Agenda and minutes

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2010

             Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2010 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

             Steve Haley (Group Finance Manager) provided a report with information on the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Outturn 2009-2010 including the individual schools year-end balances.

He commented on the four primary schools carrying forward a balance in excess of 8% and confirmed that there was no claw-back proposed at this time. Officers were working with the schools carrying a deficit at 2009-10 year end to support and enable them to return to a surplus position.

The Chair stated that it was unacceptable that two of the schools with a balance exceeding 8% had not provided an explanation for the excess and that they should be advised that reasons should be submitted immediately. She also enquired about recovery plans for the schools in deficit and stated that it would be helpful if future reports included information on what stage or what progress the school had made in working towards recovery.

       Resolved – (1) That the overall Schools Block Outturn, of an over spend of £596k be noted.

(2) That the position of the schools balances in Appendix A, and the Surplus Balances detailed in Appendix B be noted.

             Steve Haley (Group Finance Manager) introduced a report with the latest budget monitoring information to the end of May 2010 in respect of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for 2010/11.

The report indicated a year-end overspend of £109k but it was very early in the year to get a proper projection, especially in the current volatile situation. Ian Bickerton (Director of Access and Provision) advised that the Forum Sub-Group had met in April and on 12 July 2010 to examine a range of possible reductions in the retained element of the DSG, which would also assist in ‘re-balancing’ the two elements of the overall DSG. It would be meeting again in September to progress the issue and he confirmed that all the Directors were involved, as reductions would affect all areas of Children Services.

Sarah Higgins (Deputy Group Finance Manager) referred to the balance of £42, 571 available from the Standards Fund, as detailed in paragraphs 2.11 to 2.14 of the report, and asked how this was to be distributed to schools. Members agreed that as a one-off, this should be used to reduce the current deficit.

            Resolved - (1) That the 2010/11 financial projections in respect of the Dedicated Schools Grant for the current financial year be noted.

(2) That the Group Director Children continues rigorous and robust monitoring of the Dedicated Schools Grant and brings budget monitoring reports to future meetings of the Schools Forum.

(3) That the headroom balance of £42,571 from funding set aside from the Standards Fund for Advanced School Teacher funding, for this year only, be returned to the central budget and used to reduce the current deficit

             The Forum considered a report presented by Steve Haley (Group Finance Manager) to generate discussion on proposed changes to the management of school balances.

It was explained that in March, the Department for Children Schools and Families, as it was then, had issued new guidance for local authorities and schools on managing school balances. There was therefore a need to review the whole mechanism and this report was to provide the basis for discussion by the Sub-Group. Some of the points to be considered were:

·      Encourage spending in some schools, as the Council did not wish to claw-back any money from schools.

·      A need to define the amount that has been committed for a specific purpose and what has not.

·      To set clear threshold levels, either as a total or for the amount of committed balance.

·      Set a threshold for uncommitted balances.

·      Evidence of commitments would be required.

·      To determine a process for the distribution of any claw-back.

·      That governors have properly approved the reasons for the committed funds within appropriate timescales.

Members welcomed the proposals and added that there should be scope to allow for a change in priorities following discussion with a school, as improvement needs can change over a two or three year budget cycle. It was also proposed that schools should submit a further summary statement in the autumn to allow for any changes in plans over the summer period.   

            Resolved – (1) That the Forum notes the proposed changes to the management of school balances and provides comments as set out above.

(2) That a further report be submitted to the Forum once the plan for the management of school balances has been formulated.

             Ian Bickerton (Director of Access and Provision) presented a report on the implications of the Schools Forum Regulations 2010 and the possibility of changes to the future membership and operation of the Forum.

He commented on the previous changes that had taken place in 2006 and the need to now review the organisation of the Forum in the light of the latest Regulations, although most of the requirements were already met.

Peter Crockett (Special School Head teacher) remarked that whilst other schools had governor representation, special schools did not and wondered why the original definition had specified a governor from a mainstream school with an SEN focus. Members agreed that this should simply be a governor from a special school.

Comment was also made about the attendance levels of the governor representatives as only two regularly attended meetings. It was suggested that the Association of Swindon Governors (ASG) be contacted and advised of the situation with an enquiry as to whether it wished to appoint new representatives. The ASG should also be asked to nominate substitutes for each governor appointed to the Forum. Further discussion took place regarding representation from Trade Unions, Youth, 14-19 Partnership, black and ethnic minorities and the disabled. 

The term of office for all members, including the Chair appointment was agreed as three years, as anything less was considered too short. The period of membership was to be staggered by thirds, to retain continuity and maintain a level of experience within the Forum.

            Resolved – (1) That the following action be taken regarding the membership and organisation of the Schools Forum;

·        That the Special governor (with and SEN focus from a mainstream school) be altered to appoint a governor from a special school.

·        That the ASG be informed of the attendance levels of the primary and secondary governor representatives and asked whether it wishes to appoint any new representatives;

·        That the ASG be asked to nominate substitutes for each of the governor representatives

·        That following a response from the ASG, consideration be given to varying the time of the Forum meetings to accommodate members not directly employed in education

·        That no action be taken at present regarding a 14-19 partnership representative but that this be reviewed at a later date

·        That the relevant Trade Unions be approached to appoint a representative

·        That the Director Strategy and Commissioning pursue the appointment of a youth representative to the Forum

·        That a new non-school member to represent the black and ethnic minorities be appointed and that the Chair of Swindon Racial Equality Council be asked to nominate a representative

·        That the term of office for school members, non-school members and the Chair be three years with the option to be re-elected for further three-year terms. The appointment or re-appointment of members to be a third of the total members each year to maintain continuity and experience on the Forum.

(2) That a further report with details of the revised organisation be submitted to the meeting on 12 October 2010.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

             Ian Bickerton (Director Access and Provision) provided the Forum with an update of the proposed amendments to the process for schools reclaiming maternity costs.

In addition to the options set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report, the Sub-Group had considered a further option of delegating 50% of the maternity pay budget and saving 50%. Members discussed the proposals but agreed that a report should be submitted to the next meeting, setting out the full pros and cons of each of the four options, together with any other option proposals. Information on the arrangements for Academies and details of insurance providers should also be included in the report. Members were anxious that a decision on maternity costs was not made in isolation but was made with full knowledge of the risks and implications and in the context of the wider strategy for delegating and reshaping services.

            Resolved – (1) That a further report be submitted to the next meeting of the Forum, to include all possible options for funding maternity pay, in order that a coherent decision may be made based on up to date information and with an awareness of all known risks and implications.

(2) That the requirement to provide evidence around maternity costs, as detailed in the Maternity Costs Policy attached as Appendix 1 to the report, be agreed and endorsed and that this be effective from September 2010.