Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from the Chairman, Brian Prebble and Jamie Conran, Head of SEND.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 December 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 December 2023 were confirmed as a correct record, subject to the amendment below, and would be signed by the Chair at a later date.

That on page 11 of the Agenda pack, where it said £56 it sho

Matters arising

Early Years Task and Finish Group – this had now been set up and a meeting date agreed.

Growth Fund error – this had now been amended in the report.

Communication with schools and parents regarding SEND – a Communication Plan was being developed.  Schools Forum would be kept informed on its development.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest was submitted.

To receive and consider a report containing details of the schools current financial position.

The 2023/24 Revenue Monitoring Report was presented by Katherine Vernon, Schools Finance Manager.

There had been no major changes since the last report.  There was a small variance in the Growth Fund due to the reflection on the full year expected usage.  It was anticipated that £150k would be in left in the Growth Fund if not called upon before the end of this financial year.  Therefore there would be less need to draw down from the Schools Block funding.

There was still £19.7 million cumulative deficit in the year.

The appendixes had been missed from the agenda and would be circulated to Schools Forum members as soon as possible.

RESOLVED That:

1)     The report be noted; and

2)     The appendixes to the report would be circulated to Schools Forum members.

To discuss the issue of solar energy charges to schools.

Sarah Morgan, Assistant Director for Commercial Property shared a presentation and highlighted the following points:

·           WBC’s Capital investment in renewable energy at schools started in 2012;

·           This strategy was reinforced by the Climate Emergency declaration in 2019, which aimed to encourage the development of renewable energy and engagement with young people and promoting sustainable schools;

·           Over £4 million was invested in 55 school sites since 2012;

·           WBC considered these projects as ‘invest to save’, there was an expectation that the capital investment would be paid over a period of 25 years;

·           The change that was being proposed was driven by the context of raise in cost of energy prices;

·           WBC’s electricity’s contract had gone up by 47% over five years;

·           The change aimed to mitigate the circumstances of raising costs to schools and the Council, by retailing the solar energy produced by solar panels in a different way;

·           The values that would be charged would be the same for maintained and academy schools, but the processes used for charging would be different;

·           In the current arrangements, 90% of the energy produced by solar panels is sold back to the grid and an income is generated.  The remaining 10% of energy is utilised on site.  The 10% used by the school is at nil cost, but it is a small proportion of the energy needed, the remaining energy that is needed is bought at £0.25pence per kilowatt hour (kWh);

·           The proposal is to retain 90% of the solar energy produced by the school’s solar panels and retail 10% back to the grid.  It was proposed that the energy that was free before, be charged at £0.17pence kWh – significantly less than £0.25pence kWh;

·           Whilst the solar energy cost was going up, the school would utilise much more of the energy they produced and pay significantly less per kWh;

·           If schools did not agree to the new proposed charging arrangements, the current arrangements would continue with the existing contracts.  All schools had slightly different contracts, depending on when they were agreed since 2012;

·           Schools were encouraged to change to the new contract as it was believed that this would be beneficial to both schools and the Council;

·           Schools that did not have any renewable energy sources in their sites would continue to purchase energy at £0.25pence kWh and this was likely to go up in the next few years.  Those schools were encouraged to contact the Council about investing in renewable energy;

·           Some schools had already signed up to the new contract.  Schools that hadn’t were encouraged to contact Ian Gough, Energy Manager and his team to discuss individual circumstances;

·           In relation to the fee paid to the Council’s energy team.  Schools paid a fee of 2%, the energy team who provided procurement of energy supplies, with access to lower energy rates.  The fee provided around £80k per annum, which was used to help with staffing costs, but was also re-invested in schemes;

·           Schools could opt out of using the energy team  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To receive and consider the Inclusion Funding verbal report.

Jonathan Wilding, Safety Valve / SEND Consultant presented the Inclusion Funding report and the Safety Valve update.  The following points were highlighted:

·           The fund was used to support children who did not quite reach the threshold for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP);

·           £150k was allocated to this fund by WBC and approved by Schools Forum each year;

·           Most of this fund (£110k) in the past few years had been passported to Addington School to support their outreach programme;

·           £40k had been under-utilised every year;

·           The feedback received from schools was that the requirements of the fund or terms of reference were not clear;

·           There was consensus that the process and impact needed reviewing;

·           The panel had renamed itself the Inclusion Group and there had been a change of chair;

·           It had been agreed in principle that WBC would take responsibility for commissioning outreach support;

·           A block of the funding was going to be retained to support children who were waiting to have their EHCP assessment through the High Needs Innovation Fund;

·           One of the priorities was to create Inclusion Provision, this could be achieved with Nurture Bases at schools to help children access education;

·           The proposed budget was:

o   £15k for newly arrived pupils – historically the spend on this had never been more than £13k

o   £45k for priority themes 2024/25 – with an indicative £15k per project

o   £50k for High Needs Innovation Capital Funding – with an indicative £5k for minor refurbishment and fixed equipment to create school Inclusion Bases /Nurture-based provision.  (this would be approved as part of the new SEND Capital Programme within the Medium Term Financial Plan for 2024/25 and 2025/26)

·           The proposal aimed to create a more impactful system by facilitating collaboration between schools and unlocking schools’ creativity to innovate to address key challenges facing the system;

·           It was not possible to facilitate this offer for Wokingham pupils attending schools outside of the area.  The Panel agreed that non-Wokingham pupils living in Wokingham would be offered this support, and it was agreed that this was fair;

·           Schools Forum endorsement was being sought, the fund was ready to be launched in February.

Ming Zhang stated that much work had been undertaken with schools to develop this innovative plan.  It was more effective to develop support at schools that could benefit more pupils, rather than supporting individual pupils on a one to one basis.  There was much support from schools for this model.

Schools Forum were in support of this model of work.

Jonathan Wilding shared a Safety Valve update presentation and highlighted the following points:

·           The programme had been running for nine months, and there had been much development in terms of early intervention and demand management;

·           The Vulnerable Learners Panel led to the development of the Inclusion Group;

·           The newly appointed SENCO Area was starting this week.  Three SENCOs would be recruited to work in this team one day a week;

·           The slides contained a list of the developments and activities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To receive and consider the 2023-24 High Needs Block Budget Update report.

The 2023/24 High Needs Block (HNB) Budget Update was presented by Katherine Vernon.

Some of the detail was still being worked on, however it was positive to report that the allocation was £1.1 million more than last year.  That would help to mitigate the shortfall created by the 0.5% transfer from the Schools Block (the projections had been made using 1% transfer).

The HNB Task and Finish Group would meet in a couple of weeks to discuss the detail: the allocation, the DfE guidance and projected number of EHCPs.  The Task and Finish Group would then make a recommendation for the March meeting of Schools Forum.

RESOLVED That the report be noted.

To receive and consider the 2024-25 Proposed Schools Block Budget Submission report.

Katherine Vernon presented the 2024/25 Proposed Schools Block Budget Submission.

The final allocation was confirmed just before the Christmas break, so the team had worked very hard in a short space of time.  The figures were generally in line with what had been anticipated.  There was some variation in pupil numbers, but on £77k less than what had been anticipated.

The following points were highlighted:

·           The report showed that there was a reduction in the amount set aside for the Growth Fund;

·           A consultation had taken place with schools, and there had been no major comments;

·           The Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) was set at 0.5%;

·           The dis-application for the all-through school had been agreed and it was  factored into the budget;

·           Pupil Premium rates were increasing;

·           School would still get the Teachers Pay Grant to cover the increase in teachers’ pay and pensions;

·           The report contained the detail of each school allocation.  Some schools had received a reduction in funding due to a drop in pupil numbers.  Those schools affected had asked for a reduction in their Published Admission Number (PAN), which would help;

·           The report also showed each school’s contribution to the 0.5% transfer.  Those on the MFG were not contributing and secondary schools were contributing more.

Upon being put to the vote, Schools Forum voted unanimously in favour of the proposed budget.

RESOLVED that Schools Forum approves the 2024/25 proposed Schools Block Budget submission as presented in the report.

To receive and consider the 2024-25 Final Central School Services Block report.

Katherine Vernon presented the 2024/25 Final Central School Services Block.

The final allocation for licences had not yet been received.  The table showed that 3% had been allocated for licences, and when the final figure was received this would be adjusted.

This fund consisted of a contribution towards the services that were provided centrally to schools.

Upon being put to the vote Schools Forum voted in favour of the proposed 2024/25 Central School Services Block Budget.  Schools Forum would be informed of the final allocation at the next meeting.

RESOLVED That:

1)     The 2024/25 Central School Services Block, as presented in the report, be approved; and

2)     Schools Forum would be informed of the final allocation including licences.

To receive and consider a report giving details of the Draft Early Years Budget.

Katherine Vernon presented the 2024/25 Draft Early Years Budget report.

The Early Years Task and Finish Group would meet next week to work through the different models with the funding for the next year. 

The table in the report contained the allocations, including the funding for 9 months to 2 year olds allocation for working parents and disadvantaged 2 year olds.  Because of this new funding the DfE required a head count every term to understand the take up.

There was a requirement to passport 95% of the funding to providers, and approval would be sought to keep 5% to fund services given to providers at the March meeting.

Ian Morgan informed that providers were requesting a unified rate for working parents and disadvantaged parents, in order to make it easier for them administrate it.  There was agreement that unifying the rate was beneficial.

Ming Zhang stated that the increase in funding for 2 years old was a significant development.  It was important to encourage parental take up and provide sufficiency of places.

Kerrie Clifford expressed concern that disadvantaged parents would not be as well informed as working parents about the funding, and may end up taking up all the places available before the disadvantaged parents found out about their entitlement.  She wondered if there was merit in considering paying more for disadvantaged 2 year olds in order to encourage setting to hold places for them.

Ian Morgan stated that with the changes in funding, most of the funding received would be from the government and not from the private sector - he considered this to be a risk.  There would be a significant increase in administrative work load for settings.

RESOLVED That the report be noted.

To consider the Forums work programme for the remainder of the academic year.

The Forum considered and noted the Forward Programme of work and dates of future meetings as set out on Agenda page 41.

Schools Forum was informed that this was Katherine Vernon’s last meeting as she was leaving the Council.

Members of Schools Forum expressed their gratitude to Katherine Vernon for her work over the years and wished her well in the future.