Transcript

[ Pause ]

Welcome, everybody, to our final school store meeting of 2023/24. We have a hybrid meeting this afternoon with new equipment, which will take us in the room a little while to get used to. For those of you that are in the room, we have to press a button here and you'll see the camera focuses on you. You do need to remember to let go of the button when you're ready to finish speaking and then that disconnects the connection for you. So we are core and we can make a start. We will do apologies first. So Jane, could you go through the apologies that you have received, please? Thank you, Chair. Apologies have been received from Karl Smith and from Andrew Reed, who is the new representative for the Diocese. Okay, if I could ask colleagues to look through the minutes and actions from our previous meeting, which took place on Thursday, the 1st of February. We'll go through a page at a time and I'll refer to the page numbers as they appear in the large bundle. So page 5, page 6, page 7, page 8, and page 9. So can we take those as a fair and accurate account of that meeting? I think we can, Jane. There is one action which was for head of finance to update the membership table following the agreed amendments and arrange a meeting of finance subgroup. I believe Andrew, if you could confirm that that has taken place, I believe it has. Yes, that has taken place. Sorry, Andrew, can you just check your microphone, please? We couldn't hear that. I said, yes, but I can confirm that did take place. We're just going to make an adjustment to the speakers in the room, Andrew, because that came through rather quiet. Andrew, could you just try that again, please, for us in the room? Yes, I can confirm that the membership was updated and the meeting did take place. That's marvellous, thank you, heard you loud and clear at that time. Right, that means we can move on to item 3, which is a finance update, and that is also you and Drew, so I'll hand over to you at this point. Okay. Schools forum are asked to note the outcome position for 23, 24, and also note the current allocations for the dedicated schools grant for 24, 25. I'll start with the outcome position for 23, 24, I'll take each blocking turn and then I'll summarize with the overall position as well. So in relation to the schools block, our final allocation for the year was 30.2 million. Schools forum agreed to transfer 151,000 between the schools block and the high needs block. Academy recruitment, which is then distributed by the ESFA, was 29.1 million and the council distributed 1.1 million, which means we distributed the schools funding in full with no overspend or underspend in that position. The next one is the high needs block. So we had a deficit brought forward of 1.5 million, our allocation in year is 5.7 million. We had the additional transfer from the schools block of 151,000 and Academy recruitment, which is distributed by the ESFA of 310,000, which left us a total funding for the year of 5.3 million, our out-term position was 6.8 million, given a deficit on the high needs block of 1.5 million in year and given a current deficit position of 2.3 million pounds on the high needs block. The early years position, we had a surplus brought forward of 108,000, we had allocations in year of 1.6 million, and we spent 1.7 million, so an overspend of 86,000, which gives us a surplus carried forward of 22,000. And I'll just point out on that, our funding isn't confirmed until July on the early years block, so that isn't indicative out-term position of the minute. From the central schools block, so this is the funding that the council retained because of its statutory duties in relation to the DSG. We had total funding of 198,000, and we spent 198,000, given no way to spend on spending a year, although we do have a surplus on that block that was brought forward. In total, it means that we are 2.9 million overspend on the DSG, which clearly is a big risk for the council, but also for all schools as well, in terms of what does that mean for us going forward. Just to point out, we do modelling, and we do long-term modelling on the high needs block. Our current deficit is predicted to be 17.6 million by 29.30, so to put it into perspective, that is three times our current allocation, so by that time we're going to have a significant deficit on our high needs block. In 24.25, our allocation has increased by 3.8%, yet EHCPs have increased by over 10%, so you can see there's a big disparity around funding, so it's unlikely that additional funding is going to solve this problem on our own. We all need to work together to address this position, obviously we do already have some programs in place, such as the DVV, which I know is an update on later on in the meeting to address some of the problems, but fundamentally there is, we're going to have to come up with other solutions to help address that problem. On to next year's allocations, so as I said, our allocations have increased by 3.4% on the high needs block, so our allocation will now be 5.7 million in year, but if you look, our allocation is 5.6 million, even if we spend in line with what we spend in 23.24, we're still going to be in an overspend position, so we'd still be at over a million pounds overspend on the high needs block if we maintain our current position. On the school's block, our total allocation will be 31.6 million, with agreed to transfer again, which is 158,000, and then ESFA will distribute 30.6 million and the council will distribute 800,000, and that's changed significantly since the previous year because OMCV has transferred to an academy for the full year of another part year in the last allocation, it's not because of reduction in funding with the council's retaining. Early year's block has gone up to 2.7 million, that big increase is because of the changes to early year provision and the requirement for wraparound childcare and the changes in early year's provision, so it's not to be distributed in the same way, there's additional responsibilities that's coming out of that money as well, and then the central school's block is 208,000. So that is the end of my finance update, happy to take any questions. Thank you Andrew, is there anybody in the room or on the team's call that wants to raise their hand to ask Andrew questions about his presentation? Okay, Andrew, thank you for that, it's still with you for item four, which is the finance subgroup update. I don't know if Stuart who's on the call wants to give up any update from, as he's a chair of the meeting, from the first meeting we had, or whether he wants me to talk through what was agreed. I'm quite happy to, I'm quite happy to, I think it picks up nicely from what you just said really, which is the finances look like a rather large black hole, and what we decided to do was some clearly focused agenda items over the next 12 months that tries to have a look at some solutions to try and reduce the size of the black hole that we're facing at the moment. Yeah. Is that something up for you Andrew or did you want to trip in with a bit more? No, I think that's a good, that's a good, certainly a good, a good start. I will cover some more of the things that I led on. So we did agree in terms of reference for the group, we did agree our meeting date. So we've got a number of scheduled meeting dates, which I need to plug into everybody's diaries. But there was a, there was a really good consensus across all of the group that it was a positive meeting, and agreed with the approach of Stuart, Stuart's outlined, and articulated well in terms of we're not going to focus on overlapping items that are discussed at schools forum. We are going to have distinct items that are discussed and agreements and then proposals put forward to schools forum to agree. So we are going to be meeting a minimum of four times a year, and it will be slightly in advance of schools forum, so that any actions can be fed back into schools at the next school forum, so that we get that proper governance leap in place. I think it's fair to say we recognise that the high needs funding is the most significant issue, and we need to look at how we can reduce that spend without losing the quality of provision across Rutland, and part of that work is looking at where that funding is going and where the very expensive cases are going and looking at continuing the work we've started in terms of the work at UCC, for example, and the college, and similarly the primary sector about how we keep children locally, more affordable provision. Thank you, Stuart, and thank you, Andrew. It would be possible to share the terms of references that you've created with the rest of the schools forum group via Jane, so that everybody can have sight of that and we can avoid overlap, and then we can help you. I think it's worth also sending, also sharing the agenda items we've agreed on, so that again, schools forum are aware of what we're proposing to talk about. That would be really useful, so if we can identify that as an action, Jane, and have those for the September meeting, I'll send them through to Jane so they can go up with a minute to the meeting, draft minutes. That's great. Thank you. Any questions from the rest of the group with regard to the finance subgroup, yes, Kirsty? Thank you. Rather than a question, I'd just like to reiterate and state what Andrew and Stuart have also highlighted that the position on the high needs block is particularly stark. There was a quote from Andrew there about funding increase in by 3.8, but actually demand was 10%, so when you extrapolate that out over time, it's really stark not only for schools forum but for the council as well, so it's encouraging that Stuart's recognised and there's part of that group about the actions that can be taken to try to reduce the deficit as well, so just a statement really. Thank you for that. And to Stuart and Andrew, are you happy with the make up of parties that have formed that group or do you need any further people to be involved? I think it's about right to be honest, however, when we publish the agenda items, if anybody wishes to contribute from schools forum, then please do let us know. Right, fantastic, I can see no further questions in the room or online, I will move us forward on to item 5 which is co-winder and delivering better value, over to you. Thank you Chair, Jane, are the slides going to be shared or do I just talk? Well, we're just trying to find the slides, I can share with you that the report that I'm going to share is around the sections of delivering better value and how we've - here they are, I'll stop waffling and actually start referring to the slides. Okay, first slide please. In this slide, what we see here is a demographic increase in population for Rutland over the last 10 years from the 2011 census through to 2021 and although 9.7% increase in population isn't the most highest increase in our area, it is particularly significant for a small local authority like ours and the reason that's important is because if we have an increase in population there's also a suggestion that there might be a greater identification of send need as we go forward. Next slide please. So the point about delivering better value is trying to ensure that we keep our young people within our home communities and enable them to learn within their local schools and settings, therefore creating that home community and obviously keeping them as appropriate as possibly in the local schools that we have. Next slide please. This slide shows a couple of things and now for time be really brief but in essence it's a projection of how the education health and care plans over the last six years have increased. We started off with 197 in 2019 through to 342 in 2024. If we look at the orange and the gray blocks together which make up the 5 to 10 year olds that cohort or that two groups together make up a 70% of our education health and care plans within each of those year groups. So year on year we have a population that's coming through primary, going into secondary, reaching secondary and thinking we need a plan. So these are areas that we're going to try and focus on and do deep dives and see what's actually happening there. We can also see the COVID years really increased. The number of education health and care plans in the primary sector, they really sort of became neck and neck in 2022 with the secondary schools. And it was only after COVID that the secondary schools really enhanced the number of plans coming through again. And we think that's got to something to do with social, emotional, mental wellbeing and the needs of students after COVID. Next slide please. These are the range of needs that are identified on our health and health on our plans and there's 13 of them. I've highlighted the ones in colour for a significant identification of need that particularly affects Rutland. Next slide please. So of the 13 that we've just seen on the previous slide, ASD, so Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Social Emotional Mental Health, Moderate Learning Difficulties, Speech Language Communication Needs are the four highest requests for plans in our area. And if we look at the table that we see there, the blue and the purple are Autism and Moderate Learning Difficulties. But all of those four areas make up 150 of the referrals in the first year of 2019. So effectively what this graph is trying to show is that over 76% of our referrals fit into those four categories year on year, if not more than 76%. So those are the key areas that we'll be focusing on around EBV. Next slide please. This slide just represents where our children are at the moment and we're one of the very few counties that keep our children in mainstream schools. So that's something to be really proud of and we do that well. Our significant area to focus on here really is the fact that we've got a growing cohort in the 16+ section, so we've got 65 young people with plans there and a growing section in the non-maintained special schools and independent schools. And again, those are the areas that we're going to be doing some deep dives in. We're sort of looking at a data as to what it can tell us more. Next slide please. This is data just presented in a different format. So it's by curriculum, year groups and it again shows us that there's often a peak around those transitional years and the work that we perhaps need to do around focusing on making transition more appropriate and suitable for our young people. Next slide please. And again, the same data by placement type and again, you see there quite clearly that 113 of our young children are in mainstream academies within our local area. Next slide please. And our out-of-county placements are actually going down compared to other local authorities. Again, this is all positive stuff as schools for us because clearly we're doing something well to have these stats here. Next slide please. And yeah, basically that's just an update on what I've been talking through so we can perhaps skip that slide as well. And going back to the finances, DBV is around trying to sort of make some savings but we're not making those savings in a traditional way of what people might think that we're just going to be cutting plans. That's not the idea. The idea is really to invest to save. And the program of work around DBV focuses on enhancing access to training around education, helping care plans around EHCPs that have autism, speech language communication, moderate learning difficulties and social and emotional mental health. So those are our four key areas and we're targeting those areas with elements of support. So the autism education trust training will be coming online. We already have SSP that will be supported with the other areas of work. We'll have targeted speech language communication training within our schools. So the reason for those trainings is to meet those four areas of need and we're hoping that, well, the aim is by 2025, we make 7,337 worth of savings, sorry. And while we will make savings over a period of time, as you know, Andrew has already alluded to, it's not going to be significant to pull us back in out of the deficit that we'll find ourselves in. So yeah, next slide, please. And yeah, thank you, that's the bit of that, do you want to, do you want to, do you want me to pause for the questions or do you want me to carry on? Sorry. Well, I think let's, Stuart's got his hand up. So let's allow Stuart to ask his question and then we'll see if we can move on from that point. So Stuart, over to you, sir. I've got a few questions. Is that okay? It's absolutely fine. Yeah, go for it. So a couple of our observations, I guess, in terms of the impact on budget. So we've had an increase in primary aid seed plans, and that's going to then roll through to secondary. And therefore, has that been factored into the finances, and particularly if the volume of primary plans continue at the current level, then it has that been factored into the budget forecast in terms of the likely overall deficit? Not my first question. Don't need to take that out. Yeah, yeah. I think Andrew's possibly best placed to answer that, but I'm happy for any of the colleagues to respond. So Andrew, if you'd like to go first and then add to it. So the modeling that currently does prop through all new plans throughout the whole of the school years. Obviously, we've gone up to 27, 29 in terms of our modeling stewards, obviously, it depends where they are on their school journey in terms of how far we've modeled it. What do you estimate Andrew in terms of the primary plans that are approved going forward? Are you assuming that they stay at their current level, or are they going to drop off? What's the assumption at the moment? At the minute, we've assumed that they will continue, obviously, we've got the savings that Corwinda has talked about in terms of the savings we're hoping to do, which will hopefully prevent, will slow down the level of the new AHCPs we've got. But obviously, as we can see from the modeling, we're going to still outstrip the man's going to outstrip the funding we've got even at these levels. Well, that's why I ask. Okay. And then the other thing, I guess it's a question to ASEan Ray. I've just appointed a new Sancho who's coming up from London. And she was discussing similar issues in terms of particularly ASD and salt. And I had a conversation with somebody else. I can't even remember who it was now, but we were talking about the impact of COVID where you get a diagnosis of autism or speech and language issues, which are then captured within a plan, but pre-COVID, those children would not have been in that place. And I just wonder whether actually we're over-diagnosing ASD and all the ed sites we're commissioning for this work actually starting to be cognizant of these sort of issues and certainly coming across some of the parents who will be pushing for that diagnosis and then will be pushing for an EHC plan. And three, four years ago, that just would not have been the case because the detriment for their child is actually quite low. But of course, the cost around putting a plan in place is very high. And it's not just the financial cost that Andrew is outlining. The cost within schools of supporting students is even more severe. There's a question really about the ASD and that the salt diagnosis and whether that's starting to be captured when we're getting requests for plans and how we're dealing with it. Do we have a plan going forward because it's clearly the biggest area that you're dealing with with new plans and surely, therefore, it's the biggest area where we need to push back and reduce the number of plans and support parents to make better decisions about how they support their children and how schools can better support them without the need for a plan. Thanks, Stuart. Corwin is going to respond to that. Thank you, Stuart. That's absolutely a really valid point and exactly the thinking that we have here is that if we can actually help schools, school staff, parents to better understand the support that a young person with ASD needs, then we can interact early and actually support that learning from the onset as opposed to leaving that young person to struggle and then getting to a stage where it feels like the only alternative is a plan. So the idea of the investment, sorry, did you want to come back? No, sorry, it was Oliver Teazle in the room with me and he was sneezing. Oh, bless you. So yes, the idea is that if we can really upskill our workforce around how to support young people with autism, and it's a whole school approach, so it's not going to be the Senko individually having this responsibility, it's a cultural change across the board. But it starts with our very early years and works its way through all of our settings and the idea then is that this push for a plan is hopefully eased and we've seen that over time or we hope to demonstrate that over time with the work that we're doing. So yeah, I'd also add to that, you've pushed an awful lot back into schools again with that statement and I do think parents would appreciate some support from a county level about how to support the child who has an ASD or ADHD is the other one, which is becoming really a daily conversational hat with parents about ADHD now. Yeah, now I completely agree and DBV focuses on three separate areas, the specialist teams is one and obviously the bigger part is a parental confidence and the parental confidence element is not just confidence within schools, it's about confidence within themselves to be able to support need early and effectively and know what the system actually can offer. So it works as a joined up piece of work, it's not any one single responsibility so while it might feel like there's a lot being pushed on schools, there's also quite a lot in the pipeline for the other two work streams around social care and parental support as well. And then on my final question is on extreme slide seven, I don't think we're able to put this slide seven back on. And this is really well linked with the work that we started with Andrew and the finance group because what this doesn't give any indication of is the relative costs of those different placements and I think that's a key part of if we're going to reduce the deficit, we need to know what these placements are costing and that would incentivize schools that are not already involved in keeping SCN students local to perhaps get more actively involved in the work that many of us are now doing with us as you've shown here with great success. So for example, those independent schools, there's only, I don't know, look 30 students in those independent schools, what is the cost of those 30 places versus the same cost of educating those students in a resource provision within the county? Stuart, I think that's a really important point you've raised there and if we're collectively going to address the financial issues that we're facing, I think if people have that information, I think it'll be a real stark reality check for everyone. So thank you for raising that. I don't know if anybody else has got any comments on what Stuart said. Is it possible to publish that information to schools for members? Yeah, and then I think the wider educational community that we should be advocating amongst. I think going up briefly back to the finance group, one of the questions has come up in schools for many, many times and I've raised it as well, which is about the funding for SCN support within schools and for example, the hourly rate that you get through banding in order to pay for teaching assistance and other support and we were talking in the finance group about how basically it's not enough money. But of course, if you were to increase those costs, that's going to make that deficit even more than it is currently and so the reason the information I just asked for is so important is if we want to keep more money in county to pay for both mainstream and resource provisions, the only way we will get more money is by reducing the cost that is flowing outwardly into the independent sector, which greater expense. And that's why I think that data is so, so critical so that when we have a request for increasing the hours, the hourly rate of a TA, we might actually be able to have a sensible conversation about that because we've made savings elsewhere. Yeah, I totally agree, Stuart, thank you. We've got a couple of questions in the room, so Fiona and then Craig. Thank you, Chair. This is an observation really, certainly in our school. There has been a significant increase in parents taking the lead and seeking private diagnoses and then putting in for the EHC plans themselves. And Craig. Just like to confirm everything Stuart said, I'm Fiona. So a couple of points to pick up. When we're looking at the cost of external provisions and things, that also includes all of the transport costs as well, which is significant. So when you factor in all these things, it costs a lot of money. When we think about the best interest of children as well, children with SCMH, I used to work in SCMH special, who then have to travel to 30 minutes an hour away, that's not the best for them either. So I guess a question is, are we considering not just expecting schools to increase their provisions, which are obviously successful, but what other things are we going to consider with that to reduce that because the best interest in the child? And just to reiterate Fiona's point and Stuart's as well, there is a massive push by parents. So I don't think it's necessarily about parent confidence in the schools. We post COVID, I'm sure we all agree with this, there's been a huge increase in parents, particularly coming off forums and things and they'll come into school and say, oh, I'm entitled to this, I can get this, I can get this. And I know I've certainly seen an increase in parents coming in and behaviours they see at home, which may be parenting not are being attributed to ADHD and ASD, which may or may not be, but Fiona says they're then pursuing the HCPs out of school and pushing this and pushing back on schools. Whereas there needs to be, I think, a huge thing on parent education and understanding this, and I think going back to Stuart's point with the Ed Sykes on their play at part in this and the liaison with parents. So it's not just parent confidence in schools, it's having that counter-wide approach to push back with parents to say, actually, these are things we need to look at. And it's not always provisioning schools, it can be parenting and all sorts of things like that. Steve, you've got a comment or a question? Yeah, it's more of a, I guess it's a question and observation as well. I was just wondering from a question perspective, if there's data that shows how many children wouldn't starting in the HCP have actually come off it within their primary and secondary school life. And the observation from that for me really is actually once the child is diagnosed or has an HCP given to them, I think the expectation, therefore, if the parent very quickly is, that's going to stick with them for their whole of their primary and secondary journey. And perhaps even with teachers themselves as well, actually, the understanding that for me, a plan is, if I was to be put on a support plan at work, it'd be something that would look to be to come off at some point to be able to actually show the outcomes and improvements on that. So I was just wondering if the actual process for the HCPs is fit for purpose to a point of the annual review, is that just going through the motions of actually looking at the concept of it, or actually, is the end goal for these children to be come off at some point if they're making progress? Thank you. That's a really, really pertinent question, Steve. If I could answer both Craig and your point together, it's only today that we were having our first parental meeting around creating an understanding of what the graduated approach is and what the ordinarily available provision is within Rutland. It's a piece of work that will actually really support that key line of understanding of what schools can offer and when and how you should really think about applying for a plan. And the evidence that the plan really requires, because at the moment, I think it is a point of the evidence element of it is perhaps weaker than it really should be, and the process of having that evidence to show progress really needs to be refined within our settings. So the work that we're currently starting, I really hope that will sort of help to answer those questions. But specifically around the process of an EHCP and having one for life effectively is something that really needs to be reconsidered, because if you go into hospital, the first thing you do is have a plan to get you out of hospital. And that's the way we need to start thinking about learning. An EHCP should enable you to access your learning, but once you've understood how to access it, there should be a process to help you enhance your learning. It shouldn't be something that remains static. And I think that's something that as an organisation, local authority, working with parents and schools, we could perhaps think away through. Okay, I'm going to thank everybody for their contributions, comments and questions. It's certainly a complex issue, isn't it? And we've touched on lots of national systemic issues, which aren't necessarily within our control. But I think we should be reassured that at a local level, we've got a lot of proactive, positive work going on through DBV, through the school support partnership, through a lot of the provisions that are happening in school and through the things like new projects like the finance subgroup, we are looking at this as a way of trying to be part of the solution. So lots of positive work going on locally in a very, very complex picture. So I'm just going to look around the room and on the screen to make sure there's no further comments before giving you the opportunity to finish off the calendar. Sorry, yes, I was just going to say, yeah, we can't forget Sue. Okay, so is this part where Sue is going to take a lead? So Sue, we hand over to you at this point. Good afternoon, thank you. Can I have a first slide please, Jane? Just a bit of background, I'm representing a collaboration working group, which is set up of parents, Rutler County Council. There was a school representative on the poll, and also it was led by an independent facilitator because parents and carers are as concerned about these issues as you guys, and we see things from a slightly different tack. The fundamental worry we had was that we want more of our children to stay in mainstream schools. They want to stay in mainstream schools, but at the moment too many of our children are turning to plans and special schools. So we decided the aim of the survey which we sent out was to try and understand life for our children and young people, and if there were any other ways that we could support and improve them. The survey for the parents which we sent out was co-produced to gain a wider feedback from not just send families, but non-send families too. It was just aimed at Rutland mainstream schools, and it was sent out, unfortunately, just prior to the Easter holidays. It was promoted through Rutland County Council, a Rutland Parent Care Forum, which I'm a member of, and from the school's forum chair. Not all schools did send it out, unfortunately, but we appreciate that it was the last week of term and everybody was really busy, but there was a good coverage of school and the responses we had back because of our push through our social media channels, and we did have responses from 99% of the schools. We received 63 responses. We would have liked more, but there were very clear themes even with just 63 responses. The positives, and it's not bash the scores at all. It was really positive. All children and young people send and nonsense had that the most important thing to them about school was friendships and how important that was to make them happy. Parents also recognised that was a really good practice within the schools, and they could see it happening, and members of staff were very compassionate. They knew who to go to if they needed that nurturing. There was a good community feel. There were praise and rewards from the school, which were really important to children and young people, and they celebrated differences, which, again, I think is really important. Parents embraced the fact that every school tried to give extra opportunities, both after school and at lunchtime, and most schools made sensory adjustments, and there was a flexible approach to things like quiet areas, wobble cushions, uniform adjustments, and headphones, and these things mean an awful lot to the ASD community, and it helps keep children within our mainstream schools, often these issues and difficulties arise from these sensory issues. Parents are all aware, but especially send parents are very aware of the school's behaviour policy. Many parents were confident that their children's learning needs were being met in school, and many felt that the communication between home and school was very good. Next slide, please. Development opportunity is raised through the survey, and we are keen to look at these as a collaborative, and we're still continuing to meet to see what small changes we can make to make a big difference to more children. A key message to actually send and non-send children is that a high proportion of them felt that they were being bullied at school, but more importantly, I think, not feeling that they are understood, and also they are unhappy that other children don't understand their differences, so I think that's something that is really quite key and can be amended quite easily. So it's not just key training for the staff, but it's also training to our pupils to embrace change amongst themselves. Understanding sensory needs, masking especially, is another very high thing where parents can see differences in school and hallways and the environment. These are two big things, and staff need to understand trauma and masking before they start to step in and put any help in place. If you don't understand trauma and masking, then the additional add-ons don't really make any difference. Finally, the other thing, and I'm sure the survey is going to be sent out, finally, the behaviour policy. The send parents found that it didn't work for their children, because they had sent, so there was almost a two-way system with a behaviour policy, so those send parents didn't like most of the school's behaviour policies. Thank you. Thank you, Sue, for presenting that. Have we got any comments or questions from group members, either in the room or online? Well, I met with Sue and Corwin during preparation for this meeting, and they talked me through the process that Sue's just explained, and I think it would be really good for that survey to be available to schools, because if schools would like to send that out to just their school community, it will provide some really rich feedback, so we can make that available to all schools again. Absolutely, yes. I mean, the last slide really was to say we'd like to really work together with yourselves and offer that survey out, and just to reassure you that, you know, we've got the advisors for teaching and learning for send really sort of hitting the floor running to sort of support where they can. And how would you like those messages, because it's important that it's been raised at this forum, how would you like those key messages going out to the wider school community in Rutland, so it's not just us who are hearing it? That's a really good point, is there any suggestions? I mean, other than... I mean, one of the things is we always send out the minutes from schools forum. We make sure that these get sent out to all schools anyway, but I don't think there's any reason why we can't do a pre-see, a briefing for schools, and earlier settings, because actually we need to, you know, not just think about schools, about some of the feedback from this. But I do think promoting because, you know, that's 63 parents, which is a good, you know, it's good, but actually we could do, you know, it'd be quite good if we could get a bit in a much bigger representative, because of the feedback from that would be really powerful. And I do think as well, actually, when we get the chance, would be to get some pupil voice on this as well, because, you know, this is parental feeling of, and you know, as parents, we can be sometimes very precious about how we feel our children are behaving at school, and to get that child's voice as well would be really strong within this. So I think that was something that we talked about as well, building this, feeling through. Okay, so can we take that as an action that that would be sent out to all schools? Can I suggest that it's a discrete communication and it's not lost within a wider educational update? They won't go in the bulletin. Okay, thank you so much, Sue. I think we're ready to move on to item six, but as far as I'm aware, we haven't got Lucy in our online meeting, so I'm not sure that we can cover this agenda item unless anybody corrects me. Have you had apologies, Jane, because I know Lucy's not online at the moment, so. Thank you, Jill. Now, we haven't received any apologies from Lucy, and she's not joining us online, either. Okay, so we'll push through item six and on to item seven, which is usual, pupil place planning. Sorry, I keep putting teacher voice on, and I forget I need the microphone. So secondary school admissions for September, really good position that all the children have been offered a place at a preferred school, which is a great position for it to be. Some schools oversubscribed. This data is now over a month. Well, no, it's not quite. It isn't nearly a month out of date, and since then, I know there's been some movement, but we're still in a very positive position with some capacity still within across our secondary sector. And then anyone got any questions about secondary places? And again, the same, a similar picture for Rutland Primary Schools, a greater capacity across our primary school sector. So whilst we do have one or two schools that are oversubscribed, within their areas, we have schools that are not yet subscribed, fully subscribed. So in terms of capacity in primary school, there is no issues at all, continues to be the pressure in the secondary school sector. But nothing significant to report at this time, other than thank you to the admissions service and to parents for getting their admissions on time. Thank you, Jill. Just give colleagues in the room an online the opportunity to respond to that or ask questions. Okay, it's you again, Jill, for the rules, item 8. Yes, it's an annual review of the Constitution and the rules of conduct. So basically, there's been some minor adjustments this year, but only literally in updating numbers. So if, but if anybody would like to make any comment on it, as long as I've got any recommendations before the 5th of July, because we have to have it in place prior to the start of next year's school's forum round. So I don't think there was anything significant this time. We did a major overhaul of it a couple of years ago. And so as I say, it really was just the number of children in schools. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Just to raise a point that myself, I'm there as the special school representative, but come September, there won't be any special schools because, unfortunately, the part school is closing. So we'll need to factor that into the Constitution moving forward. Thank you, Steve. That is a good point. And I think that is something that we may need to consider, because, as you say, we don't actually have, we will no longer have from August the 31st, a special school as such within the state-funded sector in Rutland. So I just suggest that, because we do have a number of DSPs though, which act as special schools in a fact of what got to those interests and his suggestion. That was, I was just going to put forward, Stuart, was we therefore will have a, in effect, a vacancy within our membership structure. So do we go to that as just being another, which, because we have to keep the ratio of schools to non-schools, that to keep the ratio that we would want either to have, do we want a DSP, ERP additional resource representative, or do we have another, because we'll have the maintained school representation from you, from yourselves over in St. Mary and St. John. So do we, and this is something that perhaps is worth considering before the 5th of July, and I'm, you know, I'm happy to go with whatever we think is the best option, is do we just have an academy, another academy representative, but that we adjust our constitution to reflect that academies who have ERP's DSPs, or do we have a, whilst it isn't in the good practice guidance, and isn't a special school as such, do we have a representative who is champion, flying the flag for the DSP additional resource approach? I, I'm happy with, with suggestions. So Stuart, from your point of view, was there something that you felt preferable? Well, I just think that given the conversations we've just had about SCND's children, and the need to support them, they would be very remiss of us, not to ensure that a school that is passionate about inclusion isn't speaking in the school's forum, and making sure their voices heard. And there's a number of us now who run about the academies and run special provisions, but I think there should be somebody who runs a special provision who will take that voice either from primary or secondary, I have no strong view on that, that will bring their voice into this forum. Yeah, I would be happy for us to do that. So if we could just get comments to Jill that are either in support of that, or alternative suggestions by the 5th of July, is that the deadline that you're working to? I totally agree with the comments that have been made, I think it would be really good for us to have additional representation, especially with the parks closing. Right, where does that leave us? I think now that moves us on to the work. Sorry, Chair, there's just one other item, nominations for next year's Chair and Vice Chair, if anybody would like, to be in the role of Chair and Vice Chair for next year, if they could let me know, and then if there's any nominations, we can then hold a vote. Thank you, Chair. Jane, what deadline are you working towards there? By, if they can do it by the end of this school year, and then we're ready for September, that'll be fantastic. Right, okay, work plan, which doesn't have anybody's name attached to it, so if we could... Oh, the membership. 8A, then, membership, sorry, Jill, I cut you off, still your item. If you'd like to go through 8A. I'm used to it, Ben, don't worry. I was just quickly going through thinking, what was it doing, yes. Well, that sort of links through into what Steve sort of preempted, I think it will blame Steve. So, it was really just about the proposed schools for and representation. So, I think, based on the discussion we've just had, rather than approving it as it stands, is what we take that through as we've just discussed, and just to check. But just please, please, there is a big call out. We desperately need a Governor representative. Academies all may... Well, actually, can't be maintained because they can't have the same representation from the... We can't have two representations from the same school, so it will have to be an academy Governor. But please, please, can I put out... So, if it can't be anyone who's currently in here, because we can't have two representatives from the same school, unless we agree that that is the case. If we can put out a plea to our colleagues, that if there is a Governor, it would be really valuable to have on board. Okay, I think we can safely move on to item nine now, which is the work plan for next year, which is on page 41 of the PAC. I've identified one typo in December, which is just to do with the school year, which I've made Jane aware of. But I also wondered, and finance colleagues will correct me if I'm wrong here. Does that decision about the 0.5% transfer need to happen in September of the December at schools forum? Yes, ideally it would. It can take place in December, but it will be far better in September. Okay, if everyone's in agreement, then I'm going to suggest that we move that in the work plan from the December meeting to the September one. I'm just going to look around the room and then on the screen to see if anybody disagrees with that. Okay, nothing there, so let's do that. Any other comments on the work plan? Okay, I think we can move on. I've not had any other urgent business raised with me, Jane has anything come through to you. So I'm just going to take a scan around the room and on the screen to see if there's anything else anybody wants to raise for us to discuss. No meeting dates for the following year. Thank you, Chair. The dates and times for the next round of schools forum meetings will be confirmed at annual council on the 20th of May. Once that's been confirmed, I will be sending out all the details and calendar invites. Right, okay. Thank you very much. I think that draws our meeting to a close. Thank you all for your attendance and participation and enjoy the rest of the sunshine. Meeting closed at 1704. Thank you. a lot of you. a lot of you. [BLANK_AUDIO]