Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Director, Education (Tameside and Stockport), Assistant Director, Finance and Assistant Director, People and Workforce Development

Consideration was given to a report of the Assistant Director of Finance, Assistant Director of People and Workforce development and Director of Education (Tameside and Stockport).  The report provided information for Members on the de-delegation of services and Risk Protection Arrangement (RPA) for 2022-23.

 

Members were advised that, historically, the Council had offered Tameside schools access to the services of recognised local trade union and professional association officials, through the annual purchase of a Trade Union Support Service Level Agreement (SLA).  It was explained that maintained schools, initially, had access to this offer funded through de-delegation but that this offer was also available on a buy-back basis to all academies and special schools.

 

The trade unions presently recognised, which form part of this offer, were outlined, including:

Teaching staff:

·       ASCL

·       NAHT

·       NASUWT

·      NEU

Support staff:

·       GMB

·       UNISON

·       UNITE

 

Members were advised that purchase of this trade union support would enable the delivery of statutory obligations and a number of benefits that could be achieved through effective collaboration between school leaders/governors and local trade union representatives were outlined.  These included:

·       achieving smooth, speedy and effective management of change;

·       support with school reorganisation plans and implementation of employment related policies and procedures for school-based staff; 

·       support for staff wellbeing and;

·       support and expertise in employment related matters at a local level.

 

It was stated that take up of this service in recent years had reduced and for 2020-21 there had been 37 of 98 Tameside schools.  Concerns, which had been previously raised by school leaders in relation to this service were outlined as follows:

·         its value for money, within the context of school leaders being aware of lower ‘per pupil rates’ across other Councils;

·         the transparency of actual trade union duties being delivered directly to schools and staff;

·         the difference of service provision from a local full time official versus a school based shop steward;

·         how the SLA offer aligns to the DfE document ‘Advice on trade union facility time’, January 2014, more specifically the statement that ‘All union representatives who receive facility time to represent members employed in schools should spend the majority of their working hours carrying out their main duties as school employees’    and;

·         whether the existing Facilities Agreements remain fit for purpose due to their longevity.

 

In response to these concerns, Members were informed that much discussion and work had been undertaken, throughout the year, with the aim of seeking a resolution and increasing support, value and buy-in from schools.  A brief outline actions, which the Council had taken to try and alleviate these concerns was provided, which  included:

·       A review of the existing Facilities Agreements with regional trade unions officials, ensuring clearer transparency and accountability of facilities time and activities undertaken on behalf of schools.  The revised agreements are to be implemented by the Council from January 2022.

 

·       A change to the methodology of the charging regime for schools in relation to non-teaching staff local trade union representatives, resulting in a reduced ‘per pupil’ cost for schools.

 

·       Commitment to introducing a different delivery model for the supply of teaching staff local trade union representatives and their facilities time, introduced on a transitional basis over the next two financial years.  The Council will work with relevant stakeholders including school leader representatives on developing the new delivery model, with the revised model to be fully operational by April 2024. 

 

This revised delivery model is in response to the request of school leaders to move towards teaching staff local trade union representatives being employed within schools and allocated facility time as part of their normal teaching working week, to undertake trade union duties on a part time basis, funded through a pooled arrangement.

 

The rationale for this preferred model of delivery is it fully supports the concept that teaching staff should remain active in the school setting and have current classroom practice so not losing their valuable teaching skills and experience.  Regional teaching staff trade union representatives also endorse this preferred model of delivery.

 

·       A presentation delivered to school leaders/governors to advise in greater detail the rationale behind actions taken to date by the Council and the future plans, in response to school leaders concerns and future plans.

 

Members were informed that, following feedback from school leaders and regional non-teaching trade union representatives, the Council had adapted its charging regime for this service and a new charging regime had enabled a significantly reduced  ‘per pupil’ rate for the financial year 2022-23 of £4.80, as opposed to the previous 2021-22 charge rate of £6.13.

 

It was confirmed that this service would also remain available to purchase by academy and special schools and noted that the more schools that buy in, the greater the reduction in the ‘per pupil’ rate.  This was illustrated with an example of a buy in from 98 schools, where the ‘per pupil’ cost would reduce to less than £3.50 for 2022-23.

 

It was emphasised that the vote to de-delegate was fully endorsed by the Council’s Director of Education and national trade union representatives.  In addition, written representations, which had previously been circulated to school leaders and Council representatives, were provided for Members.

 

Members were made aware that, should all of these actions and plans still not achieve the required level of buy-in to enable full cost recovery, then ,due to the present financial position of the Council, a full review of this service offer to schools would need to be undertaken.

 

The purpose of the Contingency budget was outlined for Members, who were advised that this had been established to support those schools facing a deficit budget position or to support the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) against any future pressures, for example, where schools were closing or forced to convert to an academy, which would leave a deficit balance.

 

Members were advised that the de-delegation rate for Contingency for 2022-23 would remain at £5.81 per pupil and agreement was sought from both primary and secondary sectors to de-delegate.  It was noted that, if both sectors chose to contribute, this would result in the following contribution to Contingency (based on October 2021 census data):

·        Mainstream Primary Maintained Schools - £67k

·      Mainstream Secondary Maintained Schools - £33k

 

Previous requests made the Contingency Fund during 2021-22 were outlined for Members and balances in Contingency contributions were provided, which totalled £166,020.42 and would be carried forwards.  Members were also advised that a maximum level of the fund had previously been agreed and set at £424,000 (June 2021) for both sectors. 

 

Members were informed that the DfE had proposed to remove the School Improvement and Brokeridge Grant, which the Local Authority currently receives from DfE of £231,000 to support statutory school improvement functions.  It was stated that, in 2022-23, the Council would receive transitional funding of 50%.  Therefore, it was advised that de-delegation of schools funding to support the remaining 50% of ongoing statutory functions activity cost was sought.

 

It was confirmed that DfE consultation had been undertaken and a link to this was provided.  A formal response had been submitted to the DfE in response to this proposal, which highlighted the following concerns:

·      Although formal powers of intervention had not been used a great deal, the grant is used to meet needs before schools reach this critical point of failure and therefore monies are used to support schools to prevent them from failing children before being eligible for intervention.

·      School improvement activity in Tameside is not limited to maintained schools only, support is provided to academy schools too.  Removal of this grant and funding would remove the ability to support the whole sector and be detrimental to the whole Education offer in Tameside.

·      De-delegation would present an uneven playing field between MAT’s and maintained schools, MATs do not need to seek permission of schools to top slice school budgets to provide improvement support.

·      Removal of this central government grant to fund school improvement functions is transferring the cost and applying more pressure to the schools block funding of the DSG.

·      The timeline for the change makes decision making and informed consultation very difficult.

 

Members were informed that the outcome of this consultation had been released on 11 January and it had now been confirmed that the grant would be cut.

 

As previously explained, it was noted that DfE would provide a supplementary grant to schools, alongside the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), in order to support the new Health and Social Care Levy and wider costs.  However, concerns were raised in relation to the Schools Improvement Service’s ability to deliver its statutory functions without the grant and, therefore, the importance of these de-delegation contributions for 2022-23 was emphasised. 

 

Members were made aware that the cost of Schools Improvement for 2022-23 would be £6.12 per pupil and it was explained that this would at least double in 2023-24, as the LA would receive 50% transitional grant in 2022-23.  However, it was noted that the cost of the service would need to be de-delegated in full from schools in 2023-24. 

 

With regard to the Risk Protection Arrangement (RPA), it was confirmed that, where schools had previously opted in to this arrangement (2021-22), membership would continue on an ongoing basis.  Members were also advised that, should a school choose to opt out of this arrangement, they would need to make their own Risk protections arrangements going forwards.  It was noted that the cost of RPA for 2022-23 was £21 per pupil.

 

In advance of the Schools Forum voting on de-delegation, some Members of Forum explained that there had been detailed discussion with regard to de-delegation of services amongst school leaders.  It was noted that a great deal of information had been considered by headteachers and that a consultation had taken place amongst primary school colleagues to canvas views, with a high response rate of 88%. 

 

With regard to the de-delegation of trade union support for primary headteachers, it was stated that the consultation found 67% of participants did not support the de-delegation of this service and 70% of participants did not support de-delegation for Contingency. The sectors requested the pots remained separate.

 

With regard to Schools Improvement, it was noted that a group discussion amongst headteachers had taken place and a letter had been shared to canvas views.  Following this, it was noted that   Schools Forum Members were satisfied that headteachers had been given an opportunity to provide responses and the view was that they would be in agreement to support School Improvement. 

 

Academy schools also voice their support of the work done at Tameside and were supportive of a contribution from that sector too recognising the cohesive approach that was taken by Tameside School Improvement service to support all schools and Academies in the borough.

 

RESOLVED

(i)         That the contents of the report and change in rate of the RPA scheme be noted.

(ii)        That de-delegation of trade union support for Maintained Primary Schools be rejected.

(iii)      That de-delegation to the Contingency Fund for Maintained Primary Schools be rejected.

(iv)      That de-delegation of Schools Improvement funding for Maintained Primary Schools be approved. 

(v)       That de-delegation of trade union support for Maintained Secondary Schools be approved.

(vi)      That de-delegation to the Contingency Fund for Maintained Secondary Schools be approved.

(vii)    That de-delegation of Schools Improvement funding for Maintained Secondary Schools be approved.