Agenda and minutes

Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous meeting of the Cabinet Member for Lifelong Learning and Culture, held on 18^th October, 2011.

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Member held on 18^th October, 2011 be signed as a true record.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Marie Boswell, Consultant, School Effectiveness Service, Children and Young People’s Services, which provided an overview of the Local Authority and Rotherham’s post-16 providers’ policy that governed the allocation and management of the 16 – 19 Bursary Fund to learners on ESF programmes.  It was noted that this policy would only cover the allocation and management of the Bursary Fund to Vulnerable Groups as ESF funding covered all course-related costs.

It was noted that all eight of Rotherham’s School Sixth-Forms have received their allocations and were developing their own individual policies based upon a model template designed by Rotherham partners.  It was also noted that Rotherham’s three Special Schools with Sixth Forms had opted to take full responsibility for administering the Bursary for their learners and would write their own administration policy. 

The 16-19 Bursary Fund (Bursary) was designed to help students continue in education when they would otherwise be prohibited from doing so on financial grounds. This funding replaced both the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) and the Discretionary Learner Support Fund (DLSF), and was available to young people in full- or part-time education from August 2011, subject to meeting eligibility criteria, some of which would be set by providers.

The use of the Bursary award was to be used towards essential course-related expenses and other costs associated with living and learning. Nationally, the Bursary was substantially less than the funding that was available for Educational Maintenance Allowance (£180m compared to £550m per annum), which could impact on participation and increase the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET). Post-16 providers indicated that their Bursary allocations were unlikely to support all the learners they would wish to support.

ESF provision funded by RMBC aimed to engage, support and prepare young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) to access mainstream education, training or employment (EET).  This included commissioning provision that removed any barriers young people faced in making a successful progression into education, employment or training, and included supporting travel costs, course equipment, exam fees, costs of placements, outdoor activities, visits and trips. 

The 16-19 Bursary Fund comprised of two elements:

·         Vulnerable Groups Bursary: £1200 per year for young people in care, care leavers, young people in receipt of income support and disabled young people in receipt of both Employment Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance.

·         Discretionary Bursary: Distribution of remaining funding was at the discretion of individual providers and was targeted towards young people facing the greatest financial barriers to participation and is subject to affordability.

Discussion ensued and covered the following points:

·         Shortfall in funding to Special Schools and ESF learners, which had followed a mismatched sample analysis to determine allocations.  It was noted that the Young People’s Learning Authority had reassured Local Authorities that there would be no financial risk as contingency funding would be available to support the learning of Vulnerable Groups.   

·         Transition arrangements between compulsory education and post-16 provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Consideration was given to the report presented by Martin Fittes, Assistant Head of School Effectiveness Service for Vulnerable Groups and Virtual Headteacher, Children and Young People’s Services, that outlined the eligibility criteria and current and proposed practice for the future allocation of the Pupil Premium for Looked After Children in Rotherham. 

It was noted that children and young people would be eligible to receive the Pupil Premium Grant, in addition the their Pupil Premium allocation, of £488 on 1^st April 2011 if (a) they had been looked after continuously for at least six-months, and (b) they are in the Year Groups R to 11 during the 2011-12 financial year. 

The Conditions of the Grant stated that the Pupil Premium Grant ‘may be spent by maintained schools for the purposes of the school; that was to say for the educational benefit of pupils registered at that school to raise attainment.  It was the responsibility of Headteachers to determine how money would be best used.’  Schools would be required to report to parents on the use of the Pupil Premium Grant. 

A number of issues were highlighted within the current framework in relation to the administration of the Pupil Premium and Pupil Premium Grant:-

• Schools that had a looked after Year 11 pupil on roll were allocated the full £488 for the financial year April 2011 – March 2012 even though they would be educating the young person for only a few weeks before they completed their exams and left School.
• Primary Schools where there was a looked after Year 6 pupil on roll were allocated the full £488 for the financial year April 2011 – March 2012 even though these children were moving on to Secondary School and the receiving school had not received an allocation.
• Allocations of the Pupil Premium and Pupil Premium Grant to schools had been made on a yearly basis, but the frequent movement of looked after children means that they were rapidly out of date.
• Children who met the eligibility criteria mid-year needed to be allocated a proportion of the £488 when they met the criteria.
• For eligible children attending special schools, the Local Authority could decide how to allocate funds. 

In response to the reported issues, a number of measures were now proposed for approval:-

• The budget for Pupil Premium Grant would be managed by the finance team using information provided termly by the Get Real Team.

• The £488 would be sent to schools on a termly basis – September (£188), January (£150) and April (£150) - to ensure that children who moved schools benefitted from the funding, and that children who were no longer eligible did not continue to receive funding.  This would then release funds for newly identified children.

• If schools wished to use the money in one lump sum (i.e. for 1:1 tuition) then they may do so, by agreement with the Virtual Headteacher. If the child later moved school, the receiving school would not access new funding until the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Further to Minute F15 of the Cabinet Member for Lifelong Learning and Culture, held on 6^th September 2011, consideration was given to the report presented by Helen Barre, Manager, School Admissions, Organisation and SEN Assessment Service, Children and Young People’s Services, following the end of the pre-statutory consultation process that had taken place in relation to expanding Thornhill Primary School.  This report detailed the outcomes of the pre-statutory consultation outcomes and requested permission to commence the statutory consultation. 

It is proposed to expand the numbers on roll at Thornhill Primary School from September 2012 to accommodate 45 children per statutory year group (45 x 7 = 315 places).  The School’s current capacity was 30 children per year group (30 x 7 = 210 places).  The School would have an amended Published Admission Number (PAN) of 45 per year group.  The non-statutory Nursery (F1) year group published admission number would also be increased to a published admission number of 26 full-time places. 

It was noted that consultation meetings had taken place with Thornhill Primary School and their neighbouring Primary Schools Ferham, Kimberworth and Meadow View.  Separate meetings had taken place with Thornhill Primary School governors, staff and union representatives, and parents, and meetings with the Governing Bodies of Ferham, Kimberworth and Meadow View Primary Schools.  Consultation papers had been provided to Ward Members, the MP and to the local Parish Council. 

Pre-consultation responses submitted by stakeholders were noted by the Cabinet Member, as were actions Local Authority Officers had taken to mitigate these concerns.  These included:

• The building timescale appeared very tight and could potentially cause a large amount of disruption to Thornhill Primary School if works had not  been completed by 1^st September 2012.  It was noted that Rob Holsey, Principal Project Manager, was working closely with the School and Balfour Beatty and was satisfied that the timescale was achievable. 
• Concerns that funding for the financial year 2012/3 would not be sufficient as additional children will join the School in September 2012, mid-way through the financial year, and will not have been included within the School Census.  Helen Barre had agreed to monitor the situation and submit a report to the Rotherham Schools’ Forum to request Dedicated School Grant funding to cover the shortfall between September 2012 and March 2013.  Thereafter, it is expected that AWPU funding will cover the increased staffing costs. 
• A number of Human Resources issues were raised around recruiting additional staff pre-September 2012, and following this time if pupil numbers did not rise as expected.  The Human Resources Manager for CYPS and Schools would work closely with the School throughout this period.

Helen Barre had given a commitment to maintain contact with the Governing Bodies of the Schools concerned and would be in further contact with Thornhill’s Governing Body following the close of the January 2012 deadline for preferences to be received for September 2012 entry to the Reception (FS2) year. 

Resolved: - (1)  That Statutory Consultation be approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.