Agenda item

We received a Call-In request in respect of the decision taken by Cabinet on 3^rd February 2016 regarding the proposed changes to the Funding Formula for Schools.

 

The Scrutiny Manager explained the Call-In process to the Select Committee so that the contribution of all participants at the meeting was understood, in order to fulfil the Council’s corporate objectives of openness and transparency in decision making.  The Children and Young People Select Committee will consider the appropriateness of a decision that has already been taken by the Council’s Executive, a decision that has already been ‘called in’ by Members of the Children and Young People Select Committee.  This Select Committee was not able to make a decision upon the Funding Formula for Mounton House School, but having followed the Council’s Call-In procedure, could do one of three things:

 

1.    Accept the Cabinet’s decision.

2.    Refer the matter back to Cabinet for re-consideration (with reasons).

3.    Refer the matter to Council for consideration (with reasons).

 

The Call-In process allowed for the Members who requested the decision be called-in to speak first, outlining their reasons for calling-in the decision.

 

Reason for the Call-In:

 

In the light of new information brought to the Children and Young People Select Committee on 14^th January 2016, concerns were raised concerning the size and immediacy of cuts, the effect it will have on the school and the absence of a strategic plan for the school.

 

The following information was provided by the Members who had called in the Cabinet decision:

 

·         Mounton House School was currently operating in a deficit budget and would be facing a further cut in its budget of £250,000.

 

·         It was considered that the views expressed by the NAHT Trade Union had not been taken sufficiently into account.

 

·         There had been neglect of the school’s funding in previous years.

 

·         Additional Learning Needs (ALN) Provision had not yet been completed.

 

·         This matter had been discussed previously at Council and it was considered that the minutes of that meeting had not reflected the discussion in depth.

 

·         Cabinet had not taken on board the concerns that had been raised.

 

The Cabinet Member for Education outlined the following points:

 

·         There was no representation from the Select Committee at Cabinet in respect of this matter.

 

·         The Schools’ Funding Formula was reviewed annually which allows equity across the County.

 

·         All schools and Trade Unions are consulted on this matter.

 

·         The Schools’ Funding Formula is then presented to the Budget Forum.

 

·         With regard to residential funding at Mounton House, the teaching element is funded for 42 children.  The residential aspect had been based on 42 children but there are now only 10 residential children at Mounton House.  In future the residential aspect will be funded for 18 children.

 

·         Across the County, Cabinet is looking at only funding what is being used.  Therefore the proposal is to fund 18 residential places and for 42 children at Mounton House.  Therefore, funding is only being cut for the residential aspect of the school.

 

The following information was received from Gareth Jones, Chair of the Governing Body at Mounton House and Beverly Randall, Executive Head Teacher for Mounton House School:

 

The funding of Residential Provision.

 

·           Currently the school has 38 boys on roll, with 10 of those being residential pupils. 4 of the latter are from Monmouthshire. The number of residential pupils has declined drastically from 2010. Why there has been such a dramatic reduction in residential placements is an important question which has yet to be discussed or answered. Unlike mainstream schools, placements at Mounton House are determined by the Local Authority. Knowing the cause of the decline would help in determining how best to manage the future, especially in light of the review of ALN currently underway.

 

·           As our response to the consultation on changes to the funding stated, we recognise and agree that it is appropriate to review and reduce the funding for residential provision, given the significant reduction in the number of residential pupils since 2010. Our concern is not the direction of travel but the timing.

 

·           Currently, the school is forecast to end this financial year with a deficit of some £140,000. This is the consequence of the prompt and positive action which had to be taken by the Governing Body, with support from the Local Authority, to resolve concerns that had been raised by an Estyn Inspection and by the EAS Challenge Advisor.

·           The 3 year recovery plan, which has to be agreed with the Local Authority, will involve the school having to reduce its staffing costs by some £50,000 per annum with effect from April 2016.

 

·           For any small school and especially one focused on meeting the needs of boys who present a range of severe behavioral and learning difficulties, achieving that without an impact upon the learning experience of the pupils will be a challenge but is feasible.

 

·           The same cannot be said if the school needed to reduce staffing costs by an additional £250k for 2016-17, which is what the cut in residential funding suggests.

 

·           The loss of a significant number of well qualified and experienced staff in a short time scale would inevitably result in a poorer learning experience for the boys.

 

·           One option for the Governing Body to the cut in residential funding is to close the residential facility with effect from April 2016. As the consultation response indicated, this could result in greater costs for Monmouthshire than the saving of £250,000.

 

·           Alternative strategies for the school and LA?

 

·           Phase in the reduction over a 3 year period?

 

·           Even if the reduction is to be phased in over 3 years, the result is that the Governing Body will have to amend its budget planning so as to reduce staffing costs by some £83,000 per annum in addition to the £50,000  referred to previously. A reduction of over £130,000 per annum, i.e 7% will not be without consequences and it is the impact upon the learning experiences of the boys which is always our main concern. That reduction will involve mapping out the staff skills and experience now and for the future. That is a difficult exercise at the best of times, even more so when we do not know if, or what the future holds for Mounton House, as a result of the review of ALN provision.

 

·           Phase in over 5 years?

 

·           If possible within the constraints of regulations regarding school funding, this would require an annual reduction in costs of some £100,000 i.e., over 5% per annum. This would still leave the Governing Body with the challenge of determining a revised staffing structure without knowing what staff expertise will be required as and when the ALN Review is completed.

 

·           Defer the funding formula change until April 2017?

 

·                This would enable the Governing Body to resolve the existing forecast budget deficit and for staffing changes resulting from the reduction in residential funding to fit any proposed role for Mounton House in the longer term.

 

·                It would also give time for the marketing and recruitment drive being prepared by the staff of the school to be implemented. 5 additional residential pupils from out of county would, at present rates, provide the £250,000 that the Local Authority seeks to balance its budget. This would reduce the level of cost cutting required. The positive support of the Local Authority in marketing the school would be helpful.

 

·                It would also give time for negotiations between the Local Authority and other Local Authority’s to establish a realistic charge for a placement at Mounton House to be completed. Is Monmouthshire currently charging the market rate for the services offered by Mounton House? Is there a significant difference between the rate charged by Monmouthshire for boys and what it pays for the out of county placement of girls?  Is there is a gap between what Monmouthshire receives from other Local Authority’s and how much it delegates to the school?

 

·                Ironically, should the ALN review require the issuing of a closure notice for the school, as a result of a proposed change in the focus and role of the school, any budget deficit at that point would become the responsibility of the Local Authority, hence, the £250,000 saving for the Local Authority may not actually be realized.

 

·                Since January 2016, there has been scope for income generation and Mounton house School and the staff team were ready for this.

 

The following points were made by Officers:

 

·           Mounton House is a school central to the Council’s consideration and was pleased that the support of the Local Authority had been recognised.

 

·           Mounton house School was able to reduce the current budget deficit.

 

·           The Funding formula for Mounton House School is funded for staffing ratios but there was an element of protection for Mounton House.

 

·           The Deficit recovery plan for the school was over a three year period.  However, the Authority could consider extending it if required.

 

The Select Committee raised the following points:

 

·           The ALN review would be completed at the end of April 2016 for consultation.

 

·           It was considered that we as an Authority should market Mounton House School with a view to increasing the number of residential places.  It was noted that the Head Teacher had been on post only six weeks but it was expected that a marketing scheme in respect of the school would be undertaken.

 

·           In response to a Select Committee Member’s question, the Cabinet Member stated that she would be willing to discuss the matter further with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Select Committee relevant officers and the Chair of the Governing Body and the Executive Headteacher. Concern was expressed that as the ALN stage three review had not been completed, this might affect the type of staffing to be reduced.

 

The Chiarman advised the Select Committee that it needed to consider the way forward and to advise that they have the opportunity to choose one of the following three courses of action:

 

1.    Accept the Cabinet’s decision; or

2.    Refer the matter back to Cabinet for re-consideration (with reasons); or

3.    Refer the matter to Council for consideration.

 

Having considered the options available, we resolved as follows:

 

Decision:  To refer the matter back to the Cabinet for re-consideration given the reasons outlined in the call-in request and highlighted by the Select Committee Members at the meeting regarding the immediacy and extent of the funding reduction, whilst the strategic direction of the school remains unclear.

 

Recommendation:  The Select Committee unanimously agreed that a meeting should be held to discuss the funding reduction further prior to the decision being reconsidered by the Cabinet.  Members agreed that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Select Committee would meet with the Cabinet Member, relevant Officers, the Chair of the Governing Body and the Executive Head Teacher to discuss this in order to prepare a new report on this for future Cabinet decision.