Agenda item

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mr K Abbott Director – School Resources and ELS Finance Business Partner, was present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited Mr Abbott to introduce the report.  Mr Abbott raised the following key points:

·       The report was an update on the 2^nd quarter of the monitoring report that was presented to the Cabinet meeting in January 2013.

·       At the time of publishing the report there were no significant changes to the 2^nd quarters monitoring although in the extract that was presented to the Cabinet Committee there were anticipated emerging issues in School Transport.  That position had now been confirmed by the Transport Team and there were now pressures within; SEND Transport and a significant underspend in Mainstream Home to school Transport.  It was estimated that the SEND pressure would be £700k and the saving on Mainstream Home to school Transport was £950k as a result of less children being transported due to impact of the travel pass.

·       There was a small increase in the schools facing a deficit.  It was considered that eleven schools would be facing a deficit by the end of this year compared to seven last year.  As discussed with the Cabinet Committee at its last meeting schools were expected to face greater pressures in the forthcoming years.  In the third and fourth year the schools would be going into flat cash DSG funding and would incur the impact of the national funding changes.  This would be monitored at various opportunities including through the School Bursars Groups and Headteacher meetings to remind schools of early action on their budget particularly if their school in the short to medium term was facing a falling roll or were losers under the new Formular [This information was share with each school in September 2012].

·       A balance Capital and Revenue Budget was anticipated by the end of the year.

2.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:

a)    In reply to a question, Mr Abbott advised that some of the eleven schools were in receipt of significant pupil premium and other were not.  The main reasons for them facing deficit was because generally they had a falling roll and they had not taken the necessary action early enough eg reducing teaching staff etc.  The Pupil Premium was to target additional support for individual children.

b)    The Chairman questioned what measures had been taken to address the large sums of money transporting children around the County.  Mr Leeson explained that this was not a cost issue but a capacity issue within schools.  It was becoming more difficult to place children and when able to place children it was often requiring them to travel some distance.  The fundamental issue was to expand the capacity for SEND in Kent and therefore cut down on transport needs and cost. 

An SEND Strategy would be presented at the March meeting of this Cabinet Committee that was designed to tackle the issue raised by Members.  Mr Leeson advised that it would take a couple of years before we would be able to supply additional capacity to see that trend start to reduce.

c)     In response to a question, Mr Leeson advised that the increase in the SEND budget was because a crisis point had been reached.  For the past 2-3 years additional pupils had been placed in many Kent Special Schools over their capacity which had now been exhausted.  In the last year there had been a sudden impact of the capacity issues.  There had also been an increase in demand especially with children with autism and complex emotional and behavioural needs.  Mr Whiting advised that there was a demand and with greater demand there was a need to look at the Statementing process to ensure that it was work as well as it should.  With regards the supply   there was a need to look at the local independent suppliers to; ensure that we were receiving good value for money from independent placements from within the County.  There was scope to reduce transport costs through engaging with parents suggesting personal budgets.  Mr Whiting had recently met with Kent PEC who had useful suggestions eg how we can improve relations some parents and ensure that the transport provision best suited their child’s needs. 

d)    Members paid tribute to the work of the work being carried out by the SEND schools.

e)    In response to three questions, Mr Abbott advised the following 1. Ebbsfleet – Mr Abbott agreed to check whether Ebbsfleet should be on the programme of large housing developments that required a school.  2. Recoupment - The County Council had a net gain receiving £656k which was more than the allocated budget of £650k in terms of the cost of children we pay for going out of the County and other local authorities placing a larger number of children in Kent schools. There was an income received by Kent from the other local authorities’ children being placed in Kent Schools which gave the County a net gain.  3. School Improvement Programme – This was part of the trading plans set in the Budget last year and all that income target had been delivered for the year.  Mr Leeson added that there were different elements of this budget.  There was a very large workforce development Team which provided various types of training programmes that side of the business had not generated all of the business income that it was targeted to generate but on the core School Improvement activities itself there were schools buying back more of the core School Improvement Team.

f)      In response to a question, Mr Abbott advised that the current pressure in relation to legal fees this year was £285k but it was anticipated that the spend would be £365k on academy conversions.  This had been an issue and the County Council had lobbied the government since the Academies Act 2010.  The Governments view was that the legal cost was the County Councils responsibility.  KCC could not avoid the legal cost [KCC’s internal Legal Services was used but this did not negate the cost to KCC] because it required the legal advice due to the commercial agreements with academies; KCC could not be left exposed to a wide range of significant long term liabilities.  Mr Whiting assured Members that he would continue to lobby the government regarding the legal costs with the government.

g)    In reply to a question, Mr Abbott advised that Goldwyn School ran a pilot scheme providing transport for some of its pupils at the school. There were no significant savings but there was improvement in the pupil’s attendance and behaviour in the school and parents and teachers found it a better arrangement. 

3.               RESOLVED that:

a)    the responses to comments and questions by Members be noted; and

b)    the revenue and capital forecast variances from budget for 2012/13 for the Education, Learning & Skills Portfolio based on the second quarter’s full monitoring to Cabinet be noted.