Agenda item

(To receive a report which informs the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee of the development of a common approach to the recovery of costs where schools, academies and other education organisations in Lincolnshire access services delivered by Lincolnshire County Council (LCC))

Consideration was given to a report which informed the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee of the development of a common approach to the recovery of costs, academies and other education organisations in Lincolnshire access services delivered by Lincolnshire County Council (LCC).

It was reported that this approach would also involve exploring opportunities to provide a single comprehensive source of information and access for schools, academies and other organisations to receive all of the services they need.  The LCC services in scope of cost recovery would be reviewed periodically to ensure each offer was comprehensive, with clear benefits and an agreed cost structure for each support package.  To support the process by which schools, academies and other education organisations were able to learn about and access the support available it was aimed to translate the services offered into a digital form similar to an 'e-commerce' environment.

The Committee was advised that at its meeting on 5 July 2016, the Executive approved the recommendations as detailed in the report.  As the proposals related to a range of council services, the Executive report was considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee at its meeting  on 30 June 2016, where it supported the recommendations in principle but requested a further report on the charges for individual services.

Members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during the discussion included the following:

·         This proposal was an opportunity to review the terms and conditions and the way in which departments costed their services.  It was reported that some departments charged a fixed amount as that was what they had always charged; some recovered the costs of the officer dealing with the request, and some included back office costs.  The proposal was for a cost recovery model, which would look at the full costs to the authority, and the true cost of what it took to deliver that service.  A lot of the services provided were classed as discretionary.

·         Comments submitted by Mr Anthony Partington, Head Teacher of Stamford Welland Academy were circulated to the Committee as he had been unable to attend as scheduled.

·         The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee was in attendance at this meeting as a replacement member, and advised the Committee that he had attended the meeting of the Executive where this had been approved.  The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee came to the view that it was difficult to fully support this when the exact costs were not known.  It was felt that a business plan was needed and the Committee wanted more detailed information in relation to the charges, and requested detailed figures at a later date.

·         One of the concerns was that most schools had very tight budgets and some of the services which were currently provided for free were going to be charged for, but it was felt that some of these were very important e.g. the anti-bullying training for staff and anti-bullying workshops for pupils.

·         The Committee received clarification in relation to the charges to schools for free school meals.  It was reported that the 50p charge previously reported was a historic cost, and this was charged per pupil on roll at the school to determine which children were eligible for free school meals.  The school would then receive £900 back for every eligible child via the pupil premium. 

·         The proposal was that the increased charge would only be charged per eligible child, and the school would still receive the £900.  It was believed that this could result in a net saving for some schools.

·         Concerns were raised regarding the proposal to charge for road safety awareness lessons to secondary schools, as it was believed that as children got older, this would become more important.

·         It was reported that a lot of consultation had been carried out, and it was believed that the only way to protect certain services was to issue a small charge.  The offer to schools would be looked at as a whole, and it was hoped that this would provide options for schools.

·         Members were advised that it was difficult to provide costs for these services as it would be a cost recovery rather than a flat rate charge, and would depend on the level of delivery.

·         Lincolnshire was a high delegator of funds out to schools, and £497m was given to schools to allow them to buy in the services that they needed.  With the new model there would be no element of surplus, the authority would just recover the cost of delivering that service.  The volume of services being taken up and their costs would be reviewed.

·         A tool kit had been designed through corporate finance.

·         Officers would gain a better understanding of the types of need of schools as the years progressed, and packages of services could also be put together.

·         In terms of schools' affordability of services, schools were being encouraged to work more collaboratively and to purchase joint services.  The charging model would allow the authority to continue to offer this service.

·         There were concerns that schools would not access these services unless they knew how much they would cost.  It was commented that it was difficult to scrutinise without the business model.  Members were advised that when the brochure went out to schools detailing the services available, it would include costs.

·         It was queried whether officers had been in contact with schools and academies to find out what they wanted the authority to provide.  It was reported that this model had been discussed at head teacher briefings.  It was confirmed that there were schools who were asking for particular services, and it was thought it would be helpful to have a website available which listed all the available services.  The diocese would support the new model and would sign post schools to the website.

·         There were concerns that if the authority started to charge for some services that the schools would decide not to buy them from the county council but from other accredited training providers.  It was noted that these were discretionary services and the take up of them would be assessed throughout the coming year for viability.  If schools were going to buy services elsewhere, the authority may need to consider whether it would continue to provide that service.  There would be monitoring and reports provided on the demand and take up of these services.

·         There would be a need to run the services through the cost recovery model before the costs could be determined.  Service area leads were already using the toolkit to start to identify costs.

·         Concerns were raised regarding how the small rural schools would cope with buying in the additional services, as larger schools would be able to offer more services.  Members were advised that smaller schools would be encouraged to come together and share the costs, in order to make the services affordable.  It was also possible that some charges could be waived in rural areas depending on the situation.

·         It was considered important that there was investment in the education system, as Lincolnshire did not get the benefit of the scarcity funding for rural schools.  It was important that the costs were sustainable.

·         This model was a way of moving to a better way of interacting with schools, so they could have the services which were relevant to them.  It was also about protecting some of the services. 

·         It was queried whether counselling services for staff would still be on offer as this was considered to be a valuable service.  It was clarified that this was not classed as a service to schools, but a service for employees and should be detailed in the schools policies and procedures.  It was noted that this was a service which would be commissioned by the authority, and so would only be available in local authority schools, but academies could be signposted to it.

·         It was commented that the report did not give a view on what the authority, as an education authority, wanted to provide to support schools.  It was noted that this model was regarding the discretionary services which were provided and it would give the head teachers the opportunity to choose the most relevant services for their schools and their communities.

·         In relation to the domestic abuse and anti-bullying workshops, it was noted that free online training and support was provided as part of safeguarding practices.  It would be up to schools to determine how they delivered these services.

·         It was suggested that PE and life skills lessons needed to be mandatory.

·         It was queried how this would affect home schooled children, and it was noted that there were policies and procedures in place regarding what to expect from this provision.

·         It was hoped that expertise would be retained to enable the authority to be responsive in the future.

·         It was commented that this model was the pragmatic compromise to keep expertise within the authority.

·         There were a lot of unanswered questions with this model, such as what the take up would be, what the costs would be etc.  It was requested whether some additional information on these areas could be reported back to the Committee when appropriate.

·         The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee thanked the Committee for some interesting and quality scrutiny of this item.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee note the support services currently provided by LCC to maintained schools and academies as set out in Part 4 of Appendix A of the report for which LCC charges and would continue to charge.

2.    Tat the Committee note the support services currently provided by LCC to maintained schools and academies set out in Part 3 of Appendix A to the report for which LCC does not charge and does not propose to charge.

3.    That the Committee note the principle of charging schools, academies and other education organisations for discretionary services provided by LCC on a cost recovery basis.

4.    That the Committee note the new and existing support services set out in part 1 and 2 of Appendix A of the report, that from September 2016, LCC recover the cost of the provision of such services from schools, academies and other education organisations through appropriate charging mechanisms to be developed for each such service.

5.    That the Committee note that in relation to all support services to schools the development of a single source of information and access to services including by way of digital access similar to an e-commerce environment.

6.    That the Committee note that authority be delegated to the relevant Chief officer, in consultation with the relevant Executive Councillor, for each service area to the amount and recovery mechanism appropriate to each service set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Appendix A of the report and the offering of further discretionary services to schools, academies and other education organisations and the amount and cost recovery mechanism appropriate to each such service.

7.    That the Committee note that authority be delegated to the Executive Director of Children's Services in consultation with the executive Councillor responsible for Children's Services to approve the final form of the proposed single source of information and access to LCC support services.

8.    That the Committee note the making of a flat rate charge of £6500 for standard conversions to schools that chose to convert to academy status to cover officer time and legal charges incurred by LCC.

9.    That the comments made by the Committee be noted.

(NOTE: Mr P Thompson left the meeting at 11.50am)