Apologies were received from Mr P Box, Mrs L Brazewell, Mrs S Catlow-Hawkins, Mr J Chapman, Mr J Godfrey, Ms A Jackson, and Mrs J Rees.

Mrs A Pritchard substituted for Mrs J Rees and Mr S Robertson substituted for Mrs S Catlow-Hawkins.

Agenda item 8:  Whitecross PFI Scheme

Mrs A Pritchard declared an interest as a Governor of Whitecross High School and Specialist Sports College.

Mrs D Strutt declared an interest as Head Teacher of Whitecross High School and Specialist Sports College.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2015.

The Chairman reported a correction to Minute 191 on page 6 of the agenda papers paragraph 7 to read: “He outlined the balances held by schools as a percentage of the annual budget in bands of 5% up to 50% noting that the average balance percentage was 10% with the highest being 52%.” 

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2015, as amended, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To update Schools Forum on proposed changes in PRU funding effective from 1st September 2015 prior to considering final proposals in June 2015.

The Forum received an update on proposed changes in pupil referral unit (PRU) funding to be effective from 1 September 2015 with a view to considering final proposals in June 2015.

The School Finance Manager presented the report.  He reported that changes were necessary because the Department for Education was standardising the place payment at £10,000 for PRUs in line with special schools and special provision.

He outlined the consideration of options that had taken place and the rationale for the proposals being put forward.  He noted that these had been discussed with the PRU Management Committee and the Budget Working Group.  It was proposed to undertake formal consultation with Herefordshire Association of Secondary Headteachers.

It was asked whether if the cost of PRU places increased this would make schools reluctant to place pupils in the PRUs, both to the disbenefit of pupils and to the efficiency of the PRU.  In response it was stated that it was always the case that a decision on where a pupil was placed was a matter for individual schools, and PRU charges had to reflect the true cost of the PRU provision whilst leaving the placement decision with schools.

RESOLVED:

That    (a)   formal consultation on the Herefordshire PRU funding proposals with the Herefordshire Association of Secondary Headteachers (HASH) be approved; and

                                         (b)   final proposals be presented for agreement at the Forum’s next meeting in June 2015.

To update Schools’ Forum on the role of the Education Safeguarding Officer in the Multi – Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH); and to seek sustainable funding to make the function permanent and to increase capacity within the MASH.

The Forum received an update on the role of the Education Safeguarding Officer in the Multi – Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH); and was invited to approve a means of seeking sustainable funding to make the function permanent and to increase the capacity within the MASH.

It was noted that a number of schools considered the Education Safeguarding Officer role to be a valuable one.  The contribution the post made to the work of special school headteachers was highlighted.

In relation to funding, the Assistant Director explained that the preferred option was to secure approval from the Secretary of State to vary the base Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budget to fund the post.  In case approval was not forthcoming, in parallel with contacting the Secretary of State, it was also proposed to develop a service level agreement as an alternative option.  The Council remained under Government intervention in relation to Children’s Safeguarding and the case for a budget variation may therefore be viewed favourably.

The School Finance Manager commented that the post had to date been funded from an underspend from the 2011/12 DSG but funding would run out in the summer term.  The proposal was for £75,420 to be made available from the DSG on an annual basis.  This was equivalent to approximately £4 per pupil.

RESOLVED:

That:       (a)       the proposal to apply to the secretary of state for approval to use the dedicated schools grant (DSG) to fund the education support function in the MASH be supported;

                 (b)       the development of a service level agreement as a fall back position be supported; and

                 (c)       a report for decision be considered in June 2015.

To update Schools Forum on the consultation with schools regarding the reintroduction of a balance clawback mechanism for local authority schools.

The Forum was informed of the outcome of the consultation with schools regarding the reintroduction of a balance clawback mechanism and considered whether such a mechanism should be introduced.

The School Finance Manager presented the report.  He acknowledged that this was a difficult matter for the Forum because it did not affect all schools equally.  He reminded the Forum that the issue had been brought before the Forum by the Budget Working Group (BWG) which had been concerned at the level of balances held.  The Forum had approved a consultation with schools.

He emphasised that the purpose of a clawback scheme was not simply to remove excess balances from schools but to encourage schools to spend their annual budget on their current pupils. The introduction of a clawback scheme would require the Forum to approve the amendment of the Scheme of Financial Management.

He noted that advice had been received from the Department for Education (DfE) that only maintained schools should vote on the proposed amendment of the Scheme of Financial Management.  The implication of legal advice provided on this point set out in the report was that the Forum should take a decision confirming that it would adopt this approach.

The report set out the following options for consideration:

A – introduction of a clawback mechanism for the 2015/16 financial year;

B – phasing in of a clawback mechanism over 3 years; and

C – inclusion of academies in a clawback mechanism on a voluntary basis – (with the additional option if academies chose not to join the scheme of proceeding with a scheme for local authority schools only or not proceeding with the proposals unless all academies participated.)

The Schools Finance Manager (SFM) reported  the outcome of the consultation exercise, a copy of which had previously been circulated to the members of the Forum.  In summary only about a quarter of schools had responded.  The response was heavily against the introduction of the full clawback scheme from 1 April 2015, moderately in favour of a phased introduction over 3 years, in favour of the inclusion of academies within the scheme and strongly of the view that the clawback scheme should not proceed unless all academies were included.

He also referred the Forum to paragraph 8 of the report which set out the action the local authority proposed to take if the Forum declined to adopt a clawback mechanism.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·        There were a number of reasons why schools chose to hold balances and the Authority should seek clarification from schools of those reasons before a decision on the introduction of a balance clawback scheme was taken.

·        The phased approach offered by Option B  was preferable to the implementation of Option A.

·        A number of schools were holding excessive balances and that was not acceptable  when representations continued to be made to the BWG that schools had insufficient funding.

·        The level of school balances held within the County as a whole did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 200.

To update Schools Forum on the progress in securing cost reductions for the Whitecross Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract.

The Forum received an update on the progress in securing cost reductions for the Whitecross Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract.

The Schools Finance Manager reported on the savings that had been secured, subject to the contract variations being signed by all parties.  He commented that the action taken had put in place a plan to address the £3.5m deficit that had been projected for 2032 with a small surplus now being forecast depending on inflation rates.

RESOLVED:

That      (a)     the progress made in securing cost reductions for the PFI contract be noted and a progress review be established, once every three years, commencing in January 2018, to establish a process for routine review of the contract; and

              (b)     reports outside of this timescale be on an urgent needs basis.

To consider the Forum’s work programme.

The Forum noted its work programme with the following additions:

June 2015

Permanent Funding for Safeguarding Education in the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub.

Pupil Referral Unit Funding Proposals

Entitlement determination in relation to the pupil premium (provisional)

The following meeting dates have been scheduled:

5 June 2015 – 9.30 am

10 July 2015 – 9.30 am

23 October 2015– 9.30 am

4 December 2015 – 9.30 am

15 January 2016 – 9.30 am

11 March 2016 – 9.30 am

Noted.