HACKNEY SCHOOLS FORUM
Minutes of a meeting of held at 5.30 pm on Wednesday 3 December 2014 at Hackney
Technology and Learning Centre, Reading Lane, London E8 1GQ
Present Members:

David Lowry (governor) and Kevin McDonnell (headteacher) - special
schools;

Orlene Badu (headteacher), Jean Charles (governor substitute), Simon de
Deney (governor), Lisa Neidich (governor) and Janice Thomas
(headteacher) – primary schools;

Fiona Baird (governor substitute) and Jane Gray (head) – secondary
schools;

Lisa Clarke – nursery

Sheila Scales (governor) – academies

Cathy Murphy – early years providers
(Kt Khan, special headteacher substitute member, also attended as an
observer.)
Local authority:
Ophelia Carter (Head of Schools Finance), Andrew Lee (Assistant Director,
Education Services), Helen McNulty (Head of Additional Needs), Jackie
Moylan (Assistant Director of Finance, CYPS), Frank O’Donoghue (Head of
Business Services) and Mark Brownlow (Clerk to the Forum)
Jane Gray (Chair) in the chair
1.
Apologies for absence
Apologies were received from Louis Coiffait (primary governor), Richard Brown (PRU) and Ian
Ashman (16-19 providers).
It was agreed that consent be given for these absences.
(Others members not present were Asarena Simon, primary headteacher, and Peter Hughes,
academy principal.)
Apologies were also received from Councillor Anntoinette Bramble, Lead Member for
Children’s Services.
Simon de Deney apologised for having to leave the meeting at 6.00 pm, owing to another
commitment.
The Chair welcomed Orlene Badu who was attending a meeting for the first time as a primary
headteacher representative.
2.
Declarations of interest
There were no declarations of interest.
Page 1 of 4
3.
Minutes of the meeting of the Schools Forum held on 22 October 2014
3.1
Approval of minutes
Agreed that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2014 be approved as a correct
record, subject in the last sentence of item 11 to the transposition of “on 18 March” and “on
that date”.
3.2
Matters arising: checklist of action arising from the meeting on 22 October 2014
The checklist of action arising from the meeting on 18 June was noted, subject to the
following –
(a) Staff representation on the Schools Forum (item 6.3):
Agreed that Hackney Trade Unions and Professional Associations, comprising the
various teaching and non-teaching unions in Hackney schools, be invited to nominate a
staff representative to serve on the Forum.
Head of HR
(b) Note on the role of Forum members
The Clerk said he would endeavour to circulate the requested template to members
before Christmas.
Clerk
4.
High Needs:
4.1
Consultation on financial arrangements for high-needs pupils 2015-16
The Forum considered a report on the proposed arrangements for High Needs pupils in
2015/16. They noted that overall funding arrangements for 2015/16 would be the same or
similar to those applying in 2014/15, as summarised in Table 1 on page 4.
Members had particular regard to the following aspects of the arrangements which were
summarised in Table 2 on page 4 and described in more detail in the subsequent paragraphs:

earmarked High Needs places;

the Pupil Referral Unit;

targeted support for primary schools with a high proportion of statemented pupils;

resource allocation systems;

personal budgets;

top-up/resource levels.
A number of points were highlighted during the ensuing discussion:

With the recent introduction of the new funding regime, Hackney Learning Trust (HLT)
would need to retain significant capacity and expertise within its Additional Needs Team in
order to be able to conduct negotiations with a range of providers whilst also taking
decisions about levels of need and managing parental expectations. Officers said that
new ways of working would be developed, which would include closer engagement with
individuals and families, and that an accountability framework was being drawn up which
would be the subject of consultation with service users. Peer-to-peer support would be
encouraged – such as special schools helping mainstream ones – and links with health
and children’s social care would be strengthened.

It would not be practicable or economic for Hackney to aim to provide for every form of
disability within the borough. For example, children with sensory impairments would,
where appropriate, continue to be placed with established specialist providers outside
Page 2 of 4
Hackney, although HLT would be happy to hold discussions with mainstream schools
wishing to take on visually- or hearing-impaired children.

Early years providers (including nursery schools) faced a considerable additional financial
burden when seeking to cater for the needs of children with disabilities. Officers said they
were aware of this issue and that there would be discussions with providers about ways of
making additional resources available prior to children being given statutory SEN status.

The development of an effective new funding mechanism for Education, Health & Care
Plans (EHCPs) would be a difficult and complex process, as would the formulation of a
new system of top-up resource levels. These required a pragmatic approach and should
not be rushed. Changes to the current arrangements would therefore be kept to a
minimum in 2015/16 whilst new systems evolved over the course of the next three years.

Individual authorities could not develop new arrangements in isolation from their
neighbours. Hackney was part of the North London Alliance of boroughs which were
working together to develop a shared approach to commissioning
In addition, officers were asked whether HLT would produce guidance for schools on dealing
with parents’ queries about the EHCP process. It was confirmed that this would be
addressed.
H McNulty
Agreed that the arrangements for High Needs pupils in 2015-16 be endorsed as described in
the report.
4.2
Developing the funding mechanism for High Needs top-up
In addition to the report on this subject, members were given a presentation on the various
factors and considerations needing to be taken into account in the development of an
effective and equitable funding mechanism for High Needs top-up. Also addressed was the
question of whether and to what extent the local authority should additionally help settings to
bridge the gap between the top-up funding described in a child’s EHCP and the actual costs
incurred by the setting, taking all factors into consideration.
Various issues were raised during the questions and discussion which followed.

Officers confirmed that HLT would not confine itself to a commissioning role in future but
would continue actively to promote quality of provision in the borough, in the interests of
securing the best outcomes for children and families.

Reference was made to the difficulty of establishing appropriate benchmarks for the
funding of schools’ on-costs, as these varied considerably from school to school and also
from one borough to another.

It was suggested that, in the case of small settings which had a high proportion of SEN
children on their roll, account should be taken of the higher costs associated with ensuring
that staff had the appropriate training and skills.

It was observed that special schools faced particular financial pressures; whether this
could be reflected in some way through the School Funding Formula would need to be
part of next year’s consultation process.

The authority would aim to hold discussions with parents at an early stage in the EHCP
process so as to avoid unrealistic expectations as to what was financially feasible.

With regard to the legal obligation on authorities to offer parents the option of direct
payments to purchase provision, it was noted that there would be difficulties in being able
to define such costs in an objective way and that these would need to be addressed.

It was important to ensure, where appropriate, that Health made due contribution to costs
associated with children with very complex needs.
Page 3 of 4
Reference was made to the high standard of SEN provision in Hackney and the importance of
developing new and innovative models of working which would safeguard and build upon this
legacy. Officers confirmed the authority’s continuing commitment to the borough’s special
schools as a way of promoting inclusion and choice.
The point was reiterated that a new funding system would only be fully introduced once all the
issues had been worked through and resolved. As for 2015/16 resource levels, there would
be a limited period of negotiation at the end of January but it was anticipated that these would
be based largely on existing arrangements.
5.
Schools Contingency: SRAS expenditure in 2013/14
The report before members provided a breakdown of expenditure incurred in 2013/14 in
support of the ‘Schools Requiring Additional Support’ process, together with the uses for
which the money had been allocated in each case and the school’s subsequent progress.
A couple of apparent inaccuracies were identified in the descriptions against ‘Secondary
School B’ (fourth column) and ‘Secondary School D’. Officers undertook to check these points
and to make amendments as necessary.
Clerk
The report was noted subject to the foregoing comment.
6.
Further meetings in 2014/15
Dates for further meetings were noted as follows (all Wednesdays, from 5.30 to 7.00 pm):
7.

28 January

18 March (at the Urswick School)

17 July
Any other business
None.
The meeting ended at 7.00 pm.
Page 4 of 4