Agenda item

Chris Kiernan – SIG and School Redundancies

Alison Golding/Rosemary Kavanagh – Trade Union Facility Time

RESOLVED:

·         That Schools Forum members supported these reports and the officer suggested de-delegations and proposed rates and were aware that a vote would be required by Maintained School Members in December’s forum meeting.

·         That Schools Forum members agreed to the consultation proposals and questions.

Trade Union (TU) Facility Time

AG introduced the report regarding the structure of TU facility time in maintained schools and those academies which take part in the shared arrangement.  Schools Forum were responsible for deciding whether shared facility time arrangements operated across schools and for setting the funding level annually.  It was proposed that funding was set at £2.10 - the same per pupil rate as previous years and at the lower end compared with other local authorities.  There were two options for schools in dealing with TU facility time: central provision via de-delegation or provision to operate just within the school.  The council considered that de-delegation worked effectively and ensured both schools and the council met their legal obligations.

BB advised that the paper provided draft budget information.  An estimate had been made for this year based on the grant and looking at the carry forward expected for next year.  From that the budget requirement for next year had been calculated.  £2.10 per pupil was expected to provide an adequate budget.  BB commented that a large number of academies also bought in to this service.

Dan Perriman (NASUWT) pointed out that having facility time was very important and enabled the unions and schools to build a closer relationship.

In response to a question from VB, CK confirmed that maintained schools were required to buy in to TU facility time if Schools Forum voted in favour, but academies could choose whether or not to opt in.

Schools Forum agreed to consult regarding TU facility time, with a vote to be taken at the December meeting.

Redundancies

BB introduced the report outlining the scheme and showing how primary schools accessed the fund to obtain support with redundancy costs.  An HR business plan needed to be submitted.  There had been more requests this year because schools had tended to hold off a restructure during Covid to support their staff during the pandemic.  Schools were seeking restructuring due to both budgetary and school improvement issues but the funding was available purely for restructures due to financial issues.

DY asked whether the increase from £1.50 to £8.00 could be a problem for some schools.  CK advised that there was no money for the local authority to support individual schools.  Schools Forum could decide to approve de-delegation but change the amount.  In response to a question BB advised that an average for other authorities could be provided, although not all authorities had a redundancies de-delegation. 

ET advised that the redundancies de-delegation had previously been reduced due to a large carry forward.  This was not expected to occur again and the per pupil rate therefore needed to be increased.  JL asked if the amount could be smoothed out over the next few years.  CK advised that this would be difficult.

School Improvement Grant (SIG)

CK introduced the report and noted that the SIG resource was small but effective. There were good relations with academy trusts and the SIG would be discussed with them as a legal obligation. 

RESOLVED:

·         That Schools Forum members supported these reports and the ‘officer suggested’ de-delegations and proposed rates and were aware that a vote would be required by Maintained School Members in December’s forum meeting.

·         That Schools Forum members agreed to the consultation proposals and questions.