.
th
(subject to forum approval)
In Attendance
Rod Lane (RL) – Chair Pam Langmead (PL) Linda Oliffe (LO)
Jeff Fair (JF)
Ruth Bird (RB)
Gary Smith (GS)
David Stephenson (DS)
Richard Thomas (RT)
Simon Thompson (ST)
Harriet Phelps-Knights (HPK) Sean Moriarty (SM)
John Hunter (JH)
George Constantinides (GC)
Bruce Tuxford (BT)
Stephen Hale (SH)
Richard Green (RG)
Debbie Rogan (DR)
Sally Davies (SD)
Jane Youdale (JY)
Noel Otley (NO)
LA Officers
Yannick Stupples-Whyley
(YSW)
Bev Winter (BW) Jane Rice - Minutes
Chris Kiernan (CK)
1
2.
Clare Kershaw (CKe) Reshma Madhi - Minutes
Apologies for Absence and substitute notices
JF welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Apologies were received from: Dawn Baker, Leanne Hedden, Carol Skewes,
Cindy Hemmings and Caroline Haynes.
Pam Langmead was substituting for Dawn Baker, Noel Otley for Leanne Hedden and Richard Thomas for Carol Skewes.
RL advised that this was the final meeting for David Stephenson, Richard Thomas and Chris Kiernan and the last meeting for Simon Thompson as a headteacher representative.
Philip Hurst from Suffolk was welcomed to the meeting as an observer.
More In County Provision for SEND Pupils
An additional paper was tabled at the request of the SEN Sub Group to show the financial effect on different sized schools of the 0.35% reduction in gross delegated funding per sector.
1

CK presented this report to set out the progress made in planning the capital investment programme subsequent to the last forum meeting on 20 May 2015.
What has emerged from the process is more integration, to look to retain funding and with schools actually managing the system. Concerns were raised about the changing figures, with expenditure and possible benefits rather than savings
– this information is in the paper. Referred the group to the annex regarding paragraph 1.2. The total funding cost will be £40.8m, with proposals asking fo r £17.5m additional funding to accommodate growth. The money is now in the capital fund going forward and is already in the programme and would only stop if the group disagrees with the release of money.
CK said these proposals could be a game changer and may be self-sustaining in future years as standards will rise and there will be increased integration. The
Council’s role as commissioner will change, who CK felt has failed as a moderator, with schools being able to hold peers to account forming a better model. A recommendation of school contributions at an average of 0.35% of gross delegated budgets from 2016/17. The aims are to bring benefits to pupils, the
Council, Forum, DSG and Essex Schools. There is more difficulty for the PRU programme, it repleni shes the stock but doesn’t provide more pupil places, although provides more pupil hours. It is hoped the Council will fund this programme.
It is thought it will improve educational attainment to make it better than average, will not send pupils to independent schools unless they are good and is believed safeguarding will be better. If there is no investment, there will be implications. If pupils don’t get into a small independent provision, there is a question of how independent they will be. CK predicted that pupils in expensive provisions will be more expensive when they are older, so there will be savings down the line as there will be greater independence in those pupils. Estimated timescale for the programme to start in the next calendar year and by January 2018 for bigger projects.
CK commended Graham for his help on the report; advising on making it clearer about the implications. The whole methodology was looked at, with research showing many parents wanted their children back in Essex schools but want appropriate provision, including boarding, which changes the assumption. The years are slightly flawed in annex 2 but it is known places can be filled, so there will be no waste. If there is expansion, places will fill up if pupils are there, so pupil growth is not impacted. There is a cost of doing nothing however, as mentioned by DR at the last meeting. The assumption is, to fill up places; children won’t go out of county and some will come back from independent schools to ours.
The annex shows there are 344 places, with 110 boarding and some are new places to accommodate extra ones, so there is an extra cost. These are very exact figures and the ECC cost is an estimate, very pessimistic figure, with the top end being £22,000. Also highlighted, was the total cost of new places as well as the total cost of £10.72m, with a revenue cost of £7.4m. This saves £3m but there is a demographic growth if existing and new pupils are added so this is the mitigation cost.
2

RT commended this work but asked as the annual cost savings has the revenue built in, it was thought there would be a saving not a net increase in cost. CK replied the annual cost is still £5.19m but there is extra cost because of extra pupils, so there is mitigation but revenue will go up from the government as the additional places will be funded.
SD asked if the group has ended up funding additional places because there are no extra numbers. CK clarified the government will fund places and if there is zero growth, there is zero budget growth. He expressed this may be painful for this forum and acknowledged there is an issue. RT commented the worst case scenario is it will be neutral in reality. CK felt £30,000 is reasonable and Wells
Park is an absolute model and advised members to visit.
For transport, costs need to be looked at and there is pressure although the capital board is asking for revenue costs. All benefits are with schools. Currently, it is the Council’s responsibility and this leaves it in difficulty, so the proposal is for the Council to ask the Forum to fund pupils no longer going out of county but not for the extra pupils coming in through pupil growth. Line 11 onwards in the annex
2 table shows the cost, costs accrued before and cost that will be accrued in
Essex schools. Only 165 of 205 get home to school transport as not all parents prefer it. The F orum and Council will need to pay £3.3m, then £3.5m. Line 16 shows the cost accrued if the group doesn’t pay. If we do and add the transport cost, the savings will be approximatel y £4.5m a year and net savings are £4.58m.
Though it is a very small saving, there is a greater cost if the group doesn’t do the programme.
RT said the Council has been responsible for SEN transport and there has been a benefit by not paying recently, so payback time to Schools Forum that we had to pay higher cost. CK responded that the Council is in difficulties but agrees it’s their responsibility and the Forum has paid costs, which is why these are separated out and not dependent on one another.
RT put forward provisos, that if it is to go into Prudential borrowing heading, all schools are then paying fairly to cap costs and if not, some are paying more than others. There is a need to protect money into the Local Authorities section of the
DSG instead of floating into the Forum. CK stated the decision has been made and it is in the capital programme. RT asked who will manage this, with CK informing this is at the feasibility stage at the moment but can be discussed and will take this back to the lead member who has the same concerns.
Agenda item 14 outlines £2m for next year and there is no problem with the
Council on varying the way money comes out of budget, so it is in the Forum’s hands.
ST asked for clarification on the extra costs and recommended figures, which are showing as much higher. CK clarified that as it would be unfair to burden the Forum, is proposing to pay a third in the first year, then two thirds, then the whole amount. CK agreed the figures had been overlooked and would provide up-to-date map for all provisions.
Recommendations:
3

3.
4.
2.2
– Noted.
2.1 – Agreed to first bullet point; Agreed to second bullet point as amended in
Annex 3
Provisos from RT that any savings from LA/DSG goes into Prudential borrowing slot still in LA’s block; any savings from out of county previously agreed goes in the same slot and that a Project Manager is identified as soon as possible.
RB thanked CK for his work on this and CK thanked SF.
RL welcomed CKe.
Timeline for Reviewing, Consulting on and Implementing a Revised Banding
System
CK presented the paper to take forward proposals for the development of the current banding scheme for funding pupils with SEN that is compliant with the pupils’ needs and current legislation.
CK said he was proposing a working group that would carry out a proper consultation of the banding system for implementation in 2017/18, not next year, and commended the proposals as a good way forward.
It was clarified that the £15,000 referred to in the first recommendation in 2.1 is
Band 6 referred to in the table and is the maximum amount for a day placement.
CK said that the main issue is the banding does not go high enough for the highest level of need, without which the investment programme will not work.
GC asked about the remit of the steering group and whether it should cover all the bands and definitions or be limited to looking at the expensive bands. CK replied that the remit would be to look at the banding system generally as it is quite old so
GC therefore proposed that the appropriate amendment is made to the
Recommendations.
DR asked why the Chair of the steering group had already been decided, but CK said it was proposed.
Recommendations:
2.1 - Agreed but with an amendment to the wording that the steering group reviews, rewrites and expands all the banding descriptors.
JF, RB and DR volunteered to be SF representatives on the steering group. It would be up to the Chair to recruit other representatives and GS requested two from ESSET. RL requested to attend at appropriate times.
CK pointed out that the steering group is a time limited working group which will then be dissolved.
Tree Survey
Dominic Poston presented a request to continue an annual contribution to fund a
4

5. centralised health & safety inspection of trees on Essex School sites triennially.
There has been a rolling three-year SLA since 2009. Questions were raised about where the funding is coming from and if every school is being inspected. DP informed it is required as duty of care to conduct a tree survey every three years.
Recommendations
2.1 - Agreed
PFI Premises Coordinator
CK presented the paper to seek the view of SF on support for extending the funding of the PFI Premises Co-Ordinator as part of the Clacton Grouped Schools
PFI Initiative.
CK explained the principle of PFIs and that much of the cost of PFI is within schools individual budgets and the residual is funded by SF or by tax payers. The
PFI Premises CoOrdinator would cost £55K p.a. with the percentage of delegated DSG being 0.006% so CK commended SF to fund for one year.
SM pointed out that funding has only been asked for one year but it would be an ongoing role and that a lot of work being done by the Premises Co-Ordinator is the sort of work he would expect a Business Manager to do, so therefore the salary is in keeping with a Business Manager rather than a Premises Manager.
BW pointed out that post is a Band 5, but other posts are Band 4.
Melanie Smith said that the issue has always been that it is a multi-let site that is hard to manage and having someone on site means tenants adhere to building requirements, they are charged appropriately and the LA is undertaking its responsibilities in respect of H&S.
GS said he knows the Clacton situation well and that someone is needed in place quickly so he would be in agreement to the proposal. CK said it appeared that SF was concerned about value for money rather than the % cost so he agreed that the post should be re-evaluated but funded in the meantime and if it was reevaluated at a lower grade, to report back in the October meeting for SF to fund at a lower cost.
DR asked how many schools the post is benefiting. CK replied that it is an empty building that is part filled by a number of provisions that cannot pay their way but there is a need to generate income. TES is there at the moment, which is a tiny school, and a library and a number of others. CK said that the Council planned and built the school, which has to be maintained as well as the public facilities but the Council does not have a budget.
DS pointed out that it was not the role of SF to look at the job description and its banding, but rather to look at value for money, as the plan in the future is to occupy the building. GC agreed and checked that the funding is top sliced not dedelegated.
Recommendation:
2.1 - Agreed but with the recommendation that the banding of the post is re-
5

6.
7. considered and to report back in October.
School Funding Consultation 2016/17
JF highlighted reports are labelled A to F, not C to H. The report reviewed all factors in the formula, evidence to justify changing items and the rationales behind these. The proposals are that the justification is worth the potential and stability of the budget to make funding better. The one with the most difficulty is
English as an Additional language. To allow schools to have funding in one hit rather than spread over two years. The proposal is to maintain the value of the unit, so the impact on schools is the number of students being supported is changing.
The proposed change to IDACI bandings looks at the likelihood of people being impacted in each banding and to look at the evidence. It is turbulent in terms of financial changes. There is an admin cost to support looked after children, which was taken out when the pupil premium came in, so the flexibility has gone but there is still an additional cost of £500 per pupil. There is no longer a small school protection factor, so it is unreasonable for schools with less than 120 to fund the costs of maintaining class sizes of 30 pupils at KS1. Appendix F shows the overall impact, as a lot is to do with demographics, not class size. Gave thanks to YSW for the background work. Documentation is submitted and apologies given for this being before the summer holiday period but the DfE needs this information. It does support reception pupils with advanced funding and has found a way around this removal, so unless a reception class is growing, it cannot use the growth fund.
GC commented at being surprised by the figures in Annex D as when removing the gap of 120 pupils, some schools are eligible and get some money but is not there. YSW to follow up on this. GC said he supports in principle.
JF said it may have identified those that are eligible. For Looked After children, the
£500 contribution is due to schools’ concern of accessibility to the pupil premium, so worth flagging here to look at how that is controlled to ensure schools can make full use.
Recommendations:
2.1 - Agreed
Any Other Business and Feedback from Schools through Associations
Feedback from Schools Forum representatives on other bodies
Minutes of SEN Sub Group
ASHE – RT said that across the Eastern Region, together with Primary associations, MPs have been informed that the average per pupil funding in the
Eastern Region is below average, at about £200 less, and MPs have been requested to look at fairer funding as soon as possible and to address issues of not funding increases. MPs have also been made aware of the concerns regarding the announcement of the possible 1% pay increase, which will probably be about a 3% increase. Articles have also been in the Press and the TES.
6

More collaborative work is going on across all counties in terms of data sharing and trying to devise a model for primary schools.
Finances are still the biggest worry along with recruitment. Representations are being made to Ministers about recruitment but the same answer is still received from Nick Gibb, that there is no problem with recruitment.
ST asked for clarification on the process for organising an election, if one is needed, as some heads are stepping down. RT took a sounding this week and there is quite a lot of interest. YSW said that the LA would organise an election and would ask all secondary academies to vote if an election was needed.
EPHA – HPK said that consideration had been given to restructuring and developing and professional officers and an executive director. All heads are being consulted and being asked to agree a structure using the ASHE model.
There will be a meeting early September to develop the Executive Director role.
HPK also said that rather than asking for subs each year, heads would prefer the top slice to be paid by primaries to come off the primary budget, which would also save a lot of administration.
Recruitment is still very difficult. PL reported that in a meeting led by Clare
Burrell, there had been a discussion about the impact recruitment and retention was having on schools as well as the welfare cuts and shortage of people.
DS said that senior leadership teams in secondary schools are reducing in number because of budget constraints so the recruitment of potential heads is further reduced, yet there would be more children coming into the secondary sector in years to come.
Special Schools – GS reiterated the concerns mentioned above and said that schools are working more closely together and looking at transformation.
Governors – RB said the group is working well. There was a presentation last month from SE+ and the group is working very closely with teams from there; there is a presentation in the September meeting on the new OFSTED framework and they are trying to get a guest speaker every month.
RL said that the school he is involved in had an OFSTED inspection on the 14 th
July and were asked about what money is spent on for the pupil premium, about
LAC, about sports grants and their impact, as well as many questions about radicalisation and British values.
RT said that with associations working together, training on preventing radicalisation has been produced, and that joint working is very beneficial. It was noted that radicalisation has a very high profile in OFSTED. DS said it is a grooming technique used across the board, so he would be very suspicious of any school saying it is not a problem. RL said it had also been raised at the Early
Years Sub group with JY saying that children are not born with prejudice, that comes from adults, so it was important to take note of the preventative duty as
7

well.
SEN Sub Group Minutes of the 24 th June 2015 - have already been discussed and agreed.
Early Years Reference Group – JY said that papers are now on the Early Years and Child Care website. Consultation for 3 and 4 year old funding is currently out.
There is a question on what is the true cost of delivery. Early Years pupil premium has been implemented for this term and but it is unclear what OFSTED is looking at to prove how it is making a difference to those children.
AOB – SH raised the issue of redundancy payments, specifically for two members of staff he has who are due redundancy payments and his understanding was that the LA would pay. However, after email correspondence with CK, it seems this is not the case. SH said he felt that if schools are being asked for redundancy payments, there should be clear criteria, as it could involve a large sum of money.
CK said it is necessary to balance a small council budget for redundancy against legal duties and a school ’s ability to pay. He said he looks at the school balance to check if there is money within the school to fund redundancy. He added that he has paid the redundancy if a school is in a difficult situation and has to make redundancies to keep going. He said that if SF wanted, criteria could be developed, but he has found that actual individual discussions with schools have been sufficient.
However, SH said there could be grey areas and asked how a decision could be made. CK said he has looked at the history of the balance over 5 years and in every case, so far, schools have paid the redundancy but he added that if a school genuinely cannot afford the payment, the LA would pay.
LO said she had conversations with CK last year about a similar situation, but through redeploying people to new positions as they became available, only one person was made redundant and the school paid the redundancy, accepting the reasons put forward by CK. However, LO said she did ask that schools were informed of the process as and that there was more information available for schools as to what bills they have to fund and which not. PL agreed saying there is a great deal of misunderstanding what the council position is, with some schools thinking the LA will pay. CK said the position has been clear this year and that HR is aware.
DR asked for a presentation at the October meeting as to what money has been spent on in the last year or so.
GC pointed out that there was a link between this and item 14, with a line in the retained DSG about employment costs. It had always been assumed it included redundancy, so it would be useful to have clarity about retirement and redundancy.
DS asked where the money comes from to fund the pot of money, to which CK said the council budget and it is very small, although the potential for payments could be great. BW said that each area of the council has a redundancy reserve
8

8. so the same approach would be taken as is adopted throughout the council.
Minutes of 20 th May 2015
There were no amendments to the Minutes of the 20 th May 2015 so they were approved.
9. Financial Effect of Forum Decisions
YSW presented the paper to update SF with the effect upon school funding of the decisions where they have agreed to fund initiatives.
He highlighted the table in 5.1, stating that the overall biggest reduction was short-term viability at -0.328, but this had no financial effect as it was already top sliced from secondary schools.
CK thanked ST for requesting the report and suggested that a report every year would be helpful and to have it on individual reports each time to see the impact.
Recommendation:
2.1 - Noted
10. Early Years & Childcare Update
Stav Yiannou presented an update on the budget position on free entitlement, including a Government pledge to fast track for working parents. Work has been done on the feasibility of relocating Woodcroft Nursery School, with data revealing it to be a sufficiency issue, so the problem will continue if it relocates. The plan is to leave the school where it is and continue funding it through Early Years, which will be reviewed. It has breakfast and after school clubs and is taking 2 year-olds now, so will have an impact on sustainability above 80%.
JF asked about paragraph 1.5 and that to create in one area, there will be a need to decline in another. Stav replied there are currently five rates and is looking to get this down to two. CK said there needs to be more visibility and feasibility, as if there is an over expenditure in one block, it has an effect on others so needs to be absolutely transparent.
Stav highlighted Table 2 shows the estimated budget using trends, fluctuations, birth rate and GP data to project what is believed to be the required amount for 3-
4 year-olds. Table 1 show what the group projects is needed. Table 3 has revised this, with 3-4 year-olds funding and the Early Years pupil premium merged. The advised budget is based on the January 2014 census data, which will be adjusted once 2015 data is received, so taking this into account, there is now a projection of a £906,000 overspend. CK added if that happens, this can be accommodated in funding or tell Early Years they have an allocation for 2016/17 minus £1m. The per pupil place would go down marginally but the point is, a discussion has not happened and it should be the forum’s decision. RT said he would like to use the retained block saving.
Stav said tabl e 1 shows a projected spend by end of 2014/15 to be £59.1m, which is very small. RT commented it is very complex and asked if the process of bidding is accurate enough. SY informed it is based on a formula that gave £47m
9

in table 2 and then what YSW advised, what is uploaded will be adjusted after the new census. YSW added the figures come from the Local Authority and varying census figures means it is always retrospective. CK commented there is an issue of how the under and overspend is treated. SY said only those that take actual places are now paid for, so there is a fluctuation.
ST asked why the figures in table 2 and 3 are exactly the same. It was explained it had been showing Early Years separately and after clarifying with finance and
YSW, it was double counted in table 2. Table 3 was adjusted and less than predicted, so were advised to add the pupil premium to this. These figures to be reviewed again.
RT commented if this was a school, it would be expected to make a recovery plan and expenditure being greater than income is a concern. CK replied that Early
Years is not a school and the block is in the forum’s hands. JF added that unlike the schools block, the funding regime is fixed but changing the formula and then selling this to providers would be tricky.
Recommendations:
2.1 - Deferred to next meeting - update and clarification on pupil premium to be provided.
11. SEND Therapies & CAMHS Update
Christina Pace presented the report to update SF on progress in the review of current arrangements across the LA, CCGs and schools in the commissioning and provision of therapies and the development of options for more integrated, jointly commissioned services in future.
Also, to update SF on progress for re-commissioning CAMHS and to advise that
North East London Foundation Trust (NELFT) will be the new provider.
Christina said that NELFT will start on the 1 st November. It was the clear winning bidder as it gave a very clear account of delivering an integrated service, working with partners, focussing on outcomes, focussing on engaging children and YP and had a clear understanding of Essex. Commissioners are now working closely with
NELFT to mobilise to the new service, engaging with a range of partners, including schools, about how to transfer to the new service. One of the main focusses is around communication to schools about the new service, the referral process and access to the service, and communication about waiting times improving. Christina acknowledged that the school holidays were about to start but said commissioners were proposing to attend different schools meetings and school rep meetings, asking schools to work with the LA and NELFT, to provide their input. Christina said it is hoped that the NELFT will achieve visible changes for children and YP as it will focus on outcomes and commissioners are hoping that children and YP will stop “falling between the gaps” and that there will be better access for children into CAMHS. However, Christina cautioned that it is a big transfer and a change will not be seen immediately. The first priority is to oversee the safe transfer of children and YP already known to the service and to transfer staff, ensuring they are stable, the good staff stay and get training.
There will also be strong contract management, and again, Christina said the
10

change will take time, but schools will be kept updated and she asked for patience whilst the changes are implemented.
Christina went on to say that this is part of the bigger picture about having a much stronger local offer for children and YP as Gove has published a Future in Mind plan stating where the Government wants to invest additional funding e.g. eating disorders, peri-natal MH and to fund a number of very small pilots to see how links between schools and MH providers can be strengthened. Local areas are being asked to provide funding of £50K and health commissioners. There is a
Government expectation to have a transformation planning group, so the LA would like school reps and partners to work to ensure that the local plan meets the needs of the local area. A further report will be presented to SF on the impact.
DR said that the needs of children and YP with SEND have been taken very seriously over a long period of time and SF has dedicated funds, but this has not realised any changes. She therefore asked for details about the innovative approaches of the new provider.
Christina replied that NELFT runs a national programme, which is about new training for the workforce to develop different evidence based treatments e.g. around supporting adolescents, parents and young families. She added that
NELFT is one of the first trusts to get the training and be accredited. The focus is also on outcomes and is also around different ways to engage with children and
YP. There will also be the use of different technology, such as partnering with
“Big
White Wall ” for online therapy, which is based on children’s feedback. Work will also be carried out with YMCAs. Christina also said that NELFT is the national leader in particular therapies and is very open to engaging with partners in how to deliver consultation training.
Christina said that commissioners will need to work very closely with the provider and other partners to ensure it is delivering what it said it will and to ensure it understands the challenges of Essex.
The LA is talking to commissioners to encourage them to work with the LA on a pilot and is part of the regional commissioners network on CAMHS so agreement has already been made that work will be done regionally on eating disorders and peri-natal MH. Stakeholder partners are also being used to look at areas where a difference is being made and what is being done can be promoted. Christina said it was encouraging the Government had published “Future in Mind” and was putting £50k into an area like Essex but there would be a need to lobby for more money.
B T expressed his concern that the new provider would not “hit the ground running” and asked if the provider had been asked to give a clear idea of when it would be up to speed as he would expect September. Christina said that a very detailed transition plan had been asked for which can be shared to set out timescales. She said it was important to ensure that there will be safe care for the children already in the system or who need to be seen and that some things will take 6-9 months to implement but the LA has asked for detailed monitoring during that time.
11

SM asked whether the new provider would be able to deliver to the far reaches of
Essex, to which Christina replied it would as this had been made clear to all bidders that it was necessary to understand the scale, diversity and needs of
Essex. She added that NELFT has reassured the LA on this and also made reassurances that it has very good experience of transfers, having done some big ones and mobilisations. NELFT has also been very open on partnership working.
SD asked whether all current staff will be tupeed across. Christina said they would be, but one of the first tasks for NELFT will be to restructure as its structure of posts is different. There will be a need to ensure that existing staff get training, are supported and good staff are retained, but there will be new staff who come in and new training and there will be expectations of working in different ways. It may be that schools will have access to some of the same staff but they will be working in very different ways with schools and partners. It is expected that the restructuring could take 3-6 months, because of the number of staff, so that is why the priority will be to ensure there is stability and safety for the children and YP already in the system.
CK said he would like to meet the senior people and that they need to be told that they will be measured by access of impact as not enough children get early access or any and then there is very little impact, so this would need to be demonstrated before SF is approached for money.
RT asked what happens to children between September and November to which
Christina replied that it is business as usual, with all providers being paid to provide a service to the same quality until the 1 st November. CKe pointed out this would require very tight contract management. It was noted that there will be a meeting during the Summer to work on communication to schools.
Recommendations:
2.1
– Noted
2.2 – Noted
2.3 – Noted.
A further report will be provided to Schools Forum.
12. Family Solutions
An update from Lise Bird and Mark Stancer (on behalf of Nicky O’Shaughnessy) who informed he is the strategic lead for the CAHMS provision (agenda item 11).
It is a fairly new service, that began in October 2013 and this presentation is on the first full year report.
During the first year, 1603 requests were received, with 613 of these from educational partners, for issues like attendance, absentees, exclusions and behaviour. The service is currently working with 1500 families. Feedback from schools has shown a 62% positive impact and 35% of referrals are related to education. Paragraph 5 on the report shows the gross funding of the service at
£4m, with details of breakdowns listed here.
DR asked what the service defined as a ‘positive outcome’. Lise said it is a holistic approach and based on what families are saying. School attendance is a
12

key issue and to get improvement is defined as sustained or significant.
Backgrounds come from educational links, with the family operations hub providing a breakdown of schools, e.g. if it is a deprived area but there is a lack of cases, the service would then go in to improve links.
DR commented she has never engaged with this organisation and would be useful for headteachers to know. Lise reiterated it is a holistic family service, not an educational one and is about children and young people being in school. There is monthly communications and an active website. DR expressed she receives a high amount of communications and would be useful if the service’s outcomes were very clear.
SH felt what was said is very encouraging as school attendance is a trigger but there could be gaps. Lise said the level 3 service is very intensive and the family operations hub gives guidance and signposting to families with needs and is happy to engage with any local forum. Mark added a number of schools wanted to fund extra places.
JF asked what the negatives were. It was mentioned about closed cases, with
16% lost from families disengaging and 7% of cases withdrawn. Lise felt a lot of work is being done on this as some closed due to meeting outcomes or not needing services, so is actually a positive. There will always be a level of disengagement as there is no statutory mandate for having to working with families, so is down to the skills of staff. Lise felt there are issues of people jumping borders and service avoidance. The programme is now funded for a further five years and is looking to widen the approach into social care.
Recommendations:
2.1 - Noted
13. Youth Offending Service
Jethro Bogdanov presented the paper on behalf of Tanya Gillett.
YOS is a Tier 4 statutory service, working with YP aged 10 to 18, who are either on Police cautions or have been to court and convicted of an offence. Most YP who are already in the Criminal Justice System are already disengaged. There has to be an education post dedicated to Youth Justice, which is filled by Jethro and there is also a specialist education advisor.
Jethro said he is writing another report at the moment, to go to the YOS
Management Board, about the engagement of YP in statutory education and other forms of education. He said that although numbers in YOS have dropped as YP are dealt with in the community, there are still a significant number coming into
YOS whose complexities are quite acute, so work is carried out alongside all LA services e.g. SAS and with schools. The lower numbers than there used to be means there is a better opportunity to work directly with schools. The report will outline what happens to the school education cohort throughout year and what is being done to make improvements.
Jethro went on to say that many of the YP that come into the YOS struggle to read and write properly, so using teacher assessment and other assessments, the
13

literacy function for YP that are aged 10-14 is about that of an 8 or 9 year old or
1C on the curriculum level so YP struggle to write their own name, let alone read someone else’s.
YOS feels that disengagement is everyone ’s responsibility so have a Specialist
Education Advisor. Front line practitioners have been trained to develop “rapid
English
” to improve confidence and self-esteem in YP and change attitudes to education and school.
Jethro added that “rapid English” is more like slow English, and will not show a reading age rise in sessions but the YP’s response to it can be seen, as to how they feel about literacy, about reading, the world around them in what they might want to do and can relate it to offending behaviour.
All attendance data is based on YP offered full time provision, but as a whole YOT cohort of school age, by May only 16% are accessing full time provision, compared to 38% at the beginning of the year. There is no requirement for YOS to report to the DfE or LA. It was noted that the YOS budget is very small.
YSW will circulate the report to members.
Recommendations:
2.1 – Noted.
14. Retained DSG
CK summarised there is £4m total expenditure over a three-year period. A proposal of £2m to come to the October meeting. This needs to be looked at again, due to the ongoing review about central expenditure. The summary sheet shows 3 retained DSG blocks for high needs and schools, with no savings identified for Early Years. All areas of expenditure are there. A suggestion made that it could use more headings for recruitment, so it is for the forum to discuss a review on this.
DR queried about academies. CK informed a retained working group met in
May/June and wrote a report, with one or two areas unclear. YSW has a record of discussion, which can be made available to Forum members. RT commented this is a very constructive approach and commended CK. He also suggested to earmark the money and make proposals.
Recommendations:
2.1
– Comments made and Report noted.
CKe to provide update and budget proposals at October meeting.
15. 2014/15 Schools Budget Draft Outturn
YSW presented the paper to update SF on the draft outturn report for the year ended 31 st March 2015.
In particular, YSW highlighted the table in 5.5 detailing the carry forward of £7.1.m and how it is allocated for future use.
14

Recommendation:
2.1 - Noted. The
£2.9m Prudential borrowing will go into this financial year so the incounty provision for pupils with SEND will go up to £10m.
16. School Balances
YSW referred to the table in paragraph 5.1, which shows the difference in financial years. For maintained schools, the overall balance has gone up, while it has decreased slightly for schools that have gone to academies.
The figures were queried for accuracy, with YSW informing these were taken from audited accounts published on academy websites. RT commented schools will be holding high balances, with a lot using the carry over into the main budget and most academies will start running out of money in the following year. BW mentioned the academies figures are out of date due to a time lag and governors advised the cabinet member that they had balances and it was requested to put this report together.
GC advised missing data needs to be chased up on to reach the statutory duty as it drives the decision making.
Recommendation:
2.1 - Noted
17. First Quarter Schools Budget 2015/16
YSW outlined the reasons for underspend are noted in the report.
A more accurate report will be provided at the October SF.
Recommendation:
2.1 - Noted
18. School Effectiveness Plus
Liam Donnison made the presentation giving a brief update on the pilot that commissioners have funded on SE+. The 25 characteristics of high performing schools have been identified and feedback from headteachers is that they like the self-evaluation and coaching. The next step is to consider how to develop the first year of the pilot that was funded for 66 schools so Liam asked what SF feels about what SE+ is trying to achieve, its views on funding and roll out models and having a group to consider how SE+ is rolled out to secondary schools.
Liam said that schools have agreed to share their profiles and see how they can help each other immediately. He is confident that schools are open to sharing but different clusters will be at different stages of being open to it. He clarified that schools would be sharing their evaluations against the 25 characteristics.
SH said that as a school involved in this in Epping Forest, there is a lot of trust between the members in the group and there is often an agenda item of what individual schools could do to help other schools. He said it has been useful but
15

he has not felt the school has got benefit from it yet. He added that he sees it as a way of identifying strengths and areas of development and where schools can help each other.
Liam advised that the SE+ advisor can coach through the self-evaluation, and 14 development programmes have been structured, to start in September and to run for a year so schools can undertake the ones that are most relevant.
Liam said he would like to come back to SF in the autumn with the next stage of the evaluation and to provide a proposal of how to fund it in a hybrid way for the
Primary block, with a tailored element with each school.
It would cost about £980 per school through the Portal, but it would be more profitable to do it across Essex rather than doing by individual school. GC asked that consideration is given to a per pupil rate rather than a per school rate.
Establishment of a Development Group for Secondary will be discussed with ST.
19. External Funding Opportunities
YSW presented the paper to update SF on the current external funding opportunities available to schools, workshops and progress made, as detailed in
Annex A.
Recommendations:
2.1 and 2.2 - Noted.
20. Forward Plan
YSW informed on the October forum plan and agenda items.
It was confirmed the pre forum meeting will continue and can be arranged for late
September, with the primary heads association to discuss the agenda. PL asked to add a proposal from this group to the agenda.
16. Closing Comments
RL thanked everyone for attending. He wished DS, RT, CK and ST all the best for the future and everyone a good summer.
CK commented that out of the six authorities he has worked with, this SF is the best in terms of being the most courteous, most thorough and most open to selfimprovement and added the pre-meeting structure was very good.
CK thanked DS and ST, who will take over, and commented that RT has been a tower of strength, who has led a lot of the thinking, everyone has benefited hugely from his support and he would be greatly missed.
The next meeting is the 14 th October 2015.
16