Schools Forum 27 February 2014

School Support Services Securing the Future Proposals for September 2014 AIM To secure the long term provision and development of the in-scope services, which are important to schools, and in line with Council wishes to support and improve local education for all of Coventry’s children and young people.

The Proposal That the Services variously known as the Enrichment Services or ELS School Support services or Traded Services be transferred to form a new entity external to the Local Authority. The recommended form of this new entity is……. A charitable (i.e. not for profit) company Limited by Guarantee with governance by representatives of all stakeholders, schools, staff, LA and the wider community

The Services To be Included Performing Arts Service Outdoor Education Service Governor Support Service Schools’ Library and Resources Service A newly constituted Work Related Learning / Education Business Partnership Centres Service

School Survey Results “The services maintain stable customer bases and a reputation for delivering high quality services.” “Schools express continued need for and future intention to buy the services. 44% of schools surveyed anticipate an increase in their use if afforded greater say in the operation of the services.” “Competing providers do not hold a significant share of the Coventry market. Others are likely to attempt to enter the market” “The services’ position against potential competitors is strong; customer relationships, tradition, high quality, value for money, reliability.”

Ethos New organisation would retain the public sector ethos –Not for profit –For the benefit first and foremost of the children and young people of Coventry –Transparency –Accountability

Why To enable the services to –Be more responsive to service users / agile / –Invest in the business –Reduce running costs by no longer being part of a large infrastructure –Improve operational efficiency / focus –Grow –Attract and retain key staff / expertise –Be eligible to apply for new sources of funding

Mutual Ventures Consultancy- Feasibility Study Desirability - is there a base of customers who need and want to buy these services? Viability - is the proposition economically viable and sustainable? Feasibility - can it be implemented, what are the risks and can these be managed? YES Ref: Executive Summary of MV Report

The Risks Pension liabilities Redundancy liabilities Working capital Start-up costs ‘Stranded’ costs Plas Dol y Moch We would like to test your response / take your advice about some radical proposals for the future

A PARTNERSHIP APPROACH Three major stakeholders working together :- –Local Authority –Social Enterprise –Schools To invest in the future of the School Support Services, each stakeholder making their respective contribution to the future success of the new organisation. Main areas: Governance & Financial support

A Two-Tier Structure The new organisation would have “Members” and a Board of Directors or Trustees. The suggested membership of the company includes service staff, schools/academies and other relevant stakeholders. Unpaid Directors/Trustees would have oversight of the organisation and an employed management team would be responsible for the day to day running of the company. These individuals would first be selected by interested parties (e.g. the Members) according to their skill and experience. The intention is to ensure staff and school representation at Board level. Further trustees/directors would be appointed by the board according to skills and experience, allowing the PSM to benefit from (for example) the commercial expertise and experience of Non- Executive Directors.

What Part Can Schools Play? investment in the new organisation, using balances/reserves, e.g…… –Annual subscription –Shares –One off investment To continue and extend our existing partnership by participating in the future as Members of the new Company, with power to elect representatives to the Board, and have strategic influence. Anticipation of a ‘dividend’, e.g. ……. –‘Discount’ for members –Cost control (any surpluses used to offset cost inflation) –Better services (any surpluses reinvested to provide better resources / new facilities or services)

The Aim To secure the long term provision and development of the in-scope services, which are important to schools and in line with Council wishes to support and improve local education for all of Coventry’s children and young people.

Education Capital Programme 2014/15 to 2018/19 14

Capital Programme 2014/15 to 2018/19: Context Coventry main priority since 2008 has been the creation of additional primary places; Since 2008 some 915 additional reception places have been created; Primary source of funding has been Basic Need and Capital Maintenance Grant but supported with S106 and school contributions; Basic Need allocation of £6.25 million in but Government has allocated nil funding in both and ; Currently being challenged but if unsuccessful will have significant implications for the capital programme over the next 5 years; Capital maintenance funding of £3.134m has been allocated for and is forecast to reduce over coming years as a combination of the increasing number of academies and national property surveys; Devolved Formula Capital (DFC) has again been made available to schools in but levels continue to fall and there remains uncertainty about future allocations.

Capital Priorities onwards Basic Need Increasing Primary Places 2014 & 2015 Increasing Secondary places Increasing SEN places Condition Priority Schools Building Programme Replacement School Programme Planned Condition Fund Emergency Condition Fund Policy Priorities Broad Spectrum Strategy Early Years Two Year Old Provision

YearBasic Need Condition /Maintenance or Modernisation Primary Capital Programme Safety Net Basic Need Targeted Basic Need OtherTotal £££££ £ 2008/095,776,2642,967,513 8,743, /105,776,2642,487,9694,523,698 12,787, /115,776,2642,487,9706,901,6987,427,000 22,592, /126,507,5214,556,528 3,431,000 14,495, /135,455,6583,710,436 4,270,165 13,436, /146,250,2883,309,958 9,221,786 18,782, /156,250,2883,134, ,76210,140, /160TBA /170TBA 0 0 Total41,792,54722,654,55611,425,39615,128,1659,221,786755,762100,978,212 Coventry City Council : Education Capital Allocations 2008/09 to date

Impact on Pupil Numbers at School

Key Stage 1 Meal announcements 19

Update DFE Letter – funding arrangements, and changes to legislation (legal duty on schools to provide) Payment directly to schools - £2.30 per take-up by newly eligible infants, measured on school census from next year (Oct? Jan?) Additional funding available for small schools – awaiting detail and criteria on this Limited capital resource available: £900K, and little ability to top up from other funding sources –currently working through criteria for expenditure, but –likely cover focus on kitchens only – NOT dining rooms In some cases it is likely that schools will need to consider structure of day to accommodate this offer. Conversations underway in terms of £2.30 – should this be all paid to catering provider with a view to increasing quality – currently £2.00 in Coventry

General Update and Report back

Since last meeting APT submitted to EFA Budget shares available to mainstream schools January 2014 census –Updates 13/14 DSG (Early Years) –Updates 14/15 DSG (Early Years) Further representation to EFA and DfE in relation to Domestic Violence and Safeguarding Applied for an exception for Early Years Capital – agenda item Not yet received High Needs Settlement Detail of Licenses Topslice 22

DSG Settlement 23 This means we have an additional on-going £451K. Plus £263K one-off resource

Pupil Numbers Early Years Block – January 14 census, 3,346.4 eligible FTE pupils (increase of 126.5) Schools Block – October 13 census, 44,643 eligible pupils (increase of 610 pupils) High Needs Block – no growth, place plus methodology, places submitted which will inform place elements, balancing figure is top up Early Years is nearly finalised, High Needs finalised later in year. 24

Domestic Violence Information Management and Safeguarding Further representation to EFA/DFE has not changed position, reasons cited are: –Ministers are committed to moving towards a National Funding Formula and to delegating as much schools block funding as possible to schools for them to decide how to spend –new commitments which would have involved an on-going commitment against the schools budget, and so the request was turned down –nothing to stop schools individually from contributing to services they value 2 options in way forward… 25

Domestic Violence Information Management and Safeguarding Offer the services as a buyback to all schools –Significant briefing of all schools –Risk that some schools will not buy in Schools agree to use funding devolved to them for collectively for System Leadership –Funding is not delegated, so collective decision –In line with priorities for networks ‘Education Safeguarding’ Please can Schools Forum indicate the preferred option 26

High Needs Settlement Still not received… EFA have indicated it will be with us next week PPR – includes our best understanding of the position No decisions that need to be made by Schools Forum other than already shared 27

Licences Topslice Now had information on licenses – too late to make amendments to de-delegation and budgets Government purchase a number of licenses on behalf of schools – our cost for 14/15 is £139K –Increase of £52K on last year –Increased charges for CPA and SPML, additional licenses for NLA, ERA, MPLC, PSVL 14/15 de-delegated budget of £63K and charges to academies of £26K Charges to de-delegated budget of £22K – saving of £41K Overall gap of £11K 28

Licences Topslice Propose to fund the additional £52K from –De-delegated underspend £41K –Additional PPR requirement of £11K Do maintained schools group agree to this proposal? Voting: School members only 29

Early Years and High Needs Budget Setting 30

Early Years 2 Year old Funding Briefed on the 2 year old funding at last meeting, in summary –13/14 and 14/15 based on places –Received more funding than required –Participation levels are approximately 75% –Underspends are 1-off as funding based on participation from 15/16 Hold within early years block and continue to use to support implementation of the offer Review position for 2015/16 budget setting Received capital funding of approximately £900K Further work has identified a further capital need, if we are to meet our targets 31

Early Years 2 Year old Funding – Refer to Report We have put together a proposal to fund £623K of capital works to provide 2 year old places from a revenue contribution (early years allocation and underspend) There is a central spend line for Early Years (Early Years block) which only requires approval from Schools Forum…..BUT Only place to make contribution to capital is Capital Expenditure funded by revenue (CERA) which is in schools block Therefore had to apply to DfE for a disapplication 32

Early Years 2 Year old Funding – Decision Already put the application in due to timings, but subject to Schools Forum approval Do the Schools Forum approve the application to the DfE for a new commitment against Capital Expenditure funded by revenue (CERA) –This is 1 –off and is from the 2 year old provision allocation and underspend, which we have previously agreed should be held within the early year block Voting: All Members 33

Early Years Single Funding Formula Delivers funding for all providers for 3 and 4 year old provision Budget for 13/14 was set based on previous year actuals – this was due to fluctuations in the PVI settings Agreed not to hold a contingency budget for growth as DSG upflated 7/12s for early years numbers January 2014 Revised the process for 14/15 – –Maintained based on January 14 census –PVI based on previous year actuals 34

Early Years Single Funding Formula Additional Funding requirement of £526K for 14/15 – set against DSG pupil number increase of £451K As agreed to balance within the block will use £75K of 2 year old funding for additional pupil number requirement Inflation and efficiencies applied across the block in a similar way to schools block Results in a marginal rate increase for PVI providers and Hillfields and a decrease for maintained providers as a result of NNDR adjustment – due to rounding this may not be evident at provider level 35

High Needs Budget Setting This is draft as high needs settlement not yet received In our DSG allocation for 14/15 we receive: –Pre 16 Funding (all elements) – schools, independent schools, Alternative provision –Post 16 Funding (all elements) – schools –Post 16 Funding (top up only) – Further Education, independent providers Expected additional money as in 14/15 we will fund top up for further education for full year rather than 8/12s High needs settlement adjustments expected for place movements – submitted return in December 36

Post 16 Transfer: Analysis 37 Financial Analysis of the Post 16 transfer to try and unpack this for Forum members Heavily caveated at this stage: –Top up costs for 13/14 are not finalised –14/15 based on current numbers – needs to be updated for changes –Awaiting Finalised 14/15 settlement Will bring further update to next meeting Pre 16 DSG subsidy is historic and to do with the way places work in special schools Need to keep an eye on this position

Post 16 Transfer: Analysis 38

SEND - Funding 39 Challenging workload and timescales to ensure delivery of the SEND Reforms Majority of additionality required will be funded from core and SEN Reform grant Propose to earmark £55K from DSG reserves/underspend to contribute towards the cost of these reforms This will be 1-off, but needs to be identified in the budget setting process in line with DFE requirements

High Needs Additional Pre-16 Places 40 September 2014 – have some challenges in relation to special school places We were unable to make a case for growth in the high needs return Need to build provision for an additional 26 places Costs to be offset against other savings in high needs This will be done on a 1 year only basis, whilst further work is done on the strategy moving forward. This will need to consider: –Ability to make a case for growth in funding, if not funding is from existing budgets –Understanding of how we compare nationally in terms of levels of special school places –Costs associated with provision – mainstream and special

High Needs: KS3 AP savings 41 Later item on the agenda Projected savings of £84K – but we need to understand this in the context of high needs settlement (adjustments for places)

Budget Setting 42

Pupil Number growth for Early Years is now built in 2 year old funding position included Draft High needs budget adjustments included – further work to finalise alongside receipt of settlement Additional place issues in special sector – 1 year built in from reserves Some resource for SEND – built in from reserves KS3 alternative provision Adjustments in relation to licenses topslice Key issues / Changes

44

45

46

Additional Information – Technical Adjustments Contribution from Reserves –£500K General –£335K Living Wage 13/14 –£33K Broad Spectrum Formula – transition –£30K KS2 Pupils BESD –£195K 13/14 Early Years underspend –£66K SEND & Licenses

Additional Information – Budget Proposals ERP Alderman’s Green –Increase of 6 places Key Stage 2 Pupils with Social & Emotional needs for up to 12 pupils £101K Budget Requirement, funded –£71K Budget setting (delayed until 2013/14) –£30K underspend c/f from 2013/14 Living Wage –£335K 2013/14 part year est. cost (contributed from reserves) –£515K 2014/15 full year est. cost (budget setting) SEND –Personal budgets, training, website maintenance

Pupil Referral Units – update on KS3 Provision 49