

$5hbemfke.doc 4

3.3 Specialist Provision The review of specialist provision has consisted of a combination of desk top research and visits. Several visits remain outstanding and further information has been requested from schools. However, the initial findings are summarised below with fuller details contained in Annexes A – D. a. Banding and high needs top up

An analysis of top us has been carried out to understand level of differentiation between settings and to provide a basis for a new banding system (proposals sent to Centres and special schools 9th October & 7th November). The findings are detailed in Annex A but two conclusions can be drawn from this analysis:

i. The level of differentiation between LBH mainstream, centre and special school settings and between LBH and out of borough settings is not as great as might have been presumed;

ii. The majority (87%) of top ups paid across all settings is less than £20k. Barring a small number of exceptions, the maximum top up paid in LBH schools is £17k – the gap between LBH and OOB provision is not as great either.

b. Role – Resourced Provision or SEN Centre (Unit) (See Annex B) According to national statistics, Hounslow has a high proportion of places in SEN Centres or Units, almost 10 x the national average. However, the survey of centres thus far has indicated that some are probably operating as Resourced Provision. The distinction is important as not only are the two categories used in the school census but the funding and staff models are considerably different. An analysis of the January 2017 census shows that of the 24 Centres, all bar one classed themselves as a Centre, but seven had recorded their pupils as being in both RP and Unit (centre).

c. Vacancies Annex C shows the trend in vacancies over the last 3 years along with the latest position at 10th November 2017:

i. Vacancy levels will change and are particularly volatile in the SEN sector and as with mainstream places it is always useful to have small number of vacancies

ii. However, the following centres have recurring vacancy levels the cause of which needs further investigation:

Marlborough Primary - SpLD

Lionel Primary - SLCN

Cranford – SpLD

7

$5hbemfke.doc 5

Heston – HI

iii. It has already been proposed that the policy of clawing back top up for vacancies at the end of each financial year is to be ceased. However, schools with centres which have recurring vacancies will be subject to review and may have their funding reduced. The options for a centre could include closure or re-designation.

d. Funding and staffing Whilst some of the centres have been in existence for a considerable time, some are only recently established and are still filling up and/or settling down. A fuller analysis is contained in Annex D but the key finding is that there is inconsistency in pupil staff ratios whether comparing centres or individual primary needs. Whilst it is appreciated that schools will have their own pedagogical models and approaches to staffing levels, we need to understand the reasons for the inconsistencies and then to have an agreed rationale to the costing of centres, as well as the setting of top up rates. For example, in a resourced provision setting, staffing will normally be shared with mainstream whilst in SEN centres some staff at least will be dedicated due to the need to run separate classes.

e. Designation of Primary Need

i. Relative to other LAs Hounslow has a high number of specialist places and unless we are convinced that we are maximising the number of CYP being placed in mainstream settings then we cannot ‘afford’ to increase the number of places – high needs funding is effectively fixed and we have pressures in certain areas such as ASD. Therefore, we need to ensure that we are maximising the use of our current assets (funding, places, location).

ii. The limited differentiation in top up funding between settings has already been noted above so it is necessary to consider whether certain primary needs should be supported in mainstream settings as opposed to SEN Centres, in particular, SpLD and SLCN (70 places) – and to a lesser extent some MLD cases (34 places) might be included. The total number of places used in these centres is 104 and whilst some CYP in these centres do have complex needs, the majority of top up rates are relatively low eg. Cranford SpLD £1.8k, Lionel £6k.

iii. Feedback from schools has included concerns that there needs to be clear admissions criteria, which are more transparent and consistently applied (by both schools and the SEN Service). It is also clear that over the years the role and purpose of some centres and schools has diverged from their original briefs and that this is contributing to the incorrect placement of children.

8

$5hbemfke.doc 6

iv. Other key factors when considering the re-designation of centres are location and access. There is a preponderance of specialist places in the centre and west of the borough and no secondary ASD provision in the east with the exception of Brentford Girls. The opening of the Bolder Academy in 2019, which is designed to include a SEN Centre for up to 25 places, provides an opportunity to rebalance ASD provision.

3.4 High Needs Block Funding a. Current position

i. 2017-18 – latest projection is for a slight underspend forecast- NB £2m

transfer from Schools Block ii. 2018-19 – Projected budget pressure of £1.5M - £3.5M iii. 2019-20 – It will be essential to have a programme of measures already

in place to mitigate expenditure and make savings.

b. Cost projections Using the place forecasts derived from the MIME model, further work has been carried out to project place and top up costs. Previous annual budget forecasts have only taken into account the planned increase in new specialist places and have ignored the underlying trends in needs. The following projection is based on the forecast increases in EHCPs multiplied the current average

c. Review of HNB budgets i. In tandem with the Period 6 and Period 7 Period projections and the

preparation of the 2018-19 budget, a full review of the services, place and top up budgets funded by HNB is underway. To ensure that any recommendations resulting from the review are as robust as possible, the review will also consider other funding stream such as Schools Block, Early Years Block and General revenue.

ii. An early conclusion is that a considerable amount of work is required to understand the links, conflicts and overlaps between services and

9

$5hbemfke.doc 7

between services and settings. Many of the changes required will impact directly on the HNB and future projections, but will not be deliverable in time to impact on the 2018-19 budget. Some examples include:

Woodbridge Park Education Service o the impact of the new SEMH free school o the need to agree the number of places and services that have

been commissioned

Interim Education Centre o needs to address its legal status o the new £0.5m facility being built as part of the new Brentford FC

ground

Early Years Inclusion Model – funding from both EY and HNB – projected overspend spend and lack of clarity over scope and purpose

Recruitment of staff especially Educational Psychologists.

4 Work Programme The following activities have been identified from the review and could form the basis for a programme of work to commence in January 2018. The list is not exhaustive and will continue to grow and evolve. 4.1 Reconfiguration of SEN centres

a. Re-definition of the Centres’ ‘offer’

i. Determine whether centres are Resourced Provision or SEN Unit ii. Reset staff structures and budgets iii. Planning and consultation – early 2018; Included in 2019-20 budget setting

b. Review and re-designation of centres

Reallocation of places i. Conversion of ‘low need’ MLD places into ASD eg Hounslow Heath Infants

and Junior

ii. Re-allocate the funding for 25 centre places to Bolder Academy to create a new ASD centre – will require closure of at least one centre – Lionel Primary is a strong candidate being in the same area as the new academy. Along with the existing primary ASD centre at the Strand on the Green, this would reinforce the local offer in the east of the borough.

10

$5hbemfke.doc 8

Re-designation iii. Cranford – either convert some SpLD places into ASD subject to feasibility

– needs consultation/scoping or reallocate or claw back funding

iv. Lampton - replace SLCN with ASD – needs consultation/scoping

v. Marlborough – consider switching to ASD – could compliment Smallberry Green eg one dealing with low and one with medium level needs

vi. Where re-designation is not possible centres will need to be closed and resources reallocated.

Expansion vii. Increasing capacity eg Strand have offered to expand and have unused

space which was previously assigned to The Hub – a feasibility study would be required if more space is needed.

viii. St Richards also has unused teaching space.

Relocation ix. Some centres such as St Richards and Crane Park are located near the

council border – would some of the places be better located in central/west Feltham which has no ASD provision?

4.2 Assessment and Placement

i. Improve SEN process to ensure that new EHCPs are kept to a minimum (more challenge and scrutiny, see new banding)

ii. Aim to ensure that maximum number of CYP are retained in mainstream and that all placements are agreed based on need not just availability.

iii. The objective over time will be to increase the proportion of more complex cases being supported in LBH specialist settings.

4.3 Clarification of roles and designation of special schools

i. The Cedars – primary need is SEMH, KS1-2 ii. New SEMH school – primary need is SEMH – KS3-5 iii. The Rise - high functioning ASD iv. Lindon Bennett/Oaklands/Marjory Kinnon – agree offers and the levels of

complexity v. Marjory Kinnon – ASD is becoming the prevalent primary need of children

attending the school. vi. Should an existing special school change designation to ASD?

11

$5hbemfke.doc 9

4.4 Commissioning of Places a. Few, if any of the commissioning arrangements between LBH and specialist

settings (whether Hounslow managed or out of borough) are supported by SLAs or contracts. Neither have any value for money tests or benchmarking of rates been carried out.

b. It will therefore be necessary to review all current arrangements.

c. By being confident that the council is getting value for money from all settings, especially those which are in the local area (but not managed by the borough), it will be easier to create a comprehensive and complimentary local offer.

4.5 Universal Banding system Proposals for a new banding system have been developed with special schools and have been circulated for consultation and feedback to all LBH specialist settings. Included in this piece of work will be improvements to the assessment and EHCP process, including individually costed EHCPs supported by provision maps. a. It is proposed that the system would start to be rolled out from April 2018 with

the first phase focussing on new EHCPs and annual reviews of CYP in centres.

b. This will allow time to monitor the impact of the new approach on future top-up costs and on existing centre and special school budgets which are based on average top-ups.

c. The introduction of the system will be complimented by the withdrawal of the policy of clawing back top up payments and the introduction of a rolling three-year commitment to places by the LA.

4.6 Some of these proposed changes will eventually start to reduce transport costs, so further work will be required at an appropriate point to attempt to quantify these.

5 Benefits Realisation and Implementation 5.1 The potential for the HN review to influence the setting of the 2018-19 budget

has always been limited due to the constraints of the respective timetables and because most of the measures which might be proposed to mitigate the overspend will require more detailed planning, consultation and a lead in time which could be as much as one year. Significant savings may also be difficult to achieve even in 2019-20.

5.2 It is therefore important that expectations are managed with respect to what is achievable and when. In developing an implementation programme activities will be assigned to one of three categories, short, medium and long term:

12

$5hbemfke.doc 10

i. Short Term A. changes which could be made during 2018 and which could impact

on the 2018-19 services, budgets or places – these will be limited

B. changes planned during 2018 which would influence 2019-20 budget setting and which could start to have an immediate impact ie early 2019

ii. Medium term

Implementation in 2019-20 and 2020-21 with planning during 2018-19

iii. Long term - 3 + years

5.3 The activities proposed in ‘6’ above will need to be configured as projects and incorporated into a formal implementation programme which will require appropriate links being established with other projects and improvement activities, for example: a. SEND strategy b. Inclusion model c. Primary Partnership Behaviour Project d. Reorganisation of Woodbridge Park Education Service

5.4 Resources

a. Delivery of this programme will require resources from the council, schools

and other stakeholders. b. It will be necessary for joint working groups or project teams to be

established. c. The required structure will need to be in place and work underway before the

end of March 2018.

6 Provisional Timetable Based on the categories described in 5.2 above an indicative schedule could look as follows: 6.1 Short Term - A

a. Universal banding system – from April 2018 – initial focus on new EHCPs,

transfers and annual reviews, especially those affecting centres and special schools.

b. From April 2018 - cessation of clawing back of top ups for vacancies – more certainty for schools and more flexibility in the system to cope with emergencies, assessment places etc.

c. Renegotiation of current commissioning arrangements

13

$5hbemfke.doc 11

d. Clarification of roles and designation of special schools – more effective placements/better use of resources

6.2 Short Term - B a. Expansion of centres – subject to feasibility and consultation eg

i. St Richard’s – ASD – dependent on future of school ii. Cranford – SpLD places to ASD iii. Strand on the Green – ASD

b. Re-designation of centres

i. Marlborough – SpLD to ASD ii. Lampton – SLCN to ASD

6.3 Medium Term

a. Creation of new ASD centre at Bolder Academy

7 Recommendations 7.1 That Schools Forum note the work carried out and progress made to date and

that consultation with providers will need to continue.

7.2 That Schools Forum approve the development of an implementation plan based on (but not exclusively) the opportunities identified in Section 4 above.

7.3 That Schools Forum approve the setting up of working groups/project teams as appropriate to support the delivery of 7.2.

8 Comments of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services This report updates Schools Forum on the emerging findings from the SEND review and recommends the development of an implementation plan that is supported by working groups to develop the opportunities identified in the report. This review is being undertaken in the context of:

the ongoing pressure on the High Needs Block. In 2017/18 this has been managed through a £2M transfer from the Schools Block which has resulted in a reduction in funding for mainstream schools.

the introduction of the National Funding Formula from 2018/19 which significantly constrains our ability to transfer funding out of the Schools Block and moves place funding from the High Needs to the Schools Block

a projected budget pressure of £1.5M to £3.5M in 2018/19.

Whilst more work needs to be done to quantify the potential savings arising from this review:

the roll out of the new banding system for new EHCPs and as existing EHCPs are reviewed during 2018/19 should bring a greater focus on the

14

$5hbemfke.doc 12

relative cost of top ups and consistency in the amount of top up that is payable

the review of SEN Centres should over time better align demand and provision, reduce the level of vacancies and improve consistency in the cost of Centres that support pupils with similar needs

changes to the Council’s approach to commissioning places should bring greater certainty for providers as to the Council’s commissioning intentions and enable the Council to budget more effectively for specialist provision.

As the implementation plan is developed the costs of taking forward the different work streams will need to be quantified.

15

$5hbemfke.doc 13

ANNEX A - ANALYSIS OF TOP UP RATES

1. Hounslow School Population

The following analysis has been based on an initial projection of the 2018-19 cohort of

Hounslow CYP with EHCPs (in both Hounslow and out of borough schools), the key findings

being as follows:

a. Of the projected 2065 EHCPs, 78% had top ups less than £15k and 87% were less than £20k

(the general upper limit for top ups in LBH schools). See Table 1.

Proportion for individual primary needs were similar. Primary needs which had the greatest

proportion of EHCPs with top ups greater than £20k were VI/SEMH. See Table 2.

For mainstream and SEN Centre settings, the proportion of EHCPs with top ups less than

£20k was much higher (92/99% resp). Unsurprisingly, for special schools the proportion of

top ups greater than £20k is higher at 29% – see Table 2.

87% of LBH EHCPs have top ups less than £20k

The percentage of EHCPs with top ups less than £15k is comparable for mainstream and

SEN Centre settings but mainstream settings have a higher proportion of EHCPs with top

up greater than £20k (though the cohort is small numbering 9)

Whilst the higher top ups are to be found in special school settings, more than half of

EHCPs in special schools still have top ups less than £15k

Based on individual primary needs, the majority of EHCPs have top ups less than £20k

Primary need with the highest proportions of EHCPs with top ups greater than £20k are

VI/SEMH/ASD/HI but the size of the cohorts is more significant

There are 120 EHCPs for ASD greater than £20k and 48 for SEMH

2. School Bandings

a. A summary of minimum and maximum top up rates for Hounslow Centres and special

schools, along with independent and out of borough schools is contained in Table 4

b. The majority of special places in Hounslow LA schools are funded on an average top up basis

with most rates being less than £20k.

c. However, rates above £20k are not just the prerogative of the independent sector as

academies and free schools such as Bedelsford and The Rise also have high fees.

In the context of primary needs, the higher fees (say £40-80k) are charged for ASD places with the

exception of a small number of complex PMLD/medical/residential placements.

16

$5hbemfke.doc 14

17

$5hbemfke.doc 15

ANNEX B1 – Resourced Provision

Is the SEN centre actually a resource base? We need to be clear on their exact status as the funding and staff models are different. The School Census returns include two categories, SEN Unit and Resourced Provision and for the purpose of this exercise a LBH ‘Centre’ is assumed to be the same as a SEN Unit:

a. SEN Units are special provisions within a mainstream school where the children with SEN are

taught mainly within separate classes which requires dedicated teaching space and

specialist teaching staff. However, it is expected that the centre pupils will spend some time

in mainstream (eg. at Strand on the Green pupil spend mornings in the centre

concentrating on core subjects eg maths, english, and in mainstream classes in the

afternoon eg art, PE etc.). It would not be unusual for a Unit to be led by a teacher with a

TLR and teaching staff to have SEN allowances

b. Resourced Provisions are where places are reserved at a mainstream school for pupils with a

specific type of SEN. Pupils are taught mainly within mainstream classes, but require

support of a base and some specialist facilities around the school eg respite, therapeutic

work or other specialist interventions. Teaching staff are likely to be mainstream teachers

with specialist training and possibly additional TAs to support small group or individual

working. The use of TLRs and SEN allowances would be expected to be more circumspect

and be dependent on the level of complexity of needs and the type of intervention required

when not in mainstream classes.

c. An analysis of the January 2017 census shows that of the 24 Centres, all bar 1 classed

themselves as a Centre, but seven of these recorded their pupils as being in both RB and

centre!

ANNEX B2 – ANALYSIS OF CENSUS RETURNS FOR RESOURCED PROVISION AND SEN CENTRES

18

$5hbemfke.doc 16

ANNEX C – VACANCIES – NOVEMBER 2017

19

$5hbemfke.doc 17

ANNEX D – SEN CENTRE COSTS AND STAFFING

PN Places Pupil/staff ratio

(based on total

FTE exc SMSA)

Pupil/staff ratio

(based on total

Teacher FTE)

HNB funding per

pupil

Notes

Crane Park ASD 24 2.3 5.3 25,266

Feltham Hill inf SCD 12 2.7 12.0 22,568

Grove Rd ASD 12 2.4 12.0 24,567

Hounslow Heath Inf PD 9 1.9 6.0 27,477 Leadership split across both centres

Hounslow Heath Inf MLD 8 2.1 5.3 27,427 Leadership split across both centres

Hounslow Heath Jun PD 10 1.6 6.7 31,220 Leadership split across both centres

Hounslow Heath Jun MLD 10 2.1 6.7 23,866 Leadership split across both centres

Hounslow Town MLD 20 3.6 10.0 17,895

Lionel Primary SLCN 25 3.8 7.4 19,365

3.4 FTE teachers with TLR and SEN

allowances

Marlborough Primary SpLD 14 7.0 8.8 15,184

Norwood Green Inf HI 13 2.2 6.5 26,179 Each centre has 1FTE teacher with TLR

Norwood Green Jun HI 12 2.9 2.9 28,895 Each centre has 1FTE teacher with TLR

Smallberry Green ASD 8 2.1 4.0 29,044

St Richards ASD 16 2.7 8.0 19,989

Strand on the Green I&J ASD 21 2.8 5.8 22,095 1 staff team shared by schools

Westbrook Primary HI 10 2.6 10.0 21,506

Brentford Girls ASD 12 1.8 6.0 31,677 inc 0.4 UQT

Cranford Community SpLD 15 7.5 7.5 18,343

Cranford Community ASD 15 1.9 7.5 26,603

Feltham Community PD 15 2.3 6.0 29,494 All 3 teachers have TLR

Feltham Community ASD 15 2.0 7.5 30,884 Both teachers have TLR

Heston Community HI 15 2.1 3.8 32,795

Lampton SLCN 16 4.0 10.0 19,434

20

$5hbemfke.doc 18

21

$5hbemfke.doc 19

ANNEX E

Table 1

22

$5hbemfke.doc 20

Table 2

Table 3

23

$5hbemfke.doc 21

Glossary ASD Autistic spectrum disorder: Autism is a lifelong developmental disability that

affects how people perceive the world and interact with others1 BAME Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic: CAMHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: is used as a term for all services that

work with children and young people who have difficulties with their emotional or behavioural wellbeing

CCG Clinical Commissioning Group: Clinically led NHS statutory bodies responsible for the planning and commissioning of health care services for their local area2

CYP Children and Young People: DSG Dedicated Schools Grant: Government gives local authorities money to fund the

schools that they manage EHCP Education Health and Care Plan: A legal document that describes a child or young

person's special educational, health and social care needs GP General Practitioner: Provides general medical services locally LDA Learning Difficulty Assessment: YP in further education or college who received

provision through these assessments MLD Moderate Learning Difficulty: CYP will have attainments significantly below

expected levels in most areas of the curriculum SEMH Social, Emotional and Mental Health: Where there are concerns about CYP social

and emotional well-being SEND Special Educational Needs and Disability: has a legal definition, referring to

children who have learning difficulties or disabilities that make it harder for them to learn than most children of the same age

SLCN Speech, Language and Communication: Umbrella term to describe the difficulties that some CYP have listening, understanding and communicating with others3

WPES Woodbridge Park Education Service: Early Years to KS4 pupil referral unit that provides full time education and support for students not accessing mainstream schools. Also provides education for students who cannot access mainstream schools due to Mental Health difficulties.

1 National Autistic Society http://www.autism.org.uk/about/what-is/asd.aspx 2 https://www.nhscc.org/ccgs/ 3 http://www.afasic.org.uk/about-talking/what-are-speech-language-and-communication-needs-slcn/

24

HIGH NEEDS REVIEW – UPDATE

SCHOOLS FORUM

1

John Wood

27th November 2017

25

SUPPLY & DEMAND

2

• ‘Gap’ is relatively stable until 2022 – ie when supply levels out

• For cohort remaining OOB, focus will need to be on improved

commissioning & achieving value for money•

Sep-17 Sep-18 Sep-19 Sep-20 Sep-21 Sep-22 Sep-23 Sep-24 Sep-25 Sep-26

Total EHCP forecast MIME

6 Oct'171744 1917 2010 2106 2183 2240 2347 2436 2535 2622

Indicative Hounslow CYP

requiring specialist

provision #

1242 1365 1432 1500 1555 1595 1672 1735 1806 1868

Total LBH Specialist supply926 998 1,061 1,114 1,166 1,216 1,250 1,260 1,270 1,280

Potential gap in specialist

provision -316 -367 -371 -386 -389 -379 -422 -475 -536 -588

Estimated number of CYP

who realistically will never

be placed in LBH provision

¥

158 174 182 191 198 203 213 221 230 238

'Realistic' gap in provision -158 -194 -189 -195 -191 -177 -209 -255 -306 -350

# Includes CYP currently in independent/OOB settings as well as LBH centres and special schools

¥ - includes 27 residential and 131 independent placements greater than £35k - CAN BE VARIED

26

SUPPLY & DEMAND - ASD

3

• ‘Dedicated supply’ (Centres/The Rise) is fixed

• ‘Ad hoc’ = LBH special schools – non ASD places under pressure

• ‘Never placed in LBH provision’ – focus on costs

• ‘Realistic Gap’ = Target cohort – ie more places/fewer EHCPs/lower top-ups

Specialist ASD Supply Sep-17 Sep-18 Sep-19 Sep-20 Sep-21 Sep-22 Sep-23 Sep-24 Sep-25 Sep-26

All 351 373 390 404 417 434 441 441 441 441

Dedicated 262 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264

ad hoc 89 109 126 140 153 170 177 177 177 177

Total LBH ASD Demand 428 490 547 607 654 710 762 810 858 908

Potential Gap in ASD

specialist provision -76 -117 -157 -204 -237 -276 -321 -369 -417 -466Estimated number of CYP who

realistically will never be placed in

LBH provision ¥

30 34 38 42 45 49 53 56 60 63

'Realistic' gap in provision -46 -83 -119 -162 -191 -227 -268 -312 -357 -403

¥ - based on placements with top ups greater than £50k - CAN BE VARIED

27

SUPPLY & DEMAND - ASD (2)

4

Can’t justify increasing overall number of places, so without

extra ASD places,

• Marjory Kinnon /Oaklands/Lindon Bennett will not be able

to:

o manage the current demand for current SLD/PMLD

places

o accept CYP with more complex needs

• Out of borough placements will continue to increase

• Feedback from ASD advisors is that growth is genuine

28

BANDING & TOP UPS

5

• Little differentiation between LBH mainstream,

centre and special school settings and between LBH

and out of borough settings

• The majority (87%) of top ups paid across all

settings are less than £20k.

• Highest top ups are for ASD (except for small

number of PMLD/medical/residential)

• High top ups not restricted to independent sector

29

SEN CENTRES

6

• Are LBH centres SEN Units or Resourced

Provision?

• Definition and designation are fundamental to

understanding costs, VFM and ensuring equity and

transparency

• Inconsistencies – staffing, pupils staff ratios, census

reporting, facilities

• Divergence from original briefs

30

SEN CENTRES (2)

7

• Should we have ‘centres’ for primary needs such

SLCN and SpLD

o Lionel (25), Lampton (16) – 41 places

o Marlborough (14), Cranford (15) – 29 places

• Similar argument for MLD but perhaps to a lesser

extent (up to 34 places)

• Can we justify retaining them in their current form?•

31

SEN CENTRES (3)

8

Primary Schools Designation Type Places Pupil/staff

ratio (based

on total FTE

exc SMSA)

Pupil/staff

ration (based

on total

teacher FTE)

Place & Top

up funding

per pupil

Crane Park Primary School ASD Centre 24 2.3 5.3 22140

Feltham Hill Infant & Nursery School ASD Centre 12 2.7 12 19330

St Richards Primary School ASD Centre 16 2.7 8 16751

Grove Road Primary School ASD Centre 12 2.4 12 21330

Strand Infants & Junior ASD Centre 21 2.8 5.8 18665

The Smallberry Green Primary School ASD Centre 8 2.1 4 25806

Hounslow Heath Infant & Nursery School (Catherine) PD Centre 9 1.9 6 24239

Hounslow Heath Junior School PD Centre 10 1.6 6.7 27983

Hounslow Heath Infant & Nursery School MLD Centre 8 2.1 5.3 24190

Hounslow Heath Junior School MLD Centre 10 2.1 6.7 19063

Hounslow Town Primary School MLD Centre 20 3.6 10 20939

Lionel Primary School SL Centre 25 3.8 7.4 16127

Marlborough Primary School SpLD Centre 14 7 8.8 11946

Norwood Green Nursery and Infant School HI Centre 13 2.2 6.5 22443

Norwood Green Junior School (Acad) HI Centre 12 2.9 2.9 25387

Westbrook Primary School (Acad) VI Centre 10 2.6 10 17296

Average 2.8 7.3 20852

Secondary Schools

Brentford School for Girls ASD Centre 12 1.8 6 23484

Cranford Community College ASD Centre 15 1.9 7.5 19399

Springwest Academy ASD Centre 15 2 7.5 24641

Cranford Community College SpLD Centre 15 7.5 7.5 11804

Springwest Academy PD Centre 15 2.3 6 22067

Heston Community School HI Centre 15 2.1 3.8 26257

Lampton School Academy Trust SL Centre 16 4 10 14070

Average 3.1 6.9 20246

Special Schools

Cedars Primary School ASD, BESD Special 70 not known 23624

Lindon Bennett School ASD, SLD, PMLD Special 154 not known 23947

Marjory Kinnon School ASD, MLD, SLD Special 183 1.5 to 2 6 to 10 24706

New Oaklands School (Primary) ASD, SLD, PMLD Special n/a n/a not known n/a

New Oaklands School (Secondary) ASD, SLD, PMLD Special 108 1.7 to 2.5 8 to 10 27284

Average 24890

32

SEN CENTRES (4)

9

Pupils on Roll at Each Centre 08/11/2017

Centre -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Grand

Total

Places

AvailableVacancies

%

vacancies

2016/17 2015/16 2014/15

BDA12 - Crane Park Primary - ASD Centre 2 4 3 2 4 5 4 24 24 0 0% 1.4 3 4.6

BDA12 - Feltham Hill I&N - SCD Centre 4 4 4 12 12 0 0% -1.2 -0.1 N/A

BDA12 - Grove Road Primary - ASD Centre 1 1 1 1 2 3 9 12 3 25% 0.2 0 -0.7

BDA12 - Smallberry Green Primary - ASD Centre 3 3 2 8 8 0 0% 0.5 0 0

BDA12 - St Richard's Primary - ASD Centre 1 2 1 4 2 3 13 16 3 19% 0.2 0.2 0

BDA12 - Strand-on-the-Green I&N - ASD Centre 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 9 9 0 0% -1.1 N/A N/A

BDA12 - Strand-on-the-Green Jnr - ASD Centre 3 3 3 2 11 12 1 8% 0 N/A N/A

BDB12 - Brentford School for Girls - ASD Centre 4 2 2 2 1 11 12 1 8% 0 -0.2 0.9

BDB12 - Cranford Community College - ASD Centre 4 3 3 3 13 13 0 0% -0.2 -0.3 N/A

BDB12 - Springwest Academy - ASD Centre 3 2 4 1 3 2 15 15 0 0% -0.7 0.2 0

ASD 10 13 13 12 18 17 14 11 7 9 6 4 125 133 8 6%

BDA12 - Hounslow Heath Infant - MLD Centre 2 4 6 8 2 25% 0 0.8 0.35

BDA12 - Hounslow Heath Junior - MLD Centre 2 2 4 6 2 33% 3.2 0.9 1.1

BDA12 - Hounslow Town Primary - MLD Centre 3 1 5 3 8 2 22 20 -2 -10% 0.1 3 2.1

MLD 3 2 5 7 5 8 2 32 34 2 6%

BDA12 - Hounslow Heath Infant - PD Centre 2 3 1 6 9 3 33% 1 N/A N/A

BDA12 - Hounslow Heath Junior - PD Centre 2 1 2 5 10 10 0 0% 0.3 -1 0.7

BDB12 - Springwest Academy - PD Centre 1 1 2 1 3 1 9 12 3 25% 3.6 3 3

PD 2 3 1 2 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 3 25 31 6 19%

BDA12 - Lionel Primary - SL Centre 1 3 3 5 4 7 23 25 2 8% 5.5 9.7 5.7

BDB12 - Lampton - SL Centre 4 1 3 3 4 15 16 1 6% 1.33 -0.1 -0.8

SL 1 3 3 5 4 7 4 1 3 3 4 0 0 0 41 3 7%

BDA12 - Marlborough Primary - SpLD Centre 1 1 5 7 14 7 50% 6.5 5.2 1.6

BDB12 - Cranford Community College - SpLD Centre 1 2 3 15 12 80% 7.3 4.3 4

SpLD 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 19 1.3 7%

BDA12 - Norwood Green I&N - HI Centre 6 2 3 11 13 2 15% 1.4 2.6 4.3

BDB12 - Norwood Green Junior - HI Centre 3 4 6 13 12 -1 -8% 1.1 1.3 0.8

BDB12 - Heston Community - HI Centre 1 2 1 3 3 10 15 5 33% 5.1 2.3 3.7

HI 6 2 3 3 4 0 6 1 2 1 3 3 0 0 34 40 6 15%

BDB12 - Westbrook Primary - VI Centre 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 7 0 0% -1 0.6 N/A

VI

BDA12 - Worple Primary Cluster 1 1 2 1 50% -0.7 0 -0.6

Total 45 46 51 58 68 71 70 31 25 31 29 26 488 615 71.3 12%

NCY Average FTE Vacancies in FY

33

Distribution of ASD Specialist places

10

34

Distribution of ASD Specialist places

11

35

RECONFIGURATION OF SEN CENTRESexamples

12

• Re-allocation of placeso Create a secondary ASD Centre (20-25 places) in the east of the borough

- will require closure of at least one centre in the east and would reinforce

and compliment the Strand ASD centre

• Re-designation of centreo Hounslow Heath Infants and Junior have expressed an interest in

converting from MLD into ASD

o Marlborough – consider switching to ASD – could compliment Smallberry

Green eg one dealing with low and one with medium level needs

• Increasing capacity o Strand have expressed an interest in expansion

o 2 schools have expressed an interest in establishing a new centre

• Relocation – review provision in the west/centre of the borough –

consider relocation of places to provide better coverage

36

Potential Distribution of ASD Specialist places

13

37

SPECIAL SCHOOLS

14

• Clarification of Designation – Oaklands/Lindon Bennett/

Marjory Kinnon

o Level of complexity

o SLD, PMLD

o ASD – what type of cases should these schools take?

o Marjory Kinnon – has increasing proportion of ASD

class groups

o Ensure moderate cases remain in mainstream

• Improved admissions and placement process

• Benchmarking with other LA special schools eg

Bedelsford – clear differentiation and costing•

38

BENEFITS

15

• Provision of more local ASD places – improved

accessibility/less travelling

• Opportunity to create local centres of excellence

• Helps to ensure that we have a continuum of

provision for ASD

39

BENEFITS

16

• Create more space in SS for complex cases

• Reduction in OOB placements

• Contributes to the objective of retaining more

students in mainstream education

40

IMPLEMENTATION & BENEFITS REALISATION

17

• Short Term

A. changes which could be made during 2018 and which

could impact on the 2018-19 services/budget/places –

will be limited

B. changes planned during 2018 which would influence

2019-20 budget setting and which could start to have

an immediate impact

• Medium term

o Implementation in 2019-20 and 2020-21 with planning

during 2018-19

• Long term - 3 + years

41

Work Programme - Example

18

Short Term – A

• Universal banding system – from April 2018 – initial focus on

new EHCPs, transfers and annual reviews, especially those

affecting centres and special schools.

• Assessment & Placement Process Improvement

• From April 2018 - cessation of clawing back of top ups for

vacancies – more certainty for schools and more flexibility in the

system to cope with emergencies, assessment places – but

accompanied by review of top up costs

• Clarification of roles and designation of special schools – more

effective placements/better use of resources

42

Work Programme – Example (2)

19

Short Term – B

• Audit & renegotiation of current commissioning arrangements

• Expansion of centres – subject to feasibility and consultation eg

o Cranford – SpLD places to ASD

o Strand on the Green – ASD

• Re-designation of centres

o Marlborough – SpLD to ASD

o Lampton – SLCN to ASD

Medium Term - Creation of new ASD centre in the east of the

borough

43

Work Programme - Comments

20

• Subject to consultation/feasibility/risk assessment etc

• Joint school/LA working groups required to start January

• Feasibility work – will require case audits and peer review

to determine appropriateness of placements and future

specifications/admissions criteria

• Improvement of SEN processes and practice is a pre-

requisite

• Lead in time to influence 2019-20 budget is tight

44

RECOMMENDATIONS

21

That Schools Forum note the work carried out and

progress made to date and that consultation with

providers will need to continue.

That Schools Forum approve the development of an

implementation plan based on (but not exclusively) the

opportunities identified.

That Schools Forum approve the setting up of working

groups/project teams as appropriate.

45

Report for:

INFORMATION

Contains Confidential or Exempt Information

No

Title Early Years budget and hourly rates for 2018/19

Contact Details Christine Holland, Head of Strategic Finance

Rupa Raghwani, Finance Manager

020 8583 2380 / 6115

christine.holland@hounslow.gov.uk

rupaben.raghwani@hounslow.gov.uk

For Consideration By Schools Forum

Date to be Considered 27 November 2017

Affected Wards All

Keywords/Index 2018/19, NFF, Early Years

Recommendation

That Schools Forum note the update on the status of 2018/19 Early Years budget and the setting of hourly rates for providers.

1. Report Summary

This report updates Schools Forum on current position in determining the 2018/19 early years provision, budget and funding rates.

2. Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF) 2.1 Local authorities (LA’s) received their first payments under the early years

national funding formula in April 2017 with some transitional arrangements, so that they are fully funded by the early years national funding formula by 2019-20.

2.2 In 2017/18 the formula included a minimum funding rate of £4.30 per hour

from the EFA to LA’s for the 3 & 4 year olds provision, with the scope that LA’s would pay at least £4 per hour to providers.

2.3 The Council received £4.98 per hour of which £4.60 per hour was paid to

providers. The funding rate for both the existing 15 hour entitlement and the additional 15 hour entitlement for the 3 & 4 year olds provision are the same.

46

Agenda Item 5

2.4 The funding rate for 2 year olds was £5.92 per hour of which £5.87 was paid

over to providers with transitional protection arrangements in place for 2017/18.

2.5 Early Year Pupil Premium (EYPP) continued in 2017/18 to support disadvantaged pupils and is likely to continue in 2018/19. However, the government has committed to review the delivery mechanism for EYPP, taking account of the delivery mechanism for the new disability access fund (DAF). Further details are expected on this.

3. Requirements from 2017/18 and for 2018/19 3.1 There were several new requirements on how LA’s were to allocate funding to

providers from 2017-18, intended to ensure that funding is fairly distributed to providers. The main changes were:

• A minimum amount of funding to be passed through to providers.

• A local universal base rate for all types of providers.

• Supplementary funding for maintained nursery schools

• Reforms to mandatory and discretionary supplements

• The introduction of a disability access fund (DAF)

• Establishment of a special educational needs inclusion fund. 3.2 The following is known from the guidance issued in 2017/18: -

• The pass-through funding level was 93% in 2017/18 and will increase to 95% from 2018/19.

• The total value of supplements must not be more than 10% of the total value of planned funding to be passed through to providers. (Supplements are amounts of funding which are given in addition to the base rate to reflect local needs or policy objectives, there is one mandatory supplement (deprivation) and 4 discretionary supplements (rurality/sparsity, flexibility, quality & EAL).

3.3 At present, it is unknown if there are any additional requirements for 2018/19

as the EYNFF 2018/19 guidance notes are yet to be issued to LA’s. The Council is also awaiting the provisional funding allocations for 2018/19. Both are expected mid-December. This will make the process tight in regards to modelling the hourly rates for 2018/19 and setting the 2018/19 budgets as well as implementing any other changes that may be required under the 2018/19 guidance.

4. Other Points to Note

4.1 From January 2018, EFA will collect data about DAF take up via the school

census and early years census. 4.2 For the final 2017/18 allocations, the core 15 hours will continue to be based

on 5/12th of Jan 2017 child numbers (for period April 17 to Aug 17) and 7/12th of Jan 18 child numbers (for period Sept 17 to Mar 18), with the adjustment made in the summer 2018.

47

4.3 For the additional hours, the ESFA intend final funding allocations for 2017/18 to be based on child numbers recorded at the January 2018 census data. It is expected that the January 2018 numbers will be taken to calculate the funding for the period Sept 17 to Mar 18.

5. Comments of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services 5.1 This report seeks to update the School Forum on the current position

regarding the setting of the 2018/19 early years budget and hourly rates to be paid to providers.

5.2 The Council are still awaiting the 2018/19 funding allocations and operational

guide, which are expected mid-December. This will make the process tight in regards to setting the 2018/19 budgets, both at the LA level and provider level.

5.3 The LA will begin collating data and modelling based on the information

already provided and will update School Forum during January with the impact for 2018/19.

6. Background Information

Early Years Funding Formula – Schools Forum 27 February 2017. Early Year National Funding Formula (EYNFF) Operational Guide – December 2016 (as issued by EFA).

48

SCHOOLS FORUM 27 NOVEMBER 2017

Addendum to agenda item 5: Early Years budget and hourly rates for 2018/19

Explanatory note: On 17 November EFSA published operational and technical guidance notes and hourly rates for 3 and 4 year olds. At the time the Early Years update to Schools Forum was drafted this information was not available so it was not reflected in the report. The Council has now reviewed the information published on 17 November and is issuing this addendum to the report at agenda item 5 to provide Schools Forum members with further information ahead of the meeting on 27 November. Local Authority funding rates for 2018/19 The rates at which the Council will be funded for 3 and 4 year olds in 2018/19 have been published by EFSA. Hounslow’s funding rate (i.e. the hourly rate on which the funding allocation to Hounslow is based) for 2018/19 is £5.71 per hour. This compares to £4.98 for 2017/18. Hounslow’s overall 2018/19 Early Years block allocation The Council expects to receive its initial 2018/19 Early Years block allocation in December 2017 alongside a ‘Technical Note’ and the ‘DSG Conditions of Grant’. The key elements of the operational and technical guidance issued on 17 November is summarised below: Changes for 2018/19 The main changes from the requirements for the 2017/18 financial year are:

• the pass-through rate increases from 93% in 2017/18 to 95% in 2018/19.

• clarification that local authority formulas should not distinguish between the two entitlements for three and four year olds.

• clarification that funding supplements are intended to be in addition to the base rate and not used to reduce it

Setting of the 2018/19 Early Years’ Formula

• Local authorities are required to consult providers on annual changes to their local formula.

• Schools forums must also be consulted on changes to local early years funding formulas, including agreeing central spend by 28 February 2018, although the final decision rests with the local authority.

• Formula cannot be changed after the financial year has started.

• Local authorities should ensure their early years providers are sufficiently represented at schools forum meetings to cover votes on specific changes to the formula.

• Each schools forum should have at least one representative of the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector among its non-school members.

49

Technical guidance – calculation of the 2018/19 initial funding allocations for the early years block Funding for 3 & 4 year olds For the universal 15 hours funding, the initial allocation will be based on census data (PTE child counts) from the January 2017 Schools, Early Years and Alternative Provision censuses. For the additional 15 hours, data is not yet available from the schools, early years, and alternative provision censuses, as January 2018 will be the first time census data will be collected. Therefore, and as for 2017 to 2018, DfE will estimate, for each local authority, the number of eligible children who are likely to take up the entitlement (and the hours they will take up). In 2017 to 2018, it was assumed that 80% of eligible children will take up the additional hours provision, and that those children will, on average, take up 12 hours of the available 15 additional hours. For 2018 to 2019, the take up assumption will increase from 80% to 83%. Funding for 2 year olds PTE child counts from the January 2017 schools, early years and alternative provision censuses will be used to calculate the initial funding allocation for 2018/19. Early Years Pupil Premium The national rate for EYPP is 53p per hour per eligible child, up to a maximum 570 hours per year. PTE child counts from the January 2017 schools, early years and alternative provision censuses will be used to calculate the initial funding allocation. Disability Access Fund (DAF) The national rate for DAF is £615 per eligible child per year. The funding allocation for 2018/19 will be an illustrative allocation based on an estimate of the number of three and four year olds who are not in Reception that are claiming the Disability Living Allowance (DLA). For each local authority, their total February 2017 DLA claimant count of three and four year old children, using data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), will be adjusted to remove an estimated number of children in reception. This will give an estimate of the number of three and four year olds eligible to take up DAF in the local authority area. There will therefore be in year changes to Hounslow’s early year’s block funding when more up to date census data becomes available. SEN Inclusion Fund Local authorities are required to have SEN inclusion funds for 3 and 4 year olds with SEN who take up free entitlements regardless of the hours taken. Funds should be targeted at children with lower level or emerging SEN. Children with more complex needs and those in receipt of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) continue to be eligible to receive

50

funding via the High Needs block. Local authorities must consult early years providers on the value of the local SEN inclusion fund and with providers, parents and SEN specialists on how these funds are to be distributed. SEN inclusion funds can be established from one or both the Early Years or High Needs blocks. The majority of the fund must be passed to providers in the form of top up grants on a case by case basis. It may also be used to support local specialist SEN services.

51

Report for:

ACTION

Contains Confidential or Exempt Information

No

Title National Funding Formula Update – funding factors

Contact Details Christine Holland, Head of Strategic Finance

Rupa Raghwani, Finance Manager

020 8583 2380 / 6115

christine.holland@hounslow.gov.uk

rupaben.raghwani@hounslow.gov.uk

For Consideration By Schools Forum

Date to be Considered 27 November 2017

Affected Wards All

Keywords/Index 2018/19, NFF, schools formula

Recommendations

That Schools Forum:

1. Note the differences between the funding factors in the Hounslow funding formula factor and the National Funding Formula as set out in section x of the report

2. Consider the options for transitioning to the National Funding Formula

3. Consider how the changes in funding factors are communicated to schools.

1. Report Summary

This report compares the funding factors in National Funding Formula (NFF) with the factors currently used Hounslow Formula. It seeks to highlight those parts of the Hounslow formula that are out of line with the NFF. Changes to the funding formula will cause some schools to gain funding whilst others may lose funding. The Minimum Funding Guarantee will provide some protections for schools to mitigate against any negative financial implications of the transition to the NFF. The Council is seeking views from Schools Forum as to their preferred transition option and how changes to the formula are communicated to schools.

52

Agenda Item 6

2. Background

2.1 The NFF applies from 2020/21. For 2018/19 and 2019/20 a formula that is agreed locally applies.

2.2 The total funding available to Hounslow via the NFF in 2018/19 and 2019/20 will be the aggregate of the notional allocations for each school set under the NFF.

3. Allowable funding factors

3.1 The table at Appendix A sets out the allowable funding factors per the NFF and for each factor

• whether we currently use that factor in the Hounslow formula

• whether the factor applies (some of the factors we don’t currently use don’t

apply to Hounslow)

• the basis on which that factor is applied in the NFF and Hounslow formulae

• the funding rate that applies to the factor in the Hounslow and NFF (we have

assumed the funding rate is the published rate plus an area cost adjustment)

The main differences between the Hounslow formula and the NFF are discussed below.

3.2 Basic entitlement

The basic entitlement factor in both formulae has three levels:

• Primary – the per pupil funding in the NFF (£3,016.28) is lower than the Hounslow formula (£3,238.46)

• Key Stage 3 – the per pupil funding in the NFF (£4,241.31) is higher than the Hounslow formula (£3,838.31)

• Key Stage 4 – the per pupil funding in the NFF (£4,815.75) is lower than the Hounslow formula (£5,341.01)

3.3 Deprivation factor

There are significant differences in how the deprivation factor applies in the NFF:

• The current Hounslow formula uses two deprivation factors – free school

meals (October count) and IDACI (Income Deprivation Affecting Children

Index)

• The NFF uses three deprivation factors - free school meals (October count),

Free School Meals Ever 6 (tracking pupils receiving free school meals across

the last 6 years’ counts i.e. 18 termly counts) and IDACI

• The IDACI factors in the NFF are different to those currently used by

Hounslow – we use 4 out of the 7 available bandings. NFF uses 6 bands.

The rates per band in the NFF also differ to the rates currently used by

Hounslow

• The rates for pupils who receive free school meals also differ.

3.4 Prior attainment

The factors follow the same principles as the Hounslow formula ie primary funding is based on the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile assessed at the

53

end of Reception year and the secondary funding is based on the outcomes of Key Stage 2 testing.

However the amounts paid by pupil in each category vary significantly between the Hounslow formula and NFF. The current Hounslow funding rates are £1,949.25 for primary and £2,450.00 for secondary compared to £1,152.93 and £1,701.95 in the NFF.

3.5 English as an additional language (EAL)

The Hounslow factor and the NFF factor are both based on 3 year’s data however the amount payable per pupil varies. In the NFF the primary factor is higher at £565.48 compared to Hounslow’s £310.76 but the secondary factor is lower at £1,520.77 (£1,767.40 in the Hounslow formula).

3.6 Split sites

Both formulae have a split sites factor. The 2018/19 NFF operational guidance includes some principles that apply to the calculation of split site factors but gives no financial values. The principles suggest a factor based on trigger points such as distance between sites, remote playing fields and the level of staff teaching on both sites on a daily basis may apply in the NFF.

The principles in the operational guidance are not in line with Hounslow’s split site formula so changes may be required to the Hounslow formula in due course.

There is additional flexibility in the calculation of the Minimum Funding Guarantee from 2018/19. This can range from 98.5% to 100% of a school’s previous year’s funding.

3.7 Minimum funding levels

The NFF seeks to introduce a minimum level of funding from 2019/20. This is £3,500 per primary pupil and £4,800 per secondary pupil. This covers their core funding which is their basic entitlement, deprivation, prior attainment and EAL factors. For 2017/18 the lowest per pupil funding rate for a Hounslow primary school is £3,800 per pupil and £5,173 per secondary pupil.

The 2018/19 operational guidance includes measures to move schools that are funded at below this level up to the minimum level of funding. However it is silent about what measures may be introduced via the NFF to limit funding for schools that funded in excess of the minimum funding level.

4. Options for 2018/19 and 2019/20

4.1 The following options are available to transition Hounslow schools to the NFF ahead of 2020/21.

Option 1: No transition - Apply the Hounslow formula for 2018/19 (and 2019/20) and move to the NFF for 2019/20 or 2020/21

Option 2: One stage transition in 2019/20 - Apply the Hounslow formula for 2018/19; make changes to the Hounslow move part way to the NFF for 2019/20 with full implementation of the NFF in 2020/21

Option 3: One stage transition in 2018/19 – Make changes to the Hounslow formula for 2018/19 to move part way to the NFF and implement the NFF from 2019/20

Option 4: Two stage transition: Make some changes to the Hounslow formula for 2018/19 and further changes for 2019/20 to move the Hounslow formula closer to the NFF with full implementation of the NFF in 2020/21

54

4.2 Changes to the funding formula will cause some schools to gain funding whilst others will lose funding. The MFG will provide some protections for schools to mitigate against any negative financial implications of the transition to the NFF.

4.3 The Council is seeking views from Schools Forum as to their preferred transition option. If Options 3 or 4 are preferred (ie changing the Hounslow formula for 2018/19) the Council will model different transitional options and seek feedback from schools during December.

4.4 Views are also sought from Schools Forum as to how we communicate the potential implications of the NFF for Hounslow schools.

5. Comments of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services 5.1 This report seeks to highlight the key differences between the Hounslow

funding formula and the NFF and to seek views from Schools Forum on how we change the Hounslow formula to transition to the NFF.

5.2 The Council is undertaking some financial modelling to assess the impact of the differences in funding factors on individual schools and to inform proposals to smooth the transition from the Hounslow formula to the NFF. It is expected that some initial modelling will be available to inform discussions at the Schools Forum meeting on 27 November.

5.3 If Options 3 or 4 are preferred (ie changing the Hounslow formula for 2018/19) the Council will model different transitional options and seek feedback from schools during December that will inform recommendations to the School Forum meeting in January 2018.

5.4 Changes to the funding formula will cause some schools to gain funding whilst

others may have their funding reduced. The Minimum Funding Guarantee will need to be set at a level that helps schools manage any reduction in funding.

55

Appendix A: Comparison of Hounslow formula and NFF factors and values

Available Formula Factors Formula Factors Used by Hounslow?

Formula values LBH Formula Values NFF NFF Formula area cost adj re. LBH:

Values x 1.09803

Basic Entitlement

(Compulsory factor)

Yes,

Age-weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU):

At Primary, KS3 & KS4

Primary £3,238.46

KS3 £3,838.31

KS4 £5,341.04

Primary £2,746.99

KS3 £3,862.65

KS4 £4,385.81

Primary £3,016.28

KS3 £4,241.31

KS4 £4,815.75

Deprivation

(Compulsory Factor)

*Note, for 2018-19 now permitted to use both FSM and FSM “ever6” within deprivation factors (both used within NFF formula model in addition to IDACI)

Yes,

50% by Free School Meals eligibility

50% by IDACI

FSM (P) £ 606.53

FSM (S) £1,142.75

FSM Ever6

(Option not used by LBH)

IDACI (0-6) see Table below

FSM (P) £ 440

FSM (S) £ 440

FSM Ever6 (P) £540

FSM Ever6 (S) £785

IDACI (0-6)

See Table below

FSM (P) £ 483

FSM (S) £ 483

FSM Ever6 (P) £592.94

FSM Ever6 (S) £861.95

IDACI (0-6)

See Table below

56

Available Formula Factors Formula Factors Used by Hounslow?

Formula values LBH Formula Values NFF NFF Formula area cost adj re. LBH:

Values x 1.09803

Prior Attainment

(Optional Factor)

*Note, this factor is a known “outlier” when compared to other LAs

Yes,

Baseline assessment for Primary (EYFSP)

KS2 assessment for Secondary

EYFSP:

(P) £1,949.25

KS2 Sats:

(S) £2,450.00

EYFSP

(P) 1,050

KS2 Sats

(S) £1,550

EYFSP

(P) 1,152.93

KS2 Sats

(S) £1,701.95

Looked after Children (LAC)

(Optional Factor)

NB this factor will not be available in the National Funding Formula (NFF)

No

Pupil Premium grant LAC funding allocated through Virtual School directly to schools on a termly basis

n/a (not used as NFF Factor)

n/a

n/a

English as an additional language (EAL)

(Optional Factor)

Yes,

Funding allocated to schools using EAL “Ever 3” measure

EAL Ever3

Primary £310.76

Secondary £1,767.40

EAL Ever3

Primary £515

Secondary £1,385

EAL Ever3

Primary £565.48

Secondary £1,520.77

57

Available Formula Factors Formula Factors Used by Hounslow?

Formula values LBH Formula Values NFF NFF Formula area cost adj re. LBH:

Values x 1.09803

Pupil Mobility

(Optional Factor)

No

(Pupil mobility was used as a historic factor in LBH formula, but ceased from 2013-14)

n/a

n/a

n/a

Sparsity

(Optional Factor)

No

(factor suitable for rural schools only)

n/a

n/a

n/a

Lump Sum

(Optional Factor – used by all LAs)

Yes

Single amount used for Schools Formula for primary and secondary schools

Primary and Secondary

£110,000

Primary and Secondary

£110,000

Primary and Secondary

£120,783

Split Sites

(Optional Factor)

*Note: a new Split Site factor was introduced by LB Hounslow in 2016-17, and will be due for review after 3 years of operation.

Yes

Factor introduced from 2016-17

formula re schools expanding onto an additional site

LBH £227.63 per “missing pupil” (based on Capacity less pupils present in additional building)

No value provided

Value to be confirmed

58

Available Formula Factors Formula Factors Used by Hounslow?

Formula values LBH Formula Values NFF NFF Formula area cost adj re. LBH:

Values x 1.09803

Rates

(Optional Factor – used by all LAs)

*Note: Rates (NNDR) is part of Premises Factors in NFF

Yes

Schools’ projected NNDR Bills funded at cost

(funded on estimates with estimates in Yr 1 then resolved in Yr 2)

Actual cost per school

Actual cost per school

Actual cost per school

Private Finance Initiative (PFI ) contracts

(Optional Factor)

No

n/a

n/a

n/a

London Fringe

(Optional Factor applicable only for 5 LAs)

Not applicable

n/a

n/a

n/a

Exceptional Premises Factors

(Optional Factor)

No

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

Available Formula Factors Formula Factors Used by Hounslow?

Formula values LBH Formula Values NFF NFF Formula area cost adj re. LBH:

Values x 1.09803

Minimum level of Per-Pupil Funding for Primary and Secondary Schools

(Optional Factor)

*Note, Hounslow per pupil funding already higher than levels of minimum per pupil funding in new NFF Factor

(this is a new factor available for the 2018-19 formula)

n/a

Per national calculation applied

Per national calculation applied

Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG)

(application as set out in Schools & Early Years Finance regulations)

*Note: The minimum Funding Guarantee for 2018-19 may be set between 98.5% up to 100% of 2017-18 MFG Baseline

Yes

LBH Rate to be determined for 2018-19

Per national calculation

Per national calculation

60

IDACI Table of factors

Hounslow IDACI Levels

NB G = LOW / A = HIGH

Hounslow

Primary

Hounslow

Secondary

NFF

Primary

NFF

Secondary

NFF IDACI Bands (based on scores by postcode)

% pupils in each IDACI band

G £0 £0 £0 £0 Less than 0.2 55%

F £0 £0 £200 £290 Between 0.2 & 0.25 10%

E £157 £298 £240 £390 Between 0.25 & 0.3 9%

D £315 £597 £360 £515 Between 0.3 & 0.35 8%

C £473 £895 £390 £560 Between 0.35 & 0.4 7%

B £631 £1,193 £420 £600 Between 0.4 & 0.5 8%

A £0 £0 £575 £810 Between 0.5 & 1.0 3%

61

Report for: INFORMATION

Contains Confidential or Exempt Information

No

Title NFF update - Central Schools Services Block and De delegation

Contact Details Christine Holland, Head of Strategic Finance

Rupa Raghwani, Finance Manager

020 8583 2380 / 6115

christine.holland@hounslow.gov.uk rupaben.raghwani@hounslow.gov.uk

For Consideration By Schools Forum

Date to be Considered 27 November 2017

Affected Wards All

Keywords/Index School finance, CSSB, de delegation

1. Details of Recommendations

The School’s Forum is asked to:

• Note the functions that can be funded from the Central Services Support Block as set out in section 3 of the report

• The budget pressure arising from the withdrawal of the general duties element of the Education Services Grant

• Advise on whether proposals for de delegated services should be developed and brought to Schools Forum in January 2018

2. Report Summary

This report updates Schools Forum on the arrangements for funding services delivered centrally by the Council that have traditionally been funded from the DSG. It provides information on the services that can be funded via the Central Schools Services Block in 2018/19 and those where budgets can be de delegated. This report highlights the financial pressures resulting from the withdrawal of the general duties element of the Education Services Grant and provides context to the approvals that will be sought from Schools Forum in January 2018 once the 2018/19 funding allocations have been confirmed.

62

3. Central Schools Services Block (CSSB) Background information 3.1 Hounslow’s CSSB for 2018/19 is c£1.3M. This is a new block for 2018/19 and

is intended to fund the Council’s statutory duties held for both maintained schools and academies. This brings together:

• Funding previously allocated through the retained duties element of the

Education Services Grant (ESG)

• Funding for ongoing central functions such as admissions previously

top sliced from the schools block

• Residual funding for historic commitments previously top sliced from the

schools block.

3.2 ESFA has issued tables that list the duties/ functions of the local authority that are for all schools and for maintained schools only. These are lengthy tables so are not repeated in full in this report. Some examples are provided in the table below.

Responsibilities held for all schools Responsibilities held for maintained schools only

Director of children’s services and personal staff for the director

Budgeting and accounting functions relating to maintained schools

Planning for the education service as a whole

Internal audit relating to the Chief Finance Officer’s responsibilities for maintained schools

Revenue budget preparation, preparation of income and expenditure relating to education and external audit relating to education

Functions made under s44 of the 2002 Act (Consistent Financial Reporting)

Formulation and review of the local authority schools funding formula

Functions related to the local government pension scheme and administration of teachers pensions in relation to staff working in maintained schools

Functions relating to the exclusion of pupils excluding any education of excluded pupils

Compliance with duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act

Management of the LA’s capital programme including preparation and review of an Asset Management Plan

Establishing and maintaining computer systems

Licenses negotiated centrally by the Secretary of State

Appointment of governors and payment of governors expenses

Admissions Inspection of attendance registers

63

Responsibilities held for all schools Responsibilities held for maintained schools only

Servicing of schools forums General landlord duties for all maintained schools, management of the risk from asbestos in community school buildings and health and safety duty as an employer (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974)

3.3 Functions listed in the ‘Responsibilities for all schools’ column can be funded

from the CSSB with the agreement of Schools Forum. 3.4 School Improvement is not included within these arrangements as a separate

grant is payable to the Council to cover its statutory intervention functions and monitoring and commissioning of school improvement support.

3.5 Support services provided by the Council relating to SEND and Alternative

Provision can be funded from the high needs block and Early Years from the Early Years block subject to restrictions and relevant approvals.

4. Challenges for 2018/19 4.1 The Education Services Grant (ESG), which ceased from April 2017, was

used to fund central support services to schools. This had two elements:

• Retained duties element- £15 per pupil that was intended to fund strategic

education responsibilities. This equates to funding of c£600K depending

on pupil numbers.

• General duties element - £77 per primary and secondary pupil, £327 per

special school pupil and £289 for PRU pupils. This was paid to cover the

cost of delivering the Council’s responsibilities in respect of maintained

schools and was equivalent to c£2M depending on pupil numbers.

4.2 General duties ESG funding ceased from April 2017 to meet government savings targets of £600M as set out in the 2015 Autumn Statement. A transitional grant was been paid to the Council from April to September 2017 but no further grant is payable. However the functions and duties remain and need to be delivered at a cost to the Council.

4.3 In 2016 the Council and Schools Forum reviewed the support services that

were being funded from DSG and savings of £920K were made to help balance the 2017/18 DSG budget.

4.4 The withdrawal of the general duties element of the ESG leaves a shortfall in

funding that needs to be addressed as part of the setting of the 2018/19 budget.

4.5 The retained duties element of the ESG was transferred into the Schools

Block for 2017/18 (£0.59M) and for 2018/19 this will be transferred out of the Schools Block into the CSSB.

4.6 For 2018/19 services previously funded from the general funding rate can be

funded in 2018/19 from maintained school budget shares with the agreement

64

of the maintained school members of the school forum. This needs to be expressed as a single funding rate per 5 to 16 year old pupil and there can be different rates for special schools and PRUs if the cost of fulfilling the duty is significantly different. Any agreed funding is in effect an unfunded ‘top slice’ against individual school budgets.

4.7 The Council is also reviewing how some corporately provided services are

being funded in light of the changes affecting the ESG and the establishment of the CSSB eg health and safety which is funded primarily via school buy back rather than ESG.

4.8 The Council is currently updating its costings of the support services relating

to its strategic responsibilities relating to all schools, the functions undertaken on behalf of maintained schools and the support services that can be funded from the high needs and early years blocks.

4.9 Proposals as to how the CSSB is to be used and for funding the delivery of its

responsibilities relating to maintained schools will be brought to Schools Forum in January. The Council appreciates the constraints on school budgets and will not be seeking to address the full impact of the loss of general duties ESG from maintained school budgets. The Council does however expect to bring some proposals that will share the impact between schools and the Council and help maintain critical functions.

5 De delegated services 5.1 De delegated services are for maintained schools only. Funding is agreed

through the formula but can be passed back or de delegated for mainstream primary and secondary schools with Schools Forum approval.

5.2 The services which may be de delegated are

• Additional school improvement services

• Contingencies (including schools in financial difficulties and deficits of closing

schools)

• Behaviour support services

• Support to underperforming ethnic groups and bi lingual learners

• Free school meals eligibility

• Insurance

• Museum and Library services

• Staff costs supply cover (eg long term sickness, maternity, trade union and

public duties)

• Licenses and subscriptions (except those funded by DfE)

5.3 Hounslow has the following de delegated services for primary schools for 2017/18:

• Schools contingency (schools in financial difficulty)

• Free School meals eligibility

• Licenses (copyright)

• Staff costs supply cover – Trade Union Facility Time

5.4 Feedback is sought from the primary and secondary maintained school members of Schools Forum as to whether they wish the Council to bring de delegation proposals for these services in January.

65

6. Comments of the Director, Finance and Corporate Services

6.1 This report updates Schools Forum on the services that can be funded from

the Central Services Schools Block and the provisions in the 2018/19 funding guidance relating to services for maintained schools that had previously been funded from the general duties element of the Education Services Grant.

6.2 The withdrawal of the funding previously provided via the general duties

element of the Education Services Grant (ESG) from 1 April 2017 has been managed in 2017/18 via a combination of reductions to service budgets and the transitional ESG grant that was paid to the Council for the period April to August 2017.

6.3 For 2018/19 there is no transitional grant to fund the Council’s functions

relating to maintained schools. The Council has taken steps to reduce the cost of these functions in light of the withdrawal of ESG as a funding stream. ESFA guidance allows the Council to fund certain functions from the Schools Block allocations to maintained schools with the agreement of Schools Forum but no funding has been provided.

6.4 The Council is currently updating its costings of the functions listed in the

ESFA operational guidance in order to be able to bring proposals to Schools Forum in January as to the functions that are to be funded from CSSB.

6.5 The Council also expects to bring proposals to Schools Forum in January as

to the functions provided in respect to maintained schools that we are seeking to be funded from the budget shares for maintained schools. These proposals will not seek to transfer the full £2M loss of ESG to maintained schools but will seek a modest contribution towards the residual costs of these functions.

66

Report for: ACTION

Contains Confidential or Exempt Information

NO

Title Hounslow Education Partnership: Finance and Governance Arrangements

Contact Details David Brockie david.brockie@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2747

For Consideration By Schools Forum

Date to be Considered 27 November 2017

Implementation Date 1 April 2018

Affected Wards All

Keywords/Index School finance, education, partnership,

1. Details of Recommendations

The School’s Forum is asked to:

1. Endorse the setting up of Hounslow Education Partnership from April 2018 as a ‘Schools’ Company Limited by Guarantee’, as a key vehicle for area-based school improvement in Hounslow.

2. Recommend the residual of the DSG reserve allocated to the Education Improvement Partnership in 2007 should be transferred to Hounslow Education Partnership by 31 August 2018, using one of the options identified in recommendation 4. The current projected sum for transfer is c£30k.

3. Recommend the residual of the DSG reserve allocated to the Hounslow Learning Partnership in 2014 should be transferred to the new Hounslow Education Partnership by 31 August 2018, using one of the options identified in recommendation 4. The current projected sum for transfer is c£470k.

4. Given that sign up to the company in principle is for 3 years, but with a financial commitment from school for 1 year in the first instance, advise the Council whether the transfer of funds should be:

a. In full, from 2018, subject to any required DFE agreement. b. Phased in equal instalments over 3 years’ from 2018, provided HEP

remains financially viable.

2. Report Summary

1. This report deals with financial arrangements and governance of the new

Hounslow Education Partnership.

67

Agenda Item 7

2. It recommends transfer of DSG from the legacy partnerships: Hounslow Education Improvement Partnership and Hounslow Learning Partnership.

3. The outline proposals and financial projections indicate that HEP will be financially viable and be in a strong position play a key role in the ‘school led system’ in Hounslow. This is in the context of the changing role of the local authority and national policy direction for school improvement.

4. These recommendations are being made to strengthen the capacity of schools working together, by setting their work in a formal structure with the ability to employ staff, hold contracts and bid for funding.

3. Hounslow as a school-led system – progress to date 3.1 Whilst national education policy has been the subject of significant shifts over

the last 18 months, the notion of a ‘school led system’ remains a constant with broad support, provided there is appropriate infrastructure and resources.

3.2 Consultation

A Headteachers’ consultation conference in September 2016 set up a Task and Finish Group, with Headteacher and LA reps, to develop proposals for a single, formal, school-led partnership structure building on the success of the EIP and HLP. After further conferences in April and October 2017, 73 of 79 schools have signed up ‘in principle’ to be members of the new Hounslow Education Partnership. Chairs of Governors have been consulted at special meetings in October 2016 and November 2017.

Heads and Governors have been presented with an outline business case for the new company and modelling of membership costs and services. A Transition Board is now responsible for developing the full business case and setting up the company to launch in April 2018 and be fully operational from September 2018.

3.3 Vision

HEP has a clear vision of a collective responsibility and ambition for the educational opportunity of all children and young people in Hounslow. Schools will shape the services they need through membership of a Partnership which is inclusive of all state-funded Hounslow schools. It will promote a rigorous culture of review, reflection, challenge and support drawing on the skills and expertise in our schools and beyond.

4. Governance 4.1 Company structure

HEP will be set up as a Company Limited by Guarantee, as a not for profit organisation under the legislation which defines such a body as a ‘School’s Company.’ Any surplus earnings will be reinvested into further educational improvements across the Partnership. This structure offers limited liability to schools and enables them to adopt shared governance of joint activity.

As a formal body HEP can employ staff, own property, bid for funding and enter into contractual arrangements. All of these aspects are limitations to the current school partnerships, which depend on the local authority to host such arrangements on their behalf.

68

4.2 The Company Board

The company will be accountable to members through a Board of Directors, responsible to the Company Members. The Board will comprise: 3 primary Headteachers (one from each area), 2 secondary and 1 special. The appointed Partnership Director will also sit on the Board. The nomination process will be through the representative bodies of Headteachers for each phase. In the first year, 3 Founder Directors drawn from the Transition Board will form part of this complement. Each local school Governing Body will be eligible to vote. There is the potential for the addition of a Non-Exec Director after year 1. Articles of association are in preparation, alongside the full business plan.

4.3 Accountability

The HEP Board is not responsible for individual schools and is not able to control individual Governing Bodies. It only has authority to do what the schools authorise it to do. It will be their ‘servant’ and not their ‘master’. The local authority is deemed the supervising authority, with a responsibility in relation to a ‘Schools’ Company to monitor the management of finances. The local authority must notify secretary of state of the existence of the company. Schools are required by the legislation to tell the local authority who the members are. A protocol between the LA and HEP will be needed to ensure that the LA has suitable oversight.

4.4 Membership and obligations

Schools will sign a Collaboration Agreement as part of the ‘signing up’ process. The Agreement will outline the aims and objectives of the company, and be accompanied by the business plan and the constitution. The local authority is required to consider the financial and managerial capacity of the maintained member schools concerned under section 12 of the Education Act 2002. It can refuse when a school is subject to special measures / serious weaknesses, has weak management of finances and joining a company would prevent them from addressing these weaknesses. As a Company Limited by Guarantee, HEP limits the liability of members to a nominal figure agreed through the articles of association, usually £10.

5. Proposed Financial arrangements 5.1 Funding model

Membership will be by subscription of £3.50 per pupil, chargeable per annum. Schools will sign up for a 3-year commitment, but with an opportunity to leave after 1 year in the first instance. Viability depends upon approximately two thirds of schools buying in. Each element of HEP provision will be priced according to delivery costs and apportioned to those receiving the service. Some services may be extended to non-member schools at a higher rate.

5.2 Funding from legacy partnerships

69

Both the Education Improvement Partnership (2007) and the Hounslow Learning Partnership (2014) have benefited from a lump sum from the DSG reserve, agreed through School’s Forum and approved by DFE. In both cases the original sum committed was £600k. The residual reserve for the EIP is projected at c£30k and takes account of the costs of winding it up. HLP reserves from the DSG are projected to be c£470k at handover

5.3 Financial modelling

Analysis of existing partnership costs has helped establish a baseline and anticipated costs for HEP, including staffing. These have generated projections of income and expenditure for the first three years of operation. These are detailed in an evolving draft budget reviewed by the Transition Board.

5.4 Transfer of funds to Hounslow Education Partnership

Hounslow local authority has responsibility for ensuring that there are robust financial arrangements in place to ensure that public money from the DSG reserve is appropriately spent. Arrangements for transfer of funds must appropriately manage the risks involved in setting up the new company. Sign up to HEP in principle is for 3 years, but with a financial commitment from schools for 1 year in the first instance. Hence it is important to consider the most appropriate way to manage the transfer of funds.

Option Comments

A. Transfer of residual DSG reserve funds in full, by 31 August 2018. Projected total: c£500k B. Transfer of residual DSG reserve funds in 3 instalments over 3 years

Funding is immediately available for HEP to invest against its business plan. If HEP fails in year one, there are significant funds committed that may not be available to schools subsequently. Sufficient funds to manage revenue commitments in year one and make some investment, but more limited flexibility. More security for the safe use of public funds.

The final decisions regarding the mechanism will be the subject of a Cabinet report in January 2018. The steer from School’s forum will inform this. 6. Timetable for Implementation

November 2017

• Engage legal advice to set up company

• Governing Body briefings

• Schools Forum – recommendation to the Council that DSG should be available to HEP

December 2017

• Transition Board confirms legal arrangements for set up of company

• External review of HEP financial arrangements

• Transition Board confirms business case following external financial review. January 2018 Transition Board

• signs off information pack, collaboration agreement and membership form

• commissions marketing/branding for HEP

70

• Agrees voting process for election of Directors Hounslow Council Cabinet 16.01.18

• Cabinet approval requested for HEP as a School Company (in accordance with s11 Education Act) and authorisation for LA maintained school membership (supervisory authority) and DSG funding

February 2018

• Governing Bodies receive information pack including formal agreement for HEP membership (deadline for response 09.03.18)

• HEP established as a company (1 nominal director needed)

March 2018

• Nominations for Directors requested by PTB ( as Shadow HEP Board) from representative HT groups

• GBs return HEP membership agreements by 9th March

• Member voting process to appoint Company Board directors

• Agree founding directors for HEP Board

April 2018

• HEP Board established – 1st meeting 27.04.18

May/June 2018

HEP Board tasks

• Recruitment process for Partnership Director

• Finalise “offer” from company: Primary; Secondary; Support for Vulnerable

Pupils

July/August 2018

• Recruitment process for admin/facilitation support

• Transfer of relevant funds from Council to HEP

7. Comments of the Director Finance and Corporate Services

7.1 This report updates Schools Forum on the proposed timescales and process

for setting up a new Hounslow Education Partnership as a company limited by guarantee. The establishment of the company is subject to DFE approval.

7.2 Setting up a company as a vehicle to deliver school led improvement services

could provide additional capacity flexibility in light of the reduction in EFSA funding for local authority school led improvement activity.

7.3 The release of DSG reserves is subject to DFE approval. The level of

reserves that are available to be released to the partnership is dependent on the costs of winding up the current arrangements and the level of spend against the reserves in 2017/18. The amounts quoted in recommendations 2 and 3 are the amounts projected to be available after the current arrangements are wound up.

7.4 Given the pressures on wider DSG budgets both in the Council and local

schools a phased release of reserves to the new Partnership is preferred. This should provide the partnership with an appropriate level of Year 1 funding with further staged releases of funding which are supported by a business case whose deliverables can be monitored. If reserves are not needed by the Partnership they could be used to fund pressures in the Early Years and High

71

Needs blocks. The Council has a financial oversight role which will include monitoring how DSG reserves have been used.

7.5 The Board of the new company will need to be mindful of their financial and

governance responsibilities as company directors. In particular they need to ensure that an appropriate system of internal control is in place including adequate insurance cover.

72

Report for:

INFORMATION

Contains Confidential or Exempt Information

No

Title Financial Adjustments for Permanently Excluded Pupils

Contact Details Christine Holland, Head of Strategic Finance

Rupa Raghwani, Finance Manager

020 8583 2380 / 6115

christine.holland@hounslow.gov.uk

rupaben.raghwani@hounslow.gov.uk

For Consideration By Schools Forum

Date to be Considered 27 November 2017

Affected Wards All

Keywords/Index Exclusions, Funding Transfer

Recommendation

That Schools Forum note the update on how funding is transferred for permanently excluded pupils in LB Hounslow.

1. Report Summary

This report updates Schools Forum on the Councils’ current processes with regard to the transfer of funding for excluded pupils.

It proposes that further work be undertaken after the 2018/19 school budgets have been set.

2. Background

2.1 A paper on the approach being taken in Newcastle to recover funding from

schools when children are excluded was distributed for the School Forum meeting on 30 October 2017.

2.2 Schools Forum requested an update on how such issues were dealt with in

Hounslow. This paper seeks to set out the following:- a) Summary of the Newcastle City Council model set out in the paper

distributed to Forum b) Hounslow’s approach c) The approach suggested in the EFSA’s 2018/19 operational guidance.

73

Agenda Item 8

3. Newcastle City Council’s approach

3.1 When a pupil is permanently excluded the Council reduces its budget share by the amount of funding attributable to a pupil with similar characteristics to the excluded pupil. The adjustment is calculated pro rata to the number of weeks remaining in the funding period and takes into account any financial adjustment order made by a review panel.

3.2 If the pupil moves to another school that’s school’s budget share is increased

by the funding attributed to that pupil pro rata to the number of weeks remaining in the funding period. The financial adjustment order is not taken into account.

3.3 An internal process is in place to calculate and effect the funding adjustments. 4. Hounslow’s approach

4.1 Three types of transfers are managed via a Pupil Co ordination Panel that meets weekly:

• Managed transfers where pupils are moved between schools in the Borough with the agreement of the schools

• Permanent exclusion where pupils are excluded via a decision of the Governing Body which can be challenged by parents

• Pupils coming into the Borough e.g. looked after children. The Panel’s role is to place the pupil in a school place or alternative provision.

4.2 Pupils are often placed in the Pupil referral unit (PRU) or the Interim Education

Centre whilst more permanent places are sought. 4.3 The finance team are not notified of pupil movements due to permanent

exclusions so no adjustments are made to school budget shares during the year.

4.4 Woodbridge Park (PRU) do not charge for permanently excluded pupils who

are placed with them on a longer term basis (where they cannot be placed in a mainstream school).

4.5 The Council receives some invoices from neighbouring boroughs where pupils

resident in Hounslow are excluded from Hounslow schools and placed in schools in other Boroughs. These invoices are sent to the school to pay if the pupil has been excluded by an Academy.

4.6 The Council does not routinely place excluded pupils who are not resident in

Hounslow in Hounslow schools. 5 2018/19 operational guidance

5.1 The 2018/19 ESFA operational funding guidance contains provisions for the

redetermination of school budgets where pupils have been excluded.

5.2 The principles are:

74

• Where pupils are excluded funding should flow in year from the school that has excluded the pupil to the provision that takes responsibility for the pupil.

• If a school admits a pupil in year that has been excluded they should receive additional funding.

• Funding also flows in year where pupils leave a mainstream school for reasons other than permanent exclusion and are receiving education funded by the local authority other than at a school.

• The provisions also act independently of whether a particular pupil has been on the census in the first place, and whether the school has received funding for them.

5.3 The method to be applied to the school transferring/excluding the pupil:-

5.3.1 The formula of the mainstream school that excluded the pupil should be

reduced by an amount of formula relating to the age and circumstances of that pupil pro rata to the number of complete weeks remaining in the “year” from the “relevant date”.

5.3.1.1 “year” – this is financial year, with the exception of where the exclusion takes place after 1 April, in a school year where the pupil would normally have left at the end of that school year where the end of the school year would apply instead.

5.3.1.2 “relevant date”- sixth school day following the date of permanent exclusion.

5.3.2 This should cover not just the basic entitlement, but also the relevant

amounts for pupil-led factors, such as free school meals or English as an additional language, where the pupil attracted funding through those criteria. Where the excluded pupil is eligible for the pupil premium, the budget must be adjusted on the same basis.

5.3.3 Where pupils are funded according to the post 16 formula the amount

attributable to them is £4,000. 5.4 The method to be applied to the school admitting the pupil:-

5.4.1 The admitting school receives an amount at least equal to that deducted from the excluding school’s pro rata to the number of complete weeks remaining in the financial year.

5.4.2 Where there are provisions in an academy’s funding agreement

budgets should be adjusted following similar principles. 5.5 There is a separate set of regulations covering inter authority funding transfers

where excluded pupils move across local authority boundaries:

Education (Amount to Follow Permanently Excluded Pupil) Regulations 1999

Education (Amount to Follow Permanently Excluded Pupil) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001

5.6 The calculation is on the same basis as described under para 5.4, using the number of weeks remaining in the financial year from the ‘relevant date’, but the payments are between the authorities concerned. There would also be a

75

proportional repayment if the pupil was subsequently reinstated by the governing body.

6 Next steps

6.1 The initial research undertaken to date indicates that funding following the

pupil principles are currently not being applied in Hounslow in the same way as in other authorities.

6.2 The amount of funding that could potentially be transferred between schools/ invoiced externally to Hounslow is not known and would need to be calculated based on the records maintained by the Pupil Co ordination Panel.

6.3 There are resource implications for the Council of implementing such recharging mechanisms. These are currently unknown.

6.4 It is proposed to calculate the potential funding transfers for a sample of pupil

transfers once the 2018/19 school budgets have been set to help quantify:-

• the level of funding that might follow permanently excluded pupils

• the resource implications of implementing processes to enable funding to follow pupils in line with the 2018/19 funding guidance

• any practical issues that need to be taken into account e.g. how difficult is it to calculate the funding that might follow an excluded pupil; collection of income.

7 Comments of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services

7.1 The proposals in paragraph 6.4 should help identify the potential financial

implications for schools and the practical implications for the Council and schools of implementing processes to enable funding to follow excluded pupils.

8 Background Information Financial adjustments to schools following permanent exclusions – Schools Forum 30 October 2017

76

Schools Forum Forward Plan

Schools Forum Meeting 22 January 2018

No. Description Type Lead

1. 2018/19 DSG Budget Decision Annita Cornish/ Chrissie Elam/ Finance Team

2. SEND High Needs Review – update Information/ Decision

Annita Cornish/ John Wood

3. Introduction of Local Authority Charges for Academy Conversion

Decision David Brockie

Schools Forum Meeting 26 February 2018

No. Description Type Lead

1. 2018/19 Hourly Rates to be paid to Early Years’ providers

Decision Chrissie Elam/ Finance Team

2. SEND High Needs Review – update Information/ Decision

Annita Cornish/ John Wood

3. 2017/18 DSG budget update Information Finance Team

4. Financial arrangements for excluded pupils update Information/ Decision

Finance Team

Schools Forum Meeting 9 July 2018

No. Description Type Lead

1. SEND High Needs Review – update Information/ Decision

Annita Cornish/ John Wood

2 2017/18 DSG budget - outturn Information Finance team

3 School Balances at 31 March 2018 Information Finance team

77

Agenda Item 9