Agenda item

·  Centrally Retained DSG 2016/17

·  Cambridge Education 2014/15 centrally retained school improvement budget underspend (allocation of final balance to be agreed)

·  School Improvement Future Options

Cambridge Education Centrally Retained underspend from 2014-15 and the allocation of the Centrally Retained budget (held by the Local Authority) for 2016/17 (not approved in December 2015) 

Robin Crofts outlined the proposals as set out in the report and Appendix A:

It was proposed that the Cambridge Education centrally retained school improvement budget underspend from 2014-15 would support: 

In terms of the school improvement (£20k), Robin advised that Sharon Scott will be making contact with schools to get views. Sharon was later introduced at the meeting.

The maths sustainability project: ‘Slough Mathematics Project Improving teacher subject knowledge and raising children’s attainment’ was a proposal from the Slough primary headteachers. It was noted that the maths booster programme (already agreed) is a booster programme focusing on the Year 6 pupils taking their end of Key Stage assessment in May 2016. The second programme is to achieve improvements across KS2 which are sustainable over time (details in Appendix B).

It was noted that the learning support for Looked After Children (LAC) is funding to be provided to the Trust as this is an ongoing requirement which has been in place in previous years.

The proposals were agreed and it is noted that these are one off allocations as the Schools Forum agrees these budgets line by line annually.

School Improvement activities provided by SBC: it was noted that the centrally retained SBC Combined Budget for 2016-17 is made up of £28,400 (school improvement and raising standards) and the £120,246 remainder (previously within the Cambridge Education budget – available as the Cambridge Education spend is reduced to approximately £930k), making a total of £148,646.

It was proposed that this combined budget would support:

Krutika Pau outlined the proposals.

It was asked if the Virtual Head was a Social Care function. Krutika said that the education element is not and, in many LAs, this is funded from the DSG. She explained that there has not been an established Virtual Head post. Debbie Rigby is currently fulfilling the role on an interim basis. The wish is to appoint a Virtual School Head who will be working in the Trust as the Council felt this was an opportunity to get this right for vulnerable children as part of the new Trust arrangements.

Jo Rockall referred to the £1,900 pupil premium available for each looked after child, only some of which is given to schools to support these children. Krutika said that it was not permissible to use that for funding this post, it is to support strategies and intervention.

There was some further discussion about the LAC pupil premium and Krutika indicated that she would ask Debbie Rigby to start some work to revisit this and this would be completed once the virtual school head was in post.

Helen Huntley noted that over 60% of Slough’s looked after children are not educated in Slough.

Robin Crofts and two headteachers (Jane Girle and Helen Huntley) are on the governance group for the virtual school.  It was agreed that this role would be accountable to Schools Forum related to this financial commitment and that a report would be brought back to the Forum, with clear KPIs, in the autumn term.

Schools Forum agreed to the funding for the Virtual School Head and it was noted that, even though this is a statutory function, the allocation can only be agreed by Schools Forum for one year.

With regard to the second proposal; ‘Strengthening safeguarding across all Slough schools: support and training (to be shaped and determined with schools)’, Krutika stated that this was to strengthen safeguarding, early help and intervention.

This funding for this was agreed in principle, subject to details being brought to the March Schools Forum meeting.

The £190k previously agreed from the 2015/16 underspend for supporting the High Needs Block was re-affirmed, with the understanding that this is a permanent reduction from centrally retained DSG in the Schools Block budget into the High Needs Block budget, not one off as previously thought.