Meeting documents

Return to Agenda

ITEM CH7

CHILDREN’S SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 23 MAY 2006

CHARGING IN SCHOOLS – TO EXAMINE CHARGING POLICIES FOR ACTIVITIES IN SCHOOLS

This topic was included in the Work Programme in the Autumn committee cycle 2005. The Lead Group on this activity comprised Cllrs Mrs Anda Fitzgerald O’ Connor, Keith Stone, Mrs Sue Matthew and Mrs Carole Thomson. It is intended that the topic will be scrutinised by way of a planned "select committee" style session on 23^rd May.

(Annex 1 - Letter to Headteachers & Chairs of Governors re-Charging in schools - download as .pdf file)

(Annex 2 - Model Policy on Charging for and Remissions for School Activities - download as .pdf file)

(Annex 3 - Charging Policy - Summary for Parents - download as .pdf file)

(Annex 4 - Charging for School Trips - Research Report - Version 2 - download as .pdf file)

Background

There has been no fundamental change in the law, policy and principles applicable to charging in schools since 1988. However, the benefits system has changed during that time and there have been problems surrounding schools’ practices. Recent guidance issued to schools confirmed what has been the case for a long time and is as contained in legislation (1996 Education Act).

This recent guidance exercise by the LEA was prompted by survey outcomes from the Oxford City Poverty Action Group. In parallel, the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee was addressed by the Abingdon Citizen’s Advice Bureau on behalf of local parents, about the charges for extra-curricular activities and the broader issue of the costs to parents of their children fully participating in all schools’ activities. Elsewhere, Members will have a copy of the minutes of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee on 27^th Sept, but the extract here gives the essence of the minutes and the current situation:

 "….every child in England had the right to a free state education. School had the potential to provide all children with opportunities to learn, make friends and participate in activities regardless of family income. At this key point intervention was possible to shield children from the effects of living in poverty – but when families were asked for money to pay for uniforms, activities, school trips and classroom materials, meeting those costs could cause hardship. All children should be able to participate fully in school life, but not having the money to buy the correct uniform, participate in extra-curricular activities or go on school trips could leave them unable to fulfil their full potential, mark them out as being ‘poor’, and lead to them becoming isolated within school.

(It was) added that as a result of concerns raised about the financial burden faced by families in sending their children to school, by the Citizens’ Advice Bureau and other organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group and the Family Welfare Association, the Department for Education and Skills had commissioned research to investigate the range and amount of costs, what burden they placed on families, and what happened if they were unable to pay and whether inability to pay affected social inclusion in schools.

The findings had shown that the average cost of sending a child to secondary school was £948.11 and £563.15 for primary school. "

The Current Position

The position on charging is broadly as set out in some earlier e-mail correspondence with Members and officers, ie "Principles concerning charging and particularly regarding those in receipt of certain benefits: the (1996 Act) legislation requires schools to have a charging policy in place for certain curricular activities. In practice, some schools (for whatever reasons) have decided not to comply with the law and have made charges for activities that they are not permitted to charge for and/or they have not made it sufficiently clear that they "(cannot compel parents to make) voluntary contributions in particular circumstances."

The relevant legislation states that schools cannot charge for most extra activities (usually school trips and similar) that relate to the curriculum; but, they may ask for voluntary contributions to fund such activities without parents being under any obligation to contribute. The basic problem is that schools charge when they are not permitted to do so, or do so inadvertently.

Early on in the development of Local Management of Schools (1988), a great deal of training was provided to governors around school charging policy. Clearly it would have made sense and would still do, if this was and is extended to diocesan schools’ governors.

The dilemma faced is that on the one hand schools, parents and the LEA want children to have all the opportunities that can be available to them during their education – ie to maximise equal access and inclusion. But the opportunities, particularly off-site, cost money and schools have to be able to afford them. The critical issue is how schools go about asking for contributions. Schools cannot enforce charging for school trips; they can ask for voluntary contributions but must be unambiguous in the language used so that no child is dis-benefited if he/she participates in the activity and the parents/guardians have not made a voluntary contribution.

Experience shows that where charges have been requested and made, they have not been "respecters of geographical area".

The current Fair Funding Formula includes (as part of the money apportioned to schools) a "social deprivation factor". This is currently £104,000 per year and ranges in practice, from £19 for a small nursery to £500 for a large primary school. It is a sub-set of the Special Needs Index. However, it is questionable to what extent the schools use the money for the purpose that it is intended for. Early on in Local Management of Schools, a small amount of money had also been retained at the centre for the purpose of subsidizing school trips etc. There is a small allowance to education social workers to allocate as a "clothing grant".

The problem so far as the local authority is concerned, is that there simply isn’t the capacity to monitor how schools are charging or asking for contributions. If alerted to a particular school that is not applying the policy or misapplying it, then the school’s attention can be drawn to this and supporting guidance.

There is no duty on schools to allow the County Council to receive their charging policies.

Process

The Lead Member Group has agreed that representatives of various agencies and stakeholders should be invited on 23^rd May to respond to the Committee's questions on requests for contributions and charging by schools within their sectors.  The thought behind this is that there is probably just a small number of schools that are not applying charging policy correctly but this is difficult to monitor as for various reasons, the schools are not brought to the LEA’s attention.

Looking forward and indeed beyond the select committee session, this scrutiny exercise may prompt ways of sharing good practice and ideas for promoting and funding extra-curricular trips. Answers to questions around these issues may form the basis for tentative recommendations.  Furthermore, the process can aim to make sure that schools are aware that there are creative ways of funding such activities. 

The Lead Group considers that the Committee may be able to recommend that an area of the Internet is set aside for the community and businesses to suggest ideas about ways to fund school trips.  This suggestion could be the basis for a question to be posed to each witness called to the Committee to answer questions.

In essence, this topic revolves around good communication; the activity - the select committee which will provide a public forum and generate media and community interest is concerned with drawing the prevalent issues to the attention of the widest audience and at increasing understanding among all stakeholders; in schools, giving plenty of notice, timings and detail about school visits and activities is critical and is a communications issue too.  The Group is of the view that there is a need for greater communication and creativity around charging activities.  Curriculum enhancement ought to be an exciting area for everyone involved and this scrutiny activity can highlight this.  Potentially, the scrutiny process could make recommendations about the allocation of resources and alternative ideas for activities that schools are not allowed to charge for.

In terms of possible recommendations for the future arising from this exercise, the Lead Group has in mind that an article in "The Oxfordshire Governor" could provide a reminder of the law and policy concerning charging.  So far as the Committee is concerned, the fundamental question to ask is: "What else can we be doing to ensure the operation of a fair and open charging policy?" In this respect, the Group is interested in why it has not been possible to monitor the charging anomalies in policy and practice.  In crude terms the Lead Group understands that it is because the LEA does not have the capacity to do so. Nevertheless, if the LEA is made aware of where there are problems, something can be done on an individual schools basis. The Scrutiny Committee may be able to highlight this.

In terms of process, it is critical that the Group uses the feedback from the recent Citizen's Panel questions on charging for school trips. This will (a) provide suggestions about who the Committee might wish to question and (b) inform the questions that the Committee asks to gather its evidence and inform its recommendations.

Commentary

The Lead Member Group understands that there is a much larger social deprivation element in the special needs index than has been reported. 30% of the main SEN index is based on social deprivation. Therefore, it may be useful for the Committee to ask some questions in order to understand the history around this. The Council has responded to criticism for not having a separate deprivation element so a small allocation (now £104,000 presumably) was added in as a separate element.

The Lead Group’s understanding is that from April 2006 the intention is to make the SEN index more transparent by publishing three elements (deprivation based on postcodes of pupils actually on roll - 30%, school assessment of SEN from the SEN registers - 30%, and attainment based on key stage 1 & 2 results, 40%) that make it up as separate figures so that schools can check their allocations. This will help to show just how much some schools are getting for social deprivation. The separation of the postcode element to be headed as a deprivation allocation may help to counter the argument that schools cannot afford to subsidise activities?

It is also understood that work has been undertaken in the Children Young People & Families Directorate to " unpick" the SEN index recently. In connection with the delegation of the statementing budget it may now be possible to show how much schools get for deprivation. And the Committee may wish to ask questions with a view to explanation of the deprivation allocation to schools.

The Committee may also wish to ask whether it is possible to add into the Directorate’s budget planning spreadsheet, a line for subsidies for school trips and similar activities. This would enable the authority to monitor at least what is notionally being allocated. It might also be possible to introduce a special code for this that would enable it to be separated out in terms of expenditure.

When this background note refers, below, to looking at ways of accessing support from local businesses and in terms of asking "what else can be done?", the Committee should be aware that there is a charitable trust, the Oxfordshire Outdoor Learning Trust that tries to enable children to attend outdoor residential school trips and who might otherwise be prevented from doing so due to their economic circumstances.  A representative of the Trust will be attending this meeting among the invited people, to answer questions relating to its purpose and to ways that provision might be improved.

We have recently received the outcomes of the Citizen’s Panel questionnaire on charging for school trips. A detailed report has been circulated as background to the agenda papers for the Committee. It is expected that this will help to inform the questions that Members may wish to ask witnesses who are being invited to the meeting.

Clarification of current position on charging

This can be summarised as follows:

"Witnesses" to be called

The expert witnesses to be invited to the Committee meeting include:

John Mitchell – Education Officer – who will make a statement on guidance, policy and practice relating to this topic (and colleagues from the Children, Young People & Families Directorate, if appropriate).

Representatives of Head Teachers in the Primary and Secondary Sector - Vicky Paton (Acting Deputy Headteacher) Rose Hill Primary School, Oxford; Dominic Ward – (A Deputy Headteacher at Gosford Hill, School, Kidlington).

Cllr Michael Waine – Cabinet Member for Schools Improvement.

Frank Newhofer – Chairman of a School Governing Body.

Mr Michael Hocken (on behalf of Abingdon Citizen’s Advice Bureau).

Consultation Officer (James Lawrence) in relation to recent the Citizen’s Panel charging for school trips outcomes.

Simon Adams – Senior Education Officer.

Representative of the Oxfordshire Outdoor Learning Trust

Lines of Enquiry

These may include:

• The law, policy, guidance and practice – to be preceded by a brief presentation of the pertinent issues and by circulation of the current policy with committee papers (see background papers circulated with the agenda).
• Ways of sharing and promoting good practice.
• The Intra/Internet – capacity for business and community suggestions.
• Actions to highlight problem activities and schools.
• Resource and monitoring issues.
• Issues of fairness, equity around charging; "what else can we be doing to ensure the operation of a fair and open charging policy?".
• Creative thinking and publicity about charging for extra curricular activities.
• SEN and social deprivation index.
• The outcomes of the Citizen’s Panel survey on Charging for School trips (March 2006).

The Scrutiny Review Officer was asked to draft some lines of enquiry that the Committee may be minded to ask questions around on the 23rd May, and that these should be available to and discussed with the likely "expert witnesses" well before the meeting.

Circulated documents - Citizen’s Panel Report on Charging for School Trips.

LEA guidance and policy on charging.

Return to TOP