Children’s Services Sandhill Centre, Grindon Lane Sunderland SR3 4EN

To all members of the Sunderland Schools Forum Copies to :

David May – Finance Manager Karen Atkins – Finance Team Cllr Mrs P Smith – Portfolio Holder Margaret Ferrie - Deputy Director

Telephone: Web:

0191 520 5555 www.sunderland.gov.uk

29th June 2012 JGR/JGR

This matter is being dealt with by: Gary Robinson, Governor Support Manager, Sandhill Centre, Grindon Lane, Sunderland SR3 4EN, 0191 561 2781, [email protected]

Dear colleague SUNDERLAND SCHOOLS FORUM You are invited to attend a meeting of the Schools Forum to be held from 8.30 a.m. on Thursday 5th July 2012 (and is scheduled to end at 10.30 a.m.). The meeting will be held at the Pallion Centre, Waverley Terrace, Sunderland SR4 6TA. If you cannot attend the meeting you can submit apologies by contacting me (561 2781, email [email protected]). Agenda 1.

Apologies for absence – already submitted by Terry Hambleton, John Hallworth, Doug Ambrose and Cllr P Smith

2.

Election of Chair of Schools Forum (i)

Determination of length of term of office

(ii)

Nominations for Chair to be invited

3.

Declarations of Interest

4.

Minutes of previous meeting held on 24th May 2012 (attached)

5.

Matters arising from the minutes

6.

Children’s Trust Update – No updates available

7.

Future Membership of Schools Forum and related arrangements (report attached)

8.

School Funding Reform (Presentation) – David May continued ……….

-2-

9.

School Funding (Presentation) – Karen Atkins

10.

High Needs Funding (report attached)

11.

Additional Educational Needs (Presentation) – Angela Noble

12.

Sunderland Music Hub (report attached)

13.

Services to Schools

14.

Date and time and venue of next meeting and determination of agenda items Future Dates have been provisionally agreed as follows: • • • • •

Thursday 6th September and/or 4th October 2012 8.30 a.m. – 10.30 a.m. (replacing Thursday 20th September 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m.) Thursday 25th October 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 13th December 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 24th January 2013 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 21st March 2013 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m.

Yours faithfully

Gary Robinson

Gary Robinson Governor Support Manager Direct Line 0191 561 2781 E-mail [email protected] SMS (text message) – 07733307177

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUNDERLAND SCHOOLS FORUM HELD ON TUESDAY 10TH MAY 2012 AT SUNDERLAND FUTURES PALLION CENTRE The following members of the Forum were present: Mr H Brown (Governor Rep. – Secondary) – Vice-chair of Forum, in the Chair Mrs C Aiken (Non-schools Group – Teaching Associations) Mr D Ambrose (Governor Rep. - Secondary) Mrs G Booth (Headteacher Rep. – Secondary -Church of England) Mrs J Bulmer (Headteacher - Nursery) Mr A Cunningham (Headteacher Rep. – Community Secondary) Mr A Dawes (Governor Rep. – Primary) Mr M Dent (Governor Rep. – Secondary) Mrs D Elliott (Governor Rep. - Special) Mr J Hallworth (Headteacher Rep. – Community Secondary) Mrs T Hambleton (Headteacher Rep. – Community Primary Hetton/Houghton) Mr P Havord (Academy Representative) Mrs S Lake (Governor Rep. – Primary) Mr P Keay (Headteacher – Community Secondary) Mrs A Noble (Non-schools Group – Pupil Referral Unit) Mr J Robson (Governor Rep. – Primary) Mr G Shillinglaw (Headteacher Rep. – Special) Mrs T Stoker (Headteacher Rep. – Community Primary Sunderland North) Mrs P Thompson (Academy Representative) Mrs K Wilkinson (Governor Rep. – Nursery) Mrs S Wright (Headteacher Rep – Community Primary Washington) Together with: Karen Atkins – Principal Finance Officer David May – Finance Manager Gary Robinson – Governor Support Manager (Clerk to the Forum) Action Points

12/26

Apologies for absence Apologies for absence were received from: Mrs Y Gray (Headteacher Rep. – Church of England Primary) – Chair of Forum Mr J Clarke (Governor Rep. Secondary) Mrs A E Collingwood (Headteacher Rep. – Infant) Mrs J Donnelly – (Non-schools Group – Early Years & Childcare Partnership) Mr S Hammond (Headteacher Rep. – Catholic VA Secondary) Mrs A Hodgson (Headteacher Rep. – Community Primary Sunderland South) Ms A O’Donaghue (Non-schools Group – 14-19 Partnership) Cllr Mrs P Smith – Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services Mr R Wilkinson (Headteacher Rep. – Community Secondary)

12/27

Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest at this stage of the meeting but members would declare any such interests should they arise.

2 Action Points

12/28

Membership Update The Clerk to the Forum explained that the number of academy places on the Schools Forum had been expanded to two. Pat Havord (Governor of Academy 360) and Paula Thompson (Headteacher of Benedict Biscop CE Primary Academy) were welcomed to the meeting. As explained at an earlier meeting, it was likely that a further review of the Schools Forum membership would be needed as a result of the current consultation on funding reform. Other recently appointed members (Martin Dent, Carole Aiken and Sarah Lake) were also welcomed to the meeting.

12/29

School Funding Reform: Next Steps towards a Fairer System” David May reminded members of the background to this consultation, which had started under the previous government. The changes in the proposals since then were outlined and, in particular, the expansion of the academy sector. The government wanted more consistency in school funding across the country but, because it would take time to bring in a national funding formula, instead it was intended to amend school funding regulations to restrict the number of factors that could be used locally in schemes of delegation. The system of delegating monies to Local Authorities was explained. This delegation was the same amount whether a pupil attended an academy or a maintained school. Under the proposals the DFE would set a national budget for all schools based on the new Fair Funding Formula. There would then be local flexibility. The Local Authority would propose a local formula to distribute money to all schools in the area and the Schools Forum would be consulted on this. The local arrangements would be subject to monitoring by the Education Funding Agency. The revised arrangements would be effective from 2013/14 and would affect all schools/academies. The local funding formula would include increased delegation such as insurances, which were currently paid by the Local Authority for maintained schools. Paula Thompson noted that currently insurance costs were paid by DFE for converter academies. The implications for trade union funding would be interesting. Under the reformed funding system there would only be a maximum of ten factors that could be used in the new formula and only some factors where local discretion would apply. Two of the factors identified referred to splits sites and a factor to enable local authorities with in the London Fringe area to reflect higher teaching costs, would not apply to Sunderland and therefore the Sunderland formula would be limited to 8 factors. It was clear that there would be turbulence school budgets with some winners and some losers. Minimum Funding Guarantee would remain at -1.5% for two years, which would limit the amount of turbulence for an individual school, however, the rate of adjustment would accelerate after this two year period. As mentioned earlier in the meeting Local Authorities would need to review the constitution of the Schools Forum to ensure proportionality of the various sectors. There could also be certain changes to the Schools Forum operation when the revised regulations were published.

3

The Education Funding Agency (EFA) would have the opportunity to attend Schools Forum meetings. The role of the EFA was outlined. Papers for the Schools Forum would need to be published in advance on a public website and there would be public access to meetings.

Action Points

David May explained the Schools Block of Funding, the High Needs Block and Early Years Block. A special school would receive £10,000 from the High Needs Block for every place commissioned by the local authority and the cost of providing for pupils above £10,000 would be funded via a “Top Up” based on actual pupil numbers.. For mainstream schools, where a pupil had a statement of special educational needs, the statements would specify the needs of the child and quantify the cost of provision. If the cost of provision was less than £10,000 this would be funded by the school, any additional cost would be allocated to the school, by way of a “top up The detail as to how this would operate locally was still to be worked through. More work needed to be done to understand the impact of the proposed changes and it was hoped that more detail would be available for the July meeting of the Schools Forum. It was suggested that it could help to illustrate the impact by examining individual scenarios. Another factor that would affect all schools would be in relation to lump sums (fixed costs) within the formula. For many schools the reduction in this fixed element would result in a potentially significant loss of income. Academies would use the local formula but based on the previous year’s figures. The Local Authority would receive the DSG, LA formula grant and Pupil Premium. The amount available to the Local Authority would remain unchanged but the formula for distributing to schools would be different. October PLASC figures would be used for calculating school budget shares. The Pupil premium would continue but the impact of the welfare reforms would have implications as Free School Meals (FSM) data would no longer be available in the longer term. The Pupil Premium would remain £2.5 billion but factors for distribution would be different. Trish Stoker pointed out that many parents were already in receipt of benefits that did not include FSM. David confirmed that the shift was now towards IDACI (Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index). Changes with pre-16 High Needs Block could result in changes to special school (and resourced provision) placements with Local Authorities needing to procure places from outside of their area to meet needs of pupils. It was not possible to have MFG in special schools but a cash protection of -1.5% could be applied if required. The implications for alternative education and post-16 High Needs provision were outlined. The Local Authority becomes the commissioner of services. In Early Years it was intended to simplify the formula but, again, there would be some turbulence. Jane Bulmer was worried that nursery schools would not be sustainable. David May assured Jane that there was not an intention to close nursery schools but a lot of detail was still to be worked through. The timescale for the changes was described. Local Authorities would

LA officers to undertake work on remodelling Local Formula. Schools Forum as a whole would act as consultative body rather than form a sub-group

4

need to model a revised formula that complied with the new requirements by June/July 2012. Preparations for the re-constitution of the Schools Forum would need to be made by July. As previously mentioned the Schools Forum needed to be consulted at each stage of this process and, because there was insufficient time for a sub-group of the Forum to meet, it was agreed that Local Authority officers would undertake the work and the whole Schools Forum would be the consultative body. A series of briefings for Headteachers and school governors needed to take place for the consultation process. The timetable for this was determined by the national timescale. Martin Dent indicated that the Sunderland City Governors’ Association would be pleased to work with the Local Authority in facilitating this consultation process with school governors. There would different meetings focussed for particular school sectors and groups. However, the same presentation would be made at each meeting. It was noted that there was also a good structure for communication with Headteacher groups within the City. The agreed timetable of meetings is included as an appendix to these minutes. The response to the current consultation exercise needed to be returned by 21st May 2012. Karen Atkins gave a presentation which highlighted each of the consultation questions: •

Basic Per Pupil Entitlement (BPPE) – there would be a single rate across the primary phase (not a different rate for KS1 and KS2 at present). With the secondary rate it could be a single rate or separate rates for KS3 and KS4.

•

Deprivation – A comparison was drawn between the current and new proposed arrangements. The different options (which included FSM taken up, FSM ever etc.) were set out.

•

Specific Deprivation Indicator – This was currently IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation). New arrangements were based on IDACI. Karen explained the advantages of this over IMD. The Local Authority would have an element of choice regarding the use of FSM and IDCAI data when determining the new formula factor that would drive deprivation funding. It was noted that the IDACI data would be updated to 2007 but it was not clear how much more up to date this would become. In response to questions Karen explained that there were no data protection issues arising from the use of IDACI because the Authority would not see individual data relating to specific pupils/families.

•

LAC and EAL – The changes to Sunderland’s formula in recent years around Looked After Children was explained. The current EAL factor could continue but would only apply at individual school level with each pupil covered for three years after they enter the compulsory school system. Karen confirmed that EAL was not used in the nursery factor.

•

Low Cost High Incidence SEN – Members’ attention was drawn to the current formula. The need to change how Low Prior Attainment was used was highlighted. Under the new arrangements Prior

Action Points

Series of briefings on school funding reform to be arranged

5

Attainment would be a single indicator specifically linked to SEN. Low Prior Attainment data was currently based on a 3-year average of KS1 assessment and KS2 test results. In future the data used would be based on Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) data for primary schools and KS2 test results fro pupils below level 3 in both maths and english for secondary schools. Karen confirmed that there would be a review of the EYFS data used in the new formula as the EYFS was under review. Primary Headteachers were disappointed at this, as they felt that EYFS data was subjective and inconsistent. David May pointed out that there was unlikely to be any choice around how this factor was applied. •

Action Points

Lump Sums – At the last consultation it had been stated that the fixed element of the budget was for primary schools only. It was now indicated that secondary schools could be included but that the amount needed to be the same for all schools at an absolute maximum of £150,000. The maximum value would be set nationally based on returns from this consultation. Jane Bulmer reiterated her concern around the vulnerability of nursery schools as a result of this funding reform. Karen Atkins confirmed that the Authority would be assessing the impact of the changes on all schools including the nursery sector. Some work had already been done to demonstrate the impact on schools but, in doing this at this stage, a lot of assumptions had been needed. It was noted that if the flat rate was set at £100,000 all schools would lose on this factor but this would then generate more funding for distribution through other factors. Lump sums could therefore not be looked at in isolation.

K Atkins to prepare response to current consultation and circulate to Forum members for comment

Karen was asked whether the new formula would apply to the new free school being established. Karen replied that this would apply in the future but the timescale for this was not yet known. Karen Atkins would prepare a response to the current consultation exercise on behalf of the Forum and would circulate to members for comment before it was submitted. 12/30

Date and time of next meeting The next meeting of the Forum was already arranged for Thursday 24th May 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Future Dates had also been provisionally agreed but, because of the national funding consultation timescales it was provisionally agreed to revise this as follows: • • • • • •

Thursday 5th July 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 6th September and/or 4th October 2012 8.30 a.m. – 10.30 a.m. (replacing Thursday 20th September 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m.) Thursday 25th October 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 13th December 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 24th January 2013 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 21st March 2013 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m.

September meeting of Schools Forum provisionally changed to fit with national consultation on school funding reform

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUNDERLAND SCHOOLS FORUM HELD ON THURSDAY 24TH MAY 2012 AT SUNDERLAND FUTURES PALLION CENTRE The following members of the Forum were present: Mrs Y Gray (Headteacher Rep. – Church of England Primary) – Chair of Forum Mrs C Aiken (Non-schools Group – Teaching Associations) Mr D Ambrose (Governor Rep. - Secondary) Mrs T Bevan (Headteacher Rep. – Junior) Mrs G Booth (Headteacher Rep. – Secondary -Church of England) Mr H Brown (Governor Rep. – Secondary) Mrs J Bulmer (Headteacher - Nursery) Mr J Clarke (Governor Rep. Secondary) Mrs A E Collingwood (Headteacher Rep. – Infant) Mr A Cunningham (Headteacher Rep. – Community Secondary) Mr A Dawes (Governor Rep. – Primary) Mr M Dent (Governor Rep. – Secondary) – joined the meeting later Mrs J Donnelly – (Non-schools Group – Early Years & Childcare Partnership) Mrs D Elliott (Governor Rep. - Special) Mrs A Hodgson (Headteacher Rep. – Community Primary Sunderland South) Mr M Hartnack (Governor Rep. - Primary) Mr P Keay (Headteacher – Community Secondary) Mrs S Lake (Governor Rep. – Primary) Mr J Robson (Governor Rep. – Primary) Mrs P Thompson (Academy Representative) Mrs K Wilkinson (Governor Rep. – Nursery) Mrs S Wright (Headteacher Rep – Community Primary Washington) Together with: Karen Atkins – Principal Finance Officer Margaret Ferrie – Principal Support Intervention Officer David May – Finance Manager Gary Robinson – Governor Support Manager (Clerk to the Forum) Action Points

12/31

Apologies for absence Apologies for absence were received from: Mr J Hallworth (Headteacher Rep. – Community Secondary) Mrs T Hambleton (Headteacher Rep. – Community Primary Hetton/Houghton) Mr S Hammond (Headteacher Rep. – Catholic VA Secondary) Mr P Havord (Academy Representative) Mrs A Noble (Non-schools Group – Pupil Referral Unit) Ms A O’Donaghue (Non-schools Group – 14-19 Partnership) Cllr Mrs P Smith – Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services Mr R Wilkinson (Headteacher Rep. – Community Secondary)

12/32

Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest at this stage of the meeting but members would declare any such interests should they arise.

2 Action Points

12/33

Minutes of previous meeting held on 15th March 2012 The minutes were approved as a true record.

12/34

Matters arising from the minutes 12/16 (Re-sale surplus ICT equipment) – Discussions were still ongoing within the Authority about how surplus equipment could be sold to raise funds for the school. 12/16 (Local Authority Supply Pool) – Michael Hartnack was continuing to pursue on behalf of the Forum with a view to persuading the Local Authority to establish a supply pool using officers from the SWITCH team to enable schools to avoid high agency supply costs. A feasibility study was now underway. The Forum were concerned about how long this had taken to progress. A report back was expected at the next meeting. 12/18 (Pupil Numbers) – The Forum had requested an update on admissions/pupil numbers as this had a direct impact on school funding. It was hoped to be able to supply this to the July meeting. 12/21 (Change in date for budget submission) – Karen Atkins confirmed that the scheme of delegation had been changed to require schools to submit budget plans by 31st May each year. Schools were sending in their budget plans in accordance with this.

12/35

Children’s Trust Update The minutes of the Children’s Trust meeting held on 6th March 2012 had been circulated with the agenda papers. There were no comments or questions.

12/36

Dedicated Schools Grant Outturn 2011/2012 Members received a report which set out the Schools Forum of the outturn in relation to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for 2011/2012. The DSG disclosure note to be reported in the Statement of Accounts 2011/2012 would show a balanced budget against the DSG. This followed decisions made by the Schools Forum that any surplus would be earmarked towards school based redundancies. David May reminded members rates charges in relation to schools were funded centrally via a claw back of budget from all schools. This was achieved by setting a control total for total ISB and top-slicing an element for projected rates charges, before running the formula or providing for the MFG. The rates budget was an area of volatility as new schools became operational and existing schools were re-valued. The final balance was a deficit of £134,889 due to the final revaluation of some schools. It was proposed to offset this deficit against the underspend on the ISB contingency. The ISB contingency sum was utilised to: • Support pupils whose statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN) were finalised after the beginning of the financial year; • Support pupils whose statements of SEN required re-banding; • Support September transfers of pupils with statements; • Support statemented pupils transferring into the Authority; • Support curriculum access provision (CAP)

Resale of ICT was progressing. Letters to be issued to schools when arrangements finalised

Report on Supply Pool feasibility study expected at next meeting of the Forum

Update on admissions/pupil numbers to be provided at July meeting

3 Action Points

The contingency outturn position is an underspend of £414,236. As agreed at the December meeting of the Schools Forum this balance had been transferred to the redundancy reserve. The PRU had an underspend in 2011/2012 of £458,769. This was primarily as a result of a review of the staffing establishment, associated staff vacancies and slippages. Part of the underspend (£78,245) had been transferred to the PRU Reserve which would provide security of funding in future years and is at a level consistent with 5% balance level. The remaining balance of £380,524 had been transferred to the redundancy reserve. The PRU Reserve as at 31st March 2012 was £163,176. As part of the changes documented in the School Funding Reform to be implemented in 2013/2014 the PRU would form part of the High Needs Block and would receive a significant change in the way and level of funding that is received. David May was working with Angela Noble to understand the impact and implications. Current and previous years had seen significant redundancies at schools due to school amalgamations, school closures or budget pressures due to falling rolls. Under the revised regulations, redundancy costs could be scored against schools block other budget and hence against the DSG, with the Schools Forum agreement. David drew attention to the cost of school based redundancies over the past six years and the balance available to support future years. The Schools Forum noted the report. 12/37

Schools Balances 2011/2012 A report had been received to provide an on the actual year-end balances for schools for the 2011/2012 financial year. Combined school balances had increased by £2.625m between 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, with main school balances increasing by £2.864m and community balances decreasing by £0.239m. It was likely that the DfE would introduce new arrangements for obtaining assurance form local authorities on how they monitored schools financial performance. Detailed figures were provided showing the information that would be collected under the new arrangement for balances at 31st March 2013. Further work would be undertaken by finance to review schools surplus balance returns, which were due for submission to the local authority by 31st May 2012. This information would enable the analysis of balances required to submit the schools CFR return by the end of the summer term. A report on the outcomes of that review and the benchmarking report on schools balances would be brought to the Schools Forum in December 2012. Thirteen schools applied for a licensed deficit in 2011/2012 totalling £1.103m which represented 11% of the total balances held at 31st March 2011. This was within the thresholds of a maximum of 40% of school balances being used for this purpose. All of the schools that applied for a licensed deficit had managed to clear their deficits within one year.

4 Action Points

All schools were committed to clearing licensed deficits over a two year period to negate any further potential budget issues by carrying forward a deficit balance in light of current economic climate and imminent funding changes. David May confirmed that overall balances had increased at a greater rate than expected. He reminded colleagues that there had been discussions about the treatment of school surpluses at a national level over several years. The DFE would therefore be seeking assurances around this and David recommended that school Governing Bodies had a clear strategy to address any surplus. Mr Keay noted the impact on schools with Advanced Skills Teachers in the next year when financial support was withdrawn and he felt that such schools needed to retain a reasonable balance to minimise the impact of this. Howard Brown reminded colleagues that any teachers affected by this were entitled to three years safeguarding from the date of restructuring. Mr Cunningham indicated that schools were still awaiting information from HR on restructuring in cases involving ASTs. Carole Aiken sought assurances that ASTs in academies would also enjoy this three year protection. Howard Brown confirmed that this should be covered by the TUPE arrangements. Paula Thompson asked that academies be included in the circulation of any information that was issued in relation to the future of ASTs. Members noted the report and would receive further updates at subsequent meetings. 12/38

Schools Block Budget Position 2012/2013 A report was presented which gave an update on the Schools Block position following completion of the Section 251 Statement for 2012/2013. At present this was based on indicative figures as the final allocation of the DSG would not be confirmed by the DfE until June 2012 following validation of the January PLASC and Early Years Census data. The report explained the timescale for the receipt of PLASC and Early Years Census data. Initial indications were that that the funding to be received would be £193.643m before the reduction for Academies. Individual School Budgets had now been provided to schools. In providing these budgets a contingency had been allocated for Statemented Pupil Support and Curriculum Access Provision. The report described the Academy DSG recoupment. The calculated DSG recoupment for each academy was set out in the report. Also described in the report was the Central Expenditure Limit (CEL) and the projected outturn for school based redundancies for 2012/13. The Schools Forum noted the report and would receive regular updates.

12/39

Sunderland Music Education Hub The Arts Council England (ACE) had informed Sunderland that it would part of the network of 122 music education hubs. The indicative amount of funding allocated to Sunderland for September 2012 – March 2015 was £855,064.

Updates on school balances to be provided to the Forum at subsequent meetings

5 Action Points

Members received a report giving details of how Music Funding would be used. The Schools Forum was asked to approve the detailed use of the Music Education Hub grant as set out in the report and the formulas for devolving funds to schools between September 2012 and March 2013. The Forum noted the need for every school to provide Steve Auster with a Music Return each term in order to access funding. Comments and questions that were raised were as follows: It was noted that there was no mention on any opportunity to access a music qualification using the available funding. Secondary Headteachers noted that the activities were mainly directed at primary age children and it was commented that it could raise attainment for some GCSE pupils if they were given an opportunity to participate (i.e. in cases where parents were unable to afford to pay for tuition) Information was sought on the exact proportion of funding that Sunderland will retain centrally for administration. Margaret Ferrie would raise these points with the Music Stakeholder Working Group.

M Ferrie to feed back comments/ questions on Music Bid proposals to Music Stakeholder Working Group

The Forum did not approve the recommendations of the report. Instead they agreed to give delegated power to the Chair of the Forum to take a final decision after briefing meetings had taken place during the week Chair to take commencing 18th June. Steve Auster had contacted schools about decision on Music Grant proposals these briefing sessions. The Forum also gave approval for the Chair to decide whether it was necessary to invite Steve Auster to the July meeting of the Forum. 12/40

Sunderland Futures The difficulty in sustaining the Harraton and Pallion Centres had been discussed at earlier meetings. The focus was now on a one-centre model at Harraton. The PRU would move into the Pallion Centre and some of the facilities would still be available for other uses on this site. Because of the risks taken by Biddick and Sandhill View schools the Forum had been asked to provide some financial support for them in making these changes. Further to the discussion at the last meeting more detailed work had been undertaken and it had been calculated that the overall cost of this could be up to £447,000. Howard Brown was pleased to note that almost all secondary schools in the City continued to support the Sunderland Futures initiative. Mr Cunningham welcomed the transfer of the PRU into the Pallion building as this would mean that the facilities were still available to the Authority and its schools. Mr Robson observed that there had been a high level of staff absence in Sunderland Futures and also that transport costs had been underestimated. David May confirmed that these were valid questions and the absence figures would be investigated. Mr Keay explained that the transport costs were affected by which schools were using the centres. Sally Collingwood asked whether the Harraton Centre would be offering facilities for Primary School visits. Mr Keay understood that this would

following forthcoming briefing sessions and to decide whether Steve Auster should be invited to next meeting of the Forum

6

still be offered. There was on Academy in the City that had withheld payment for the tuition of its pupils at Sunderland Futures and this was being pursued. The same academy had claimed back around £7,000 in transport costs from Sunderland Futures. Members of the Forum were concerned that, until this was resolved, this could affect all schools. It was confirmed that legal advice would be taken if current efforts to recover payment were unsuccessful. With this in mind members of the Forum suggested that arrangements with schools needed to be made on a contractual basis in future. Further updates would be presented to the Forum as this developed. Members of the Forum approved the proposal that financial support to Sandhill View School and Biddick School Sports College up to £450,000 be permitted to protect them from the changes to Sunderland Futures. David May made it clear that this was the worst case scenario and the actual amount of support needed was likely to be less than this. 12/41

Action Points

Issue regarding outstanding payments from one user of Sunderland Futures to be pursued

Agreed to cover up to £450k shortfall for Sunderland Futures. Further updates to be provided.

School Funding Reform As agreed by the Forum at their meeting on 10th May 2012, Karen Atkins had compiled a response to the current funding reform consultation. The completed version would be circulated to all members. It was expected that the outcome would become known in June 2012.

12/42

Services to Schools This would continue to be a standing item on the agenda for the Schools Forum. Howard Brown asked that the Forum be provided with details of how many schools had entered into SLAs for each service. Officers hoped to be in a position to provide this to the next meeting of the Forum.

12/43

Details of how many schools had entered into SLAs with services to be provided to the Forum at next meeting

School Funding Consultation No further updates had been received from Department of Education. The latest stage of consultation on school funding reform had closed and a response had been compiled by the Schools Forum. It was anticipated that changes would be implemented as soon as 2013/14. A series of briefing sessions was to be organised for schools. Alongside the funding reforms there was an expectation that the constitution of the Schools Forum would need to be reviewed to ensure proportionality of the different groups. A paper would be presented at the July meeting of the Schools Forum setting out the implications of this.

Some members to cease to be eligible to attend July meeting of Forum due to academy conversion

In the interim there would be some members of the Forum who would not be eligible to serve in their current positions due to academy conversion in June/July. These were Dorothy Elliott, Alison Hodgson and Sharon Wright.

Wider review of the Schools Forum constitution to be undertaken

The Chair informed colleagues that she would be stepping down from her position in the near future. Yvonne had been part of the Schools Forum since its inception and she was pleased to note how the Forum had become more effective over the years and how there was now

Chair to cease membership of the Schools Forum in near future

7 Action Points

much greater transparency around school finances as a result. Colleagues expressed their thanks to Yvonne for her service to the Forum. 12/44

Date and time of next meeting The next meetings of the Forum were arranged for: • • • • • •

Thursday 5th July 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 6th September and/or 4th October 2012 8.30 a.m. – 10.30 a.m. (replacing Thursday 20th September 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m.) Thursday 25th October 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 13th December 2012 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 24th January 2013 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m. Thursday 21st March 2013 8.30 a.m. -10.30 a.m.

In addition, training was to be offered to recently appointed Forum members. Established members could also take part in this training. This was provisionally scheduled for 14th June.

September meeting of Schools Forum provisionally changed to fit with national consultation on school funding reform

Induction training for Forum members to be organised

SCHOOLS FORUM 5TH JULY 2012 REFORM OF SCHOOLS FORUM CONSTITUTION AND RELATED ARRANGEMENTS 1.

Background and current position All Local Authorities are required to have a schools forum in accordance with regulations, to represent the views of schools with respect to the use of the Dedicated Schools Grant and funding of schools in the area. The Sunderland Schools Forum was set up in late 2002 when elections took place for Headteacher and Governor representatives from all sectors. From 1st September 2006 the constitution of the Forum changed as required by regulations. The main difference upon re-constitution was that there was separate representation from each category (e.g. specific elections for infant schools, junior schools, post-16 schools etc.). The constitution from September 2006 was therefore as follows: Headteacher Primary Infant Schools Junior Schools RC Primary CE Primary Community Non-category Total Primary

Governor

1 1 1 1 4 8

4 4

Secondary Post 16 RC Secondary CE Secondary Foundation Community Non-category Total Secondary

8

4 4

Nursery Special

1 1

1 1

Total School Members

18

10

1 1 1 1 4

Non-schools Group Teachers Associations Early Years and Childcare Partnership Children’s Trust Board Pupil Referral Unit 14-19 Partnership Private, Voluntary & Independent Sector Total Non-School Members Total School Forum Members

Other

1 1 1 1 1 1 6 18

10

6

In late 2010 an academy representative became part of the Forum constitution (prior to this date they had only been given observer status). This was as a result of national changes in Forum regulations and guidance. In 2011 the Foundation Headteacher representative post was deleted when the only Foundation School in the City converted to academy status.

With these exceptions the Forum membership has remained largely unchanged. 2.

Schools Group Members All positions for Headteacher and governor representatives are filled, with governor elections having been completed earlier in the year.

3.

Non-schools Group Members Since re-constitution the Sunderland Schools Forum has had the following nonschools representatives: (a)

a representative of the early years private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector. This became a requirement for all Schools Forums in 2010 but Sunderland had this in place prior to this requirement. The current representative’s term of office expired on 21st May 2012 and arrangements are currently being made to seek a new nomination.

(b)

a representative of the 14-19 partnership. This became a requirement for all Schools Forums in 2010 but Sunderland had this in place prior to this requirement. The current representative’s term of office expired on 21st May 2012 and arrangements are currently being made to seek a new nomination

(c)

a representative of teachers’ professional associations. This was referred to in the 2005 guidance. This position has always been fiercely contested between the trade unions and the current arrangement (agreed between the unions) is that there will be rotating representation between the three main teaching unions with each holding office for one year.

(d)

a representative of the Children’s Trust. This does not appear in any guidance and would therefore not seem to be a requirement. It should be noted that this place has never been filled. Efforts have been made to secure a representative but it appears that no member of the Children’s Trust Board was willing to serve in this capacity.

(e)

a representative of the Early Years & Childcare Partnership. There is reference to this in the 2005 guidance. This position is currently held by a Nursery Headteacher.

(f)

a representative of the Pupil Referral Unit. This position was added because it is seen as good practice for Local Authorities to ensure that the needs and interests of all the pupils in the local authority are adequately represented including those educated in Pupil Referral Units.

Non-schools members may number no more than 20% of a forum's total membership. It is for the Authority to decide which bodies should be asked to nominate non-schools members. However, as there are clearly limited numbers of non-schools members able to be on a Schools Forum, care should be taken to ensure that an appropriate representation from wider stakeholders is achieved. 4.

Academy representation As noted in a previous section, there was a new requirement in late 2010 that there must be at least one Academy member on a Schools Forum where there are Academies in the Local Authority’s area. Sunderland responded by changing the

observer status of the academy representative to that of a full member of the Forum. It was noted in the 2010 guidance that there may need to be more than one Academy member on the Forum if the pupil numbers in Academies justified this on a basis of broad proportionality, and Local Authorities would need to review this as the number of Academies increases. The need for proportional representation has been drawn to the attention of the Schools Forum at its meetings in late 2011 and throughout 2012 and it was suggested that, with the growth in the number of academies, it was no longer sufficient to have just one rep. It was therefore proposed and subsequently agreed that the number of places be increased to two. As a result of this decision, there is now one governor and one Headteacher representative from the academies sector. Putting this extra representative on to the Forum did not affect the balance with other categories because a Foundation School representative was no longer needed. It was also pointed out the current consultation document proposes changes to the constitution of Schools Forums. This action to increase the number of academy places to two members was therefore regarded as an interim measure pending the receipt of finalised guidance. 5.

Draft Regulations – Future Reform of the Schools Forum On 26th March 2012 the Secretary of State published School funding reform: next steps towards a fairer system. One of the key points from the document is that there will be changes to schools forums’ composition and operation so that their business was “more transparent and decisions better reflect the views of providers”. Among the changes proposed are: • Remove the requirement to have a minimum of 15 people on a Forum; • The Education Funding Agency (EFA) will be entitled to observe all Forum meetings. • Limit the number of Local Authority attendees from participating in meetings unless they are a Lead Member, a Director of Children’s Services (or their representative) or are providing specific financial or technical advice (including presenting a paper to the Forum); • Confine the voting arrangements to allow only schools members and providers from the private, voluntary and independent sector to vote on the funding formula; • Require Local Authorities to publish Forum papers, minutes and decisions promptly on their websites; and, • Require Forums to hold public meetings – as is the case with other council committees. The draft regulations have now been published. Whilst these are not finalised regulations and there is no accompanying guidance available yet, there are some points for action that need to be considered prior to the end of the summer term. The main points to consider are set out below. It should be noted that this is based on the information currently available and anticipates the final regulations and statutory guidance that will be issued over the summer.

6.

Conclusions and Action Required CONSTITUTION OF THE SCHOOLS FORUM Before the summer holiday’s consideration needs to be given to the future constitution of the Schools Forum in anticipation of final regulations. The Local Authority must review the constitution to ensure proportionality and to reflect other changes described in the draft regulations. Work has been done taking account of the proportion of pupils that will be educated in each school sector on 1st September 2012 (based on currently available pupil numbers – see appendix D). Using this information three possible models have been formulated. These are set out in appendix A, B and C. An explanation of the impact of each of these models is given in each case. The Local Authority has considered these three options and has a preference for that set out in appendix B as it is compatible with the government’s intention to make Schools Forums smaller but still allows a wide range of representation on the Forum. The current members of the Schools Forum are asked to consider these models and indicate whether they have a preferred option. A final decision will be taken during the summer once the final regulations have been published and action will be taken accordingly. Once in place the constitution of the Schools Forum will possibly need to be reviewed annually to ensure accurate representation of the various school sectors. ACADEMIES REPRESENTATION In the Schools Category it remains a requirement that individual sectors are represented (i.e. secondary, primary, nursery, special) and the Authority may determine that there are certain numbers of representatives that can be Headteachers and/or governors. There is no such direction in the case of academy representatives. Instead the regulations state that Academies Members must be elected to the Schools Forum by the Governing Bodies of Academies in the Authority’s area. It would, however, make sense if there were proportionality within the Academies Members (i.e. to ensure that the right number of Primary Academies, Secondary Academies, Special Academies were represented – See Appendix D for details). There is no provision within the draft regulations to require this and it remains to be seen whether there will be any such reference within accompanying guidance, but this is something that the academies themselves may wish to take into account in nominating and electing their representatives. SUBSTITUTE ARRANGEMENTS It will be a requirement that the Local Authority puts in place arrangements for substitutes where a member of the Forum cannot attend. In each case the substitute must be from the same constituent group as the member for whom they are acting as substitute. The Forum is asked to discuss how this should be achieved.

FEEDBACK TO/FROM CONSTITUENT GROUPS It is clear within the revised Forum arrangements that there is an expectation that feedback is provided to groups by their representative and also that there should be an opportunity for constituents to raise items with their representative to be reported to the Schools Forum. Members are asked to discuss how feedback should operate for each group (i.e. Schools Group members [Headteachers and governors], Academies Group members and Non-Schools Group members). PUBLIC ACCESS It is clear that the government intends that there will be greater transparency and scrutiny in the operation of the Schools Forum with the public having open access to all meetings and all minutes and papers being published promptly on a public website. Whilst minutes of Sunderland’s Schools Forum already do appear on a public website www.sunderlandschools.org/govdocs/schoolsforum it is clear that there will be greater emphasis upon this public availability of information and the Schools Forum will have a higher public profile. In the light of this members are also asked to discuss the arrangements for Clerking of the Schools Forum and in particular the style/content of minutes of Schools Forum meetings in view of this increased public scrutiny. FREQUENCY AND TIMING OF MEETINGS It will be a requirement that the Schools Forum meets at least four times per year. If the Forum decided upon a work plan that complied with this minimum number of meetings, meetings could be held every three months. A proposed workplan is attached at Appendix E The suggested timing of these meetings would be January, April, July and October. Members are asked to consider this suggestion.

APPENDIX A

Possible Schools Forum constitutions – September 2012 Example A - Total members – 19 The following model is based on a significantly reduced Schools Forum to reflect the government’s view expressed in the consultation that Schools Forums can be too large and unwieldy. Proportions are correct to reflect the number of academies and maintained schools in each sector at 1st September 2012. Realistically this is the smallest constitution possible for Sunderland. Headteacher Schools Group Primary RC Primary CE Primary Community Non-category Total Primary Secondary RC Secondary and Post-16 CE Secondary Community Non-category Total Secondary

Governor

1 1 2 2 2

4

1 1 1 1 1

3

Nursery Special Pupil Referral Unit

1 (Headteacher or Governor) 1 (Headteacher or Governor) 1 (Headteacher or Governor)

Academies Group

3 (Headteachers or Governors)

Non-schools Group Teachers Associations 14-19 Partnership Early Years - Private, Voluntary & Independent Sector Total Non-School Members Total School Forum Members

Other

1 1 1 3 16

3

Implications of this model: This model would dispense with separate representation from infant and junior schools. It would also delete the position for post-16 secondary Headteacher which would instead be incorporated into the RC Secondary position. The Children’s Trust representative is deleted from the non-schools group. Other nonschools group members are retained and this is within the limits prescribed For proportionality, the Headteacher and Governor representation for the nursery sector and also for the maintained special sector are combined. The Early Years & Childcare Partnership representative is deleted and will be incorporated into the PVI Non-Schools Group The overall numbers would be reduced in every category (Headteachers and governors) except academies, which would increase

NOTE – It should be noted that this is prepared in anticipation of revised regulations and is for illustrative purposes only. There may be further revisions needed to reflect finalised regulations when they are issued in summer 2012.

APPENDIX B Possible Schools Forum constitutions – September 2012 Example B - Total members – 25 The following model is based on a Schools Forum that is reduced in size to reflect the government’s view expressed in the consultation that Schools Forums can be too large and unwieldy. Proportions are correct to reflect the number of academies and maintained schools in each sector at 1st September 2012. Headteacher Schools Group Primary Infant Junior RC Primary CE Primary Community Non-category Total Primary Secondary RC Secondary and Post-16 CE Secondary Community Non-category Total Secondary

Governor

1 1 1 1 2 4 4

6

1 1 1 2 2

3

Nursery Special Pupil Referral Unit

1 (Headteacher or Governor) 1 (Headteacher or Governor) 1 (Headteacher or Governor)

Academies Group

4 (Headteachers or Governors)

Non-schools Group Teachers Associations

1

14-19 Partnership Private, Voluntary & Independent Sector Total Non-School Members Total School Forum Members

Other

1 1 3 22

3

Implications of this model: This model would retain separate representation from infant and junior schools. It would also delete the position for post-16 secondary Headteacher which would instead be incorporated into the RC Secondary position. For this illustration, the Children’s Trust representative is deleted from the non-schools group. Other non-schools group members are retained and this is within the limits prescribed, so the Children’s Trust rep could be reinstated (although it should be noted that this position has never been filled) For proportionality, the Headteacher and Governor representation for the nursery sector and also for the maintained special sector are combined. The Early Years & Childcare Partnership representative is deleted and will be incorporated into the PVI Non-Schools Group The overall numbers would be reduced in some categories. Academies would increase. NOTE – It should be noted that this is prepared in anticipation of revised regulations and is for illustrative purposes only. There may be further revisions needed to reflect finalised regulations when they are issued in summer 2012.

APPENDIX C Possible Schools Forum constitutions – September 2012 Example C - Total members – 33 The following model is larger than examples A or B. It is broadly in line with the current size of the Schools Forum but representation would be apportioned differently. Proportions are correct to reflect the number of academies and maintained schools in each sector at 1st September 2012. Headteacher Schools Group Primary Infant Junior RC Primary CE Primary Community Non-category Total Primary Secondary Post-16 RC Secondary and Post-16 CE Secondary Community Non-category Total Secondary

Governor

1 1 2 1 4 5 4

10

1 1 1 2 2 2

5

Nursery Special Pupil Referral Unit

1 (Headteacher or Governor) 1 (Headteacher or Governor) 1 (Headteacher or Governor)

Academies Group

6 (Headteachers or Governors)

Non-schools Group Teachers Associations 14-19 Partnership Private, Voluntary & Independent Sector Total Non-School Members Total School Forum Members

Other

1 1 1 3 30

3

Implications of this model: -

-

This model would actually increase maintained primary school representation. Academy representation would increase significantly Separate representation would be retained from infant and junior schools. Post-16 secondary Headteacher representation would be retained in addition to RC Secondary position. For this illustration, the Children’s Trust representative is deleted from the non-schools group. Other non-schools group members are retained and this is well within the limits prescribed, so the Children’s Trust rep could be reinstated (although it should be noted that this position has never been filled) The Early Years & Childcare Partnership representative is deleted and will be incorporated into the PVI Non-Schools Group For proportionality, the Headteacher and Governor representation for the nursery sector and also for the maintained special sector are combined.

NOTE – It should be noted that this is prepared in anticipation of revised regulations and is for illustrative purposes only. There may be further revisions needed to reflect finalised regulations when they are issued in summer 2012.

APPENDIX D Possible Schools Forum constitutions – September 2012 Who represents? This shows how calculations have been made in determining proportions to be represented on the Schools Forum. It should be noted that some assumptions needed to be made as regards those schools that would convert to academy with effect from the autumn term. Pupil numbers are based on the latest available PLASC figures.

Academies Group Pupil numbers Academy 360 Barbara Priestman School Benedict Biscop Primary Bexhill Academy Castle View Academy East Herrington Primary Eppleton Primary Hasting Hill Primary ** Holley Park Primary Houghton Kepier School Portland College Red House Academy Redby Primary Academy Southmoor School St Anthony's School Town End Academy

963 119 248 305 782 473 170

Academy Proportions

316

Special Academies Primary Academies Secondary Academies

204 1056 144

263 2725 5361 8349

568 440 1004 1329 228

8349

TOTAL

** it is now understood that this school will convert to academy status later in the autumn term Maintained Primary Pupil numbers Albany Village Primary Barmston Village Primary Barnes Infant Barnes Junior Barnwell Primary Bernard Gilpin Primary Biddick Primary Bishop Harland Primary Blackfell Primary Broadway Junior Burnside Primary Castletown Primary Dame Dorothy Primary Diamond Hall Infant Diamond Hall Junior Dubmire Primary Easington Lane Primary

253 244 327 315 255 258 241 173 247 241 177 361 200 311 311 458 233

3.15% 32.64% 64.21% 100.00%

East Rainton Primary English Martyrs' Primary Farringdon Primary Fatfield Primary Fulwell Infant Fulwell Junior George Washington Primary Gillas Lane Primary Grange Park Primary Grangetown Primary Grindon Infant Hetton Lyons Primary Hetton Primary Highfield Primary Hill View Infant Hill View Junior Hudson Road Primary Hylton Castle Primary Hylton Red House Primary John F Kennedy Primary Lambton Primary Mill Hill Primary New Penshaw Primary New Silksworth Infant New Silksworth Junior Newbottle Primary Our Lady Queen of Peace Primary Oxclose Village Primary Plains Farm Primary Richard Avenue Primary Rickleton Primary Ryhope Infant Ryhope Junior Seaburn Dene Primary Shiney Row Primary South Hylton Primary Southwick Primary Springwell Village Primary St Anne's Primary St Bede's Primary St Benet's Primary St Cuthbert's Primary St John Bosco Primary St John Boste Primary St Joseph's Primary Sunderland St Joseph's Primary Washington St Leonard's Primary St Mary's Primary St Michael's Primary St Patrick's Primary St Paul's Primary Thorney Close Primary Usworth Colliery Primary Usworth Grange Primary Valley Road Primary Wessington Primary Willow Fields Primary

119

TOTAL

20412

198 336 235 344 319 408 141 201 264 224 443 107 353 441 408 278 274 339 442 259 350 191 276 221 481 248 222 249 429 425 236 184 217 312 242 377 229 229 212 358 247 192 192 305 234 189 470 200 106 234 244 380 199 397 234 163

Maintained Secondary Pupil numbers Biddick School Farringdon School Hetton School Monkwearmouth School Oxclose School Sandhill View School St Aidan's School St Robert's School The Venerable Bede School Thornhill School Washington School

1077

TOTAL

10885

818 819 1109 1021 878 1117 1631 778 893 744

Maintained Special Pupil numbers Castlegreen School Columbia Grange School Maplewood School Springwell Dene School Sunningdale School

64 85 55 57 69

330

TOTAL

Nursery Pupil numbers Hetton Le Hole Nursery Hetton Lyons Nursery Houghton Le Spring Nursery Hylton Red House Nursery Mill Hill Nursery Millfield Nursery Oxclose Nursery Pennywell Early Years Centre Usworth Colliery Nursery TOTAL

48 82 75 80 78 73 87 89 104

716

Overall totals

ACADEMY PRIMARY SECONDARY NURSERY SPECIAL TOTAL

PUPIL NUMBERS 8349 20412 10885 716 330

PERCENTAGE OF PUPILS 20.52% 50.16% 26.75% 1.76% 0.81%

40692

100%

APPENDIX E

School Forum - Proposed Workplan Agenda items

Date of Meeting

24th January 2013 8.30 - 11.00

1 2 3 4 5

21st March 2013 8.30 - 11.00

Budget Planning Framework 2013/2014 High Needs Block Early Years Block School Funding Formula - Return to EFA Individual School Budget Share - Impact analysis Cancel

Apr-13 8.30 - 11.00

1 2 3 4 5

School Financial Value Standard Section 251 Return Dedicated Schools Grant Outturn 2012/2013 Services to Schools 2013/2014 Annual Report - Early Years

Jul-13 8.30 - 11.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Budget Planning Framework 2013/2014 School Funding Formula - Discussion Annual Report - Arrangements for High Need Pupils High Needs Block - Commissioning Intentions Annual Report - Alternative Provision Alternative Provision - Commissioning Intentions Early Years Block

Oct-13 8.30 - 11.00

1 2 3 4 5 6

Budget Planning Framework 2013/2014 School Funding Formula - Discussion High Needs Block - Budget Planning Alternative Provision - Budget Planning Early Years Block School Funding Formula - Return to EFA

REPORT FOR SUNDERLAND SCHOOLS FORUM REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES/CITY TREASURER 5th July 2012 High Needs Pupils - Placements in Mainstream and Special schools 1. Purpose 1.1. The purpose of this paper is to outline the current (2012/2013) local offer available in Sunderland to support pupils identified as high needs low incidence, and to support the Local Authority (LA) in determining how future resources for the financial year 2013/2014 should be deployed to support pupils with SEN and of disabilities. 1.2. In addition the report will begin to address the implications and issues arising from the new “Place Plus” approach to funding High Needs pupils, set out in table 1 below and the commissioning arrangements that will be put in place by the LA.

Table1: Place Plus Funding Approach for High Need Pupils

Page 1 of 11

2. Background 2.1. Proposals for the new funding arrangements for school hold considerable challenges for the future resourcing of Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision in Sunderland. The changes require the Local Authority to re-appraise current funding and management arrangements of SEN provisions and places to be outlined in the Local Offer in Sunderland. 2.2. During the last 10 years the Local Authority has made a commitment to the development of a continuum of provision to support pupils with SEN and/or disabilities. As a result a range of provision has been developed to meet the needs of pupils with SEN and disability that includes special schools, resourced and mainstream provisions. Resourced provisions have been developed in the primary and secondary sector to support pupils with physical and medical needs, sensory needs, specific language impairment, autism and moderate and severe learning difficulties. 2.3. The Local Authority is committed to the continuation of this policy and to the principles of inclusive education in the City. The SEN Green paper – Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability reaffirms this vision. The document states parents will have a clear choice of school with equivalent rights to express a preference for any state – funded school including Academies and Free schools. 3. Current Provision in the City 3.1. Mainstream Provision Schools are currently funded for SEN (high incidence and low need) through the SANA (Social and Additional Needs block) and receive a banding element when a statement of special needs is issued. Appendix 1 sets out the current funding levels delegated to schools and identifies the total level of notional SEN funding included in the current Individual Schools Budget (ISB). 3.2. Special School Provision 2012 / 2013 Special schools are currently funded through place led funding in addition to a range of factors that include EFA funding for post 16 teacher threshold payments and other site and school specific factors. Appendix 2 to this report sets out the current funding formula for special schools, based on 2012-13 funding allocations. 3.3. Funded numbers compared with take up at May 2012 is set out in table 2 below:

School

Funded Pupil Early KS KS Post Out of number Numbers- Years 1/2 3/4 16 City s May 2012 Barbara Priestman 115 119 0 0 61 55 3 Castlegreen 75 70 0 0 49 17 4 Portland 154 147 0 0 83 61 3 Springwell Dene 64 58 0 0 55 0 3 Columbia Grange 83 85 2 81 0 0 2 Maplewood 64 54 0 52 0 0 2 Sunningdale 68 72 21 50 0 0 1 Total 623 605 23 248 133 18 18 3 Table 2: Funded and Current Placements in Special Schools Total number of funded places is 623 Total pupil numbers in special schools in May 2012 is 605

Page 2 of 11

3.4. Table 3 below sets out the current number of Out of Authority Placements as well as the type of provision accessed. Sector Total Mainstream Special Independent Schools 14 4 10 Non Maintained Schools 14 0 14 Other LA schools 33 12 21 Total Number of Placements 61 16 45 Table 3: Out of City Placements 2012/2013 3.5. Of the 61 out of authority placements 5 relate to pupils who are looked after and have a statement of special educational needs. 4. Current Issues in Special Schools & Resourced Provisions Special Schools 4.1. Columbia Grange is operating at maximum capacity. The school caters for pupils with ASD who are functioning well below average ability or identified as having severe learning difficulties and/or autism. 4.2. The LA carried out a further review of ASD provision in March 2011 and it was agreed that funding would be made available to establish a resourced provision attached to a mainstream primary school to cater for those pupils who are high functioning ASD/Asperger’s (average or above average ability) who may well have associated behavioural difficulties and significant communication difficulties and who have limited ability to cope in large class groups. 4.3. The sum of £91,000 was earmarked to develop this provision; however, a recent consultation with schools on the proposals for such a provision was limited and as a result the pressure for ASD places across the City remains an issue. Due to the numbers of pupils who are being identified with autism at this level, increasing numbers are now being placed in Sunningdale and Maplewood schools. 4.4. Agreement has been reached with Barbara Priestman School in March 2012 that the school’s current capacity will be capped at 120 pupils. 4.5. Castlegreen School is currently funded for 75 pupils and in September will have 69 pupils on roll. The pupil profile through the school is variable. There are high numbers of pupils in Key Stages 4 & 5. 4.6. Springwell Dene School is funded for 64 pupils and in September 2012 will have 50 pupils on roll. However, intelligence tells us that the PRU is making referrals for formal statutory assessment for 7 pupils and therefore it is anticipated that the school will be full be the end of March. 4.7. There are a number of issues that need to be considered in terms of current support for pupils with Behavioural, Emotional, or Social Difficulties (BESD) and reflect the concerns identified in the Green Paper. •

Feedback from head teachers identifies a frustration regarding the lack of provision for pupils with BESD and issues with the formal statutory process. There is a need to consider increasing intervention places in special schools to allow the Local Authority to facilitate earlier identification, intervention and support and for pupils with behavioural difficulties.

•

There is a potential gap in provision for pupils with mental health issues and associated aggressive behaviours that need a greater range of therapeutic approaches and who are increasingly at risk of permanent exclusion.

Page 3 of 11

•

The increasing numbers of pupils receiving a diagnosis of ASD is causing pressures within the system and there is a need to explore opportunities to extend primary ASD provision.

•

A need to clarify the relationship between provision post -16 at Castlegreen and the role of the Sunderland College

Resourced Provisions 4.8. Table 4 below sets out the existing resource provisions based in mainstream schools and the current take up of those places: School

2012/2013 Places Funded

2012/2013 Actual Places May 2012 37 11 29 7 10 11 10 10 2 4 5 15 3 9 2

2012/2013 Planned Places 01.09.12 38 14 28 5 12 10 10 9 1 4 6 13 3 5 2

Academy 360 –CAP 35 Biddick ASD 16 Farringdon ASD 28 George Washington – HI 9 Hetton - Language Unit 10 Highfield Language Unit 10 Hylton Red House – Language Unit 10 New Penshaw – Language Unit 10 Oxclose Nursery 2 Oxclose Primary 12 Oxclose School 12 Sandhill View – HI 18 Sandhill View - VI 6 Thorney Close HI 12 Thorney Close – Vi 6 Thornhill 5 Washington CAP 15 13 13 Table 4: Current Placements in Local Resource Provisions Based in Maintained Schools 4.9. The Local Authority currently funds 216 places set out at Appendix 3. Having reviewed the existing provision across the schools in the city the following conclusions have been made: •

Provision in Language Units is adequate to meet current demand.

•

Both secondary ASD provisions are on track for agreed pupil numbers.

•

For PMD provision there are a number of vacant places.

•

The CAP provision at Academy 360 is full and there are two places available in the CAP provision at Washington School.

•

For sensory provision Sandhill View currently has 15 pupils in the Hearing Impaired (HI) provision and 2 pupils in the visual impaired (VI) provision and are funded at 18 HI places and 6 VI places. George Washington HI provision has been reduced to 6 places with effect from 1st September 2012 in line with identified need and Thorney Close has 6 hearing impaired pupils and 2 visually impaired (VI) pupils. The school is currently being funded for 12 HI pupils and 6 VI places.

Page 4 of 11

5. Proposed Local Offer 2013/2014 5.1. In future Special Schools will receive £10,000 per place based on the number of places commissioned by the local authority or in some cases by local authorities in other areas that may wish to access the provision. The remainder of funding will be allocated to the school through a ‘top–up’ or place plus mechanism. Funding arrangements will need to be reviewed on a termly basis to take into account additions or reductions to the pupil roll during the school year. 5.2. The allocation of funding via top ups will need to be agreed through the development of a banding system in order that the specific needs of pupils are identified and reflected in the assessment processes. This mechanism will in future drive the personal budget agenda that will be implemented in 2014 which will allow parents, where they wish, to source the appropriate support for their child. There are serious implications for Local Authorities to work together to identify banding streams that are consistent and which ultimately may lead to a national approach to the funding allocated through a banding mechanism. 5.3. The impact at of these changes at individual school level will be determined based on how each school is able to set a sustainable budget moving forward. 5.4. Mainstream Schools will be expected to make provision for pupils with SEN (high incidence low need) up to the value of £10,000 which will comprise of the BPPE (Basic Per Pupil Allocation) and up to £6000 from their mainstream budget. A school may then receive additional top up funding if a Statement of Special Needs or Education, Health and Care Plan is agreed for that pupil and identifies a level of resource required above the level of funding already delegated to the school. 5.5. Further work will need to be undertaken to establish band levels and funding rates appropriate to need. It is possible that in determining future band levels some element of double funding is identified in the existing funding system. 6. Special School Commissioned Places – Proposals for 2013/2014 6.1. An analysis of data over a three year period and intelligence from specialist team leaders has been used to inform the suggested commissioning arrangements. The results are set out in table 5 below. School Barbara Priestman Castlegreen Portland Springwell Dene Columbia Grange Maplewood Sunningdale Total

Planned Places 120 75 155 65 85 65 75

Early years

640

0 0 0 0 2 0 21 23

Pupil Numbers KS1/2 KS 3/4 Post 16 0 75 45 0 49 17 0 83 61 0 50 0 81 0 0 0 41 0 53 0 0 134

298

Out of City

123

3 4 1 3 2 2 1 16

Table 5: Proposed Commissioned Places 2013/2014 Total number of planned places – 640 Total Pupil Numbers - 594 6.2. In reviewing the places required from September 2012 the following information is available: •

ASD provision at Barbara Priestman and Columbia Grange will be at capacity

Page 5 of 11

•

Increasingly Sunningdale and Maplewood schools will admit pupils with autistic tendencies

•

There will be capacity in Castlegreen and Springwell Dene to accommodate future need. However, some consideration should be given to the introduction of intervention places in each of these settings.

•

For Portland College the analysis of data for the past three years suggests the that the number of places required is within the current level of places commissioned from the college.

6.3. Work with regional SEN and Finance colleagues will need to be undertaken in order to introduce a banding system which will be consistent with all providers across the region. 7. Out of Authority placements – Requirements for 2013/2014 7.1. The information currently available suggests a requirement for out of city placements set out in table 6 below: Sector Independent Schools Non Maintained Schools Other LA schools Total Placements

14 14 33 61

Mainstream Special 4 10 0 14 12 21 16 45

Table 6: Requirement for Out of City Placements 2013/2014 7.2. Dialogue and work will have to be undertaken with providers in other areas in order to agree the number of places commissioned by the local authority. 8. Resourced Provisions – Proposals for 2013/2014 8.1. Schools with resourced provisions currently receive delegated funding through the existing funding formula via the BAPP in addition to the planned place funding for the resourced provision, as the pupils are on the roll of their school. 8.2. The new funding arrangements will require the Local authority to commission places as they would in a special school, and the pupils assigned to those provisions would not be counted as part of the school’s number on roll. This will avoid double counting the BPPE element included within the place funding commissioned from the provision. As a consequence mainstream schools with resourced provisions will immediately lose the BAPP/SANA element for each pupil in the provision, unless the cost of providing for the pupils exceeds the place value of £10,000 and an additional “top up” is required top meet the pupil’s needs. 8.3. As with special schools funding, arrangements will need to be reviewed on a termly basis to take into account adjustments to pupil numbers. The impact of this mechanism will be most significant where a provision is not full and additional place plus funding ‘top up’ is not available. 8.4. Based on the latest information available the number of places required is set out in table 7 below. 8.5. Current intelligence identifies the need to reduce places at Oxclose Primary and Secondary PD provisions. However, consideration will need to be given to the complexity of need of identified pupils in these provisions through the revised banding system which may provide additional “top up” funding which will mitigate against the reduction in the number of places commissioned.

Page 6 of 11

8.6. Further reductions will be made in the provision for pupils with hearing impairment at George Washington and Thorney Close Primary schools whilst provision for hearing impaired pupils at Sandhill View School will increase during 2012/2013 and into 2013/2014. Numbers at Biddick ASD provision will continue to grow to 30 over the next two years. 8.7. The pressure on ASD places will continue. Some consideration will need to be given to the placement of ASD pupils with Behavioural issues in a school such as Maplewood to allow the Local Authority to meet demand. 8.8. Curriculum Access Provision (CAP) at Academy 360 will continue to be the primary/secondary pathway for pupils with MLD/SLD. Washington CAP provision will take pupils at a secondary level. 8.9. Language unit places in the primary sector may need to be funded as alternative provision (AP) as pupils remain in the unit for up to 2 years only and are not on the roll of the school. The £8,000 funding per place applicable to AP will result in an overall increase in funding which will enable the full 10 places to be rotated to meet the needs across the city. 8.10. Secondary Language unit provision would be funded as a SEN specialist provision, as pupils are placed permanently on the roll of the school. School

Academy 360 –CAP Biddick ASD Farringdon ASD George Washington – HI Hetton - Language Unit Highfield Language Unit Hylton Red House – Language Unit New Penshaw – Language Unit Oxlcose Nursery Oxclose Primary Oxclose School Sandhill View – HI Sandhill View - VI Thorney Close HI Thorney Close – Vi Thornhill Washington CAP Total Commissioned Places

2013/2014 Pupil led Funding 35 24 30 6 10 10 10 10 2 10 10 18 3 6 3 0 15 202

Table 7: Resource Provision Proposed Commissioned Places 2013/2014 9.

Next Steps

9.1. Over the next few weeks there will be a need to consider bandings and costs against each area of the code of practice in order to determine the cost of making provision for each pupil currently with a statement of SEN. 9.2. The authority will need to agree and finalise a commissioning framework for provisions across the City 9.3. A review of existing statements and to undertake work with colleagues from health and social care to pilot work on the development of Education, Health and Care Plans

Page 7 of 11

9.4. Further work to progress the development of intervention places in BESD secondary schools 10. Recommendations 10.1. School Forum members are asked to consider the information provided in this report and comment on the proposals. If you have any queries in relation to the above report, please contact in the first instance: Annette Parr on 07 768 507 410 or email at [email protected]

Page 8 of 11

Appendix 1: Mainstream Schools Notional SEN Funding 2012/2013 Primary Total Delegated Funding (ISB) 2012-13

Secondary

Total

£77.700m

£86.694m

£164.394m

19,835

15,535

35,370

SANA Funding per Pupil

£223.34

£244.02

£232.43

Total Funding Delegated via SANA

£4.340m

£3.791m

£8.1311m

% of Funding Delegated via SANA

5.7%

4.4%

5.0%

Notional SEN Delegated in BAPP

£1.515m

£1.179m

£2.694m

Funding for Pupils with Statements

£1.242m

£0.828m

£2.070m

Delegated Resource Provision Funding

£0.669m

£1.721m

£2.390m

Total SANA & SEN Delegated to Schools

£7.766m

£7.519m

£15.285m

Total SANA & SEN as % ISB

10.0%

8.7%

9.3%

Total SANA & SEN per Pupil

£391.53

£484.00

£432.15

£6.080m

£6.455m

£12.535m

7.8%

7.4%

7.6%

NOR January 2012 SANA FUNDING (Note 1)

SEN FUNDING

Total Notional SEN Funding (Note 2) Notional SEN as a % of Delegated Budget

Note 1: Special and Additional Needs Allocation (SANA) SANA funding includes allocations for English as an Additional Language (EAL), Pupil Mobility, Deprivation (FSM), Deprivation (IMD) and Low Prior Attainment. Currently only Deprivation (FSM) and Low Prior Attainment are included within the local authority’s calculation for Notional SEN funding. Note 2: Notional SEN Funding Notional SEN funding is based on the total of Deprivation (FSM), Low Prior Attainment, Notional SEN included within the Basic Allocation per Pupil and SEN allocations for pupils with statements and Resource Provision Funding.

Page 9 of 11

Appendix 1: Special Schools Funding Formula 2012-13

Place Led

Deprivation

Based on Number of Commissioned Places at Agreed Band levels £7.763m

Index of Multiple Deprivation £0.025m

Site Related Based on Services Delegated to Schools Based on Lump Sum / No of Places £0.100m

Site Related Services £0.029m

School Specific School Meals Provision £0.116m

Mainstreamed Grant Funding £0.994

Pay Grant Funding £0.393m (inc EFA)

Inclusion Funding £0.517m

Management Lump Sum £0.651m

Diploma Funding £0.015 m

MFG £0.176m

Abatement £0

Page 10 of 11

Appendix 3 – Current Delegated Resource Provision Local Authority (Commissioning Body) £2.855m

Sensory 36 HI / 12 VI Places £606,765 (£12,641)

Curriculum Access 50 Places £430,891 (£8,618)

ASD Provision 60 Places £1,021,810 (£12,890)

PMD 31 Places £463,429 (£12,431)

Language Units 40 Places £332,547 (£8,314)

Secondary – Sandhill 18 HI & 6 VI £321,170

Sec / Prim South Academy 360 35 Places £302,830

Secondary – South Farringdon 30 Places £439,032

Secondary Oxclose / Thornhill 17 Places £242,402

Secondary Hetton 10 Places £138,403

Primary - North George Washington 6 HI Places £69,749

Secondary – North Washington 15 Places £128,061

Secondary - North Biddick 18 Places (30) £243,357

Primary Oxclose Primary 12 Places £123,004

Primary Highfield 10 Places £64,715

Primary – South Thorney Close 12 HI & 6 VI £215,846

Primary – North Usworth Grange 10 places until 31/8/12

Primary 12 Places (2 x 6) £91,000

Nursery Oxclose 2 FTE Places £19,951

Primary Hylton Red House 10 Places £64,715

Columbia Grange & Barbara Priestman Partnership & Outreach

Sunningdale Portage Service £78,072

Primary New Penshaw 10 Places £64,715

Page 11 of 11

BRIEFING NOTE FOR MEETING OF SCHOOLS FORUM 5 JULY 2012 RE REPORT OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES 24 MAY 2012 - SUNDERLAND MUSIC EDUCATION HUB Following the briefing meetings for Headteachers, Music Subject Leaders and Finance & Data managers on Tuesday and Wednesday 19 & 20 June 2012, and the receipt of the 3 returns from schools as detailed in the 24 May 2012 report to Schools Forum, the LA is now in a position to devolve the residue of Music Education Grant funding in preparation for transition to the Hub. As at 12 noon on Monday 2 July the returns received by the LA are summarised below: 1. Spring Term 2012 Music Survey return – in this respect 7 schools have failed to submit this return. 2. Spring Term 2012 Instrument Inventory – in this respect 15 schools have failed to submit this return. 3. Summer Term 2012 Self-Evaluative Audit and Review of Extra-Curricular Music Provision – in this respect 24 have failed to submit this return. On Friday 29 June 2012 those schools with returns outstanding were advised of an extension of the deadline for submission: “Because of the disruption caused by storm and/or flood and/or Ofsted and/or staff illness in the last couple of days, the deadline for submission of your Music Survey, Instrument Inventory and Music Audit & Review returns has been extended to Wednesday 4 July.” All schools (including academies) who have made all the required returns by 4 p.m. Wednesday 4 July 2012 will be devolved the sum of £750, either by Journal Entry transfer or Form 1 payment. As previously notified, schools should use these monies for one or more of the following purposes: 1. To defray the cost of music tuition already provided in Summer Term 2012 2. To fund KS2/3 musical transition events 3. To fund the purchase of musical instruments for “whole-class ensemble teaching programmes” to address the first core role of the Music Hub 4. To fund the purchase of musical instruments for other small or large group instrumental teaching programmes 5. To subscribe to Sing Up or to Charanga

The questions and comments raised at the 24 May meeting of the Schools Forum were addressed at the aforementioned Briefing Meetings on 19 & 20 June 2012. Schools should now note the actions that will be required after the Music Education Hub becomes effective from 1 August 2012. 1. The Sunderland Music Education Hub Board will need to be set up as soon as possible and should comprise: Stakeholder Group

Method of appointment

4 x Primary Headteachers

One appointed by each Area Primary Headteachers’ Group 1 x Infant Headteacher Appointed by the Infant Headteachers’ Group 1 x Junior Headteacher Appointed by the Junior Headteachers’ Group 1 x Special Headteachers Appointed by the Special Schools Headteachers’ Group 3 x Secondary representatives Appointed by the Secondary (Headteachers or Heads of Music) Headteachers’ Group 1 x Sunderland Governors’ Appointed by the Sunderland Association Governors’ Association 2 x City Council representatives from Appointed by the City Council Culture and Tourism section The draft Terms of Reference will be confirmed at the first meeting of the Board. 2. For schools to be able to receive Music Education Hub funding between September 2012 and March 2013, they will be required to ensure they have submitted their Autumn Term 2012 Music Survey return to the Music Development Office by half-term i.e. Friday 26 October 2012.

If schools have any queries in relation to the new Sunderland Music Education Hub, they are advised to contact: Stephen Auster Tel: 553 5929 [email protected]