Agenda item

Atul Lad provided a summary of the report submitted to the Schools Forum. The report informs the Forum of the brought forward balance of £1,317,000 from 2013-14 and the options available for the distribution and retention of this brought forward balance.

It was clarified that this one-off funding available arises from underspend in centrally held budgets including some Cambridge Education retained elements. It was noted that the 13/14 underspend is substantial and it is unlikely that there will be significant sums in 14/15 and beyond.

There were three proposals put forward in the report:

1. Appendix A: Slough Learning Partnership business case.

2. Appendix B: business case for the High Needs Block

3. To retain any remaining balances as Schools Block provision.

Jo Rockall stated that if any funding was to go out to all schools it should be distributed on pupil numbers to ensure equity.

Members discussed the very detailed Appendix about High Needs future pressures – showing a pressure of £300, 000 to meet increased demand for 2015/16. Jo Rockall asked how confident we could be regarding predicted figures and Atul confirmed that the predictions are based on individuals already in the system so they are robust but, if anything, may be over stated.  It was noted that £300,000 gives a good cushion as even one out borough placement could cost that much or more.  Debbie Richards stated that autism is the biggest area of increased need and this is a longer term strategic issue.

John Constable introduced the comprehensive Slough Learning Partnership business case, drawing attention to the range of options proposed. He also gave some background about the establishment of the Slough Learning Partnership, set up as a charitable trust and developed as a strategic partner of the Teaching School Alliance.

Robin Crofts referred to the importance of having a robust continuum of school improvement support and challenge going forward, not just the statutory elements. 

Jo Rockall said that the Slough Learning Partnership had been set up by Headteachers across Slough, both primary and secondary, and that there was a responsibility to it. Helen Huntley stated that the idea for the organisation came from Headteachers but still needed proper due diligence in supporting future funding. Carol Pearce asked for more information, including impact measures and uptake figures, to underpin future decisions and ensure value for money.

Kathleen Higgins stated that Headteachers had identified school development work as a top priority and asked if it remained so currently. It was noted that the Primary Headteachers’ group had not had time to discuss recently and would wish to discuss longer term arrangements for school development work. 

Members discussed the options proposed and it was agreed that Options 1 and 2 be supported at this time:

Option 1: £60,000 from 2013-14 DSG underspend be allocated to cover operating costs and contingency until the end of August 2015 and

Option 2:  £100,000 from 2013-14 DSG underspend be allocated to enable the Slough Learning Partnership to deliver a range of additional school improvement services during 2014-15.

It was noted that the range of activity within Option 2 would be discussed with Headteachers’ groups and at the Headteachers’ conference and an update be brought to the Schools Forum by November.

It was also agreed that there would be discussions about the possibility of establishing a joint venture between Cambridge Education and Slough Learning Partnership for aspects of school improvement from 2015/16 going forward and that this would be brought back to the Schools Forum in December.

With regard to the remaining proposals regarding the High Needs Block and the Schools Block it was agreed that this would be confirmed at the point of agreeing the blocks in December but that the £300,000 seemed sensible with the remainder being allocated to the Schools Block to support the known pressures in 2015 /16.