• Google Search
  • Google Translate
Home Page
Trust Link

16th March

Front Lawn Primary Academy


Broadmere Avenue, Leigh Park, Havant, Hampshire, PO9 5HX

Telephone: 023 9247 5904



Minutes of the Local Committee Meeting 16.03.17


PRESENT:                Kirsty Ballantyne (KB) – from item 8
Belinda Clack (BC) – from 1.10pm

                                    Geoff Conway

Kate Couldwell (KC) – Head of School, Lower School – from 1.30pm
 Lainey Franks (LF) - Chair                               
Janette McClintock (JMcC) – Head of School, Upper School
James Munt (JM) – Executive Head

                                    Pete Neville (PN) – from item 8


IN ATTENDANCE:    Helen Evison - Clerk

                                     Hilary Street (HS) – Business Manager – from 1.10-1.30pm

                                 Kirsty Ballantyne (KB) – items 1-7 (appointed item 8 – see above)

                                 Pete Neville (PN) – items 1-7 (appointed item 8 – see above)


APOLOGIES:            Barbara Batey (BB)
Maisie Rudkin (MR)


The meeting opened at 1.05pm




Introductions were made and potential governors KB and PN welcomed.

Lainey Franks, Vice-Chair of the outgoing LGB of Front Lawn was elected as Chair of the Front Lawn Local Committee (LC) until the first LC meeting of the autumn term 2017.



Apologies were received from MR and BB.                                                                                            



Governors noted the standing declarations:

- JM is also Executive Head at Portfield and Seal Primary Academies.

- BC is an employee of TKAT corporate and a governor at Havant Academy.

- HE clerks at other TKAT, SCC and HCC schools.

- GC is Chair of the LGBs of TKAT South and Bridgemary School.

 No interest was declared in any interest in specific agenda item.


It was agreed to take agenda item 8, the Financial Update, next.

1.10pm BC and HS joined the meeting



HS distributed copies of the financial monitoring report for Period 6, refer Att1, and summarised key differences from budget. NB: This report shows in-year income and expenditure only.  HS explained that this report was from a new system and she did not believe that all costs were correctly allocated; she would work to resolve queries.


- The nursery was expected to be £172,000 for 16/17 (budget £150,000) and more again in 2017/18.

- Pupil Premium was over £200,000 (budget £193,000)

- inter-academy charges were expected to total less than budgeted and were £83,000 at present , although this was expected to increase (budget £106,000)

Cost pressures

- TKAT’s requirement to maintain a surplus of 7.5% (approx. £150,000)

Q: LF asked whether the surpluses were pooled and whether the school could use these funds.

A: The funds were not pooled; the school was simply required to hold them; theoretically they could be spent.  HS explained that the ESG (Educational Support Grant) was no longer to be paid and that the CCC (Central Cost Charge) % was to increase so the school was expecting to be £40,000 less well-off in 2017/18.  JM added that he anticipated that the CCC arising from funded places in the nursery this year would be refunded to the school as the CCC was not levied on the payments received from parents that paid for nursery care themselves.

Q: KB asked whether the school limited the number of funded places.

A: JM said no, the school would take as many children as possible.

- staffing costs were being managed by moving to only one TA per year group and non-replacement of leavers

- the national minimum wage and living wage had increased support staff costs

- supply costs were over-budget

Q: GC asked whether the pressure on supply staff costs was due to seasonal factors or whether it was long term.

A: JM explained that costs looked high as an extra member of staff had been charged to supply; they had now left the school.

Q: LF asked whether it was correct that ‘other staff costs’ were zero.

A: HS explained that the bulk of the budget against this cost centre was to fund the Local Government Pension Scheme deficit and the Apprenticeship Levy.  These charges would come through as lump sums later in the year.

Q: LF asked what factors might drive the school in to deficit.

A: HS said that reduction of income for 2017/18 was the main factor; the first draft budget for 2017/18 was to be submitted by 24th March.

Governors thanked HS.

1.30pm HS left the meeting and KC joined the meeting


 MINUTES OF THE LGB OF 5th DECEMBER 2016                                                           

The minutes of the LGB meeting of 5th December 2016 were agreed as accurate record and signed by the Chair.



- Response from parents in respect of governors’ vacancies had been positive; two potential candidates were at the meeting; others had expressed an interest and LF knew of another candidate.

- HS had updated Edubase

- JM circulated copies of the Action Plan, Attachment 2, and explained that this was in three sections (1) actions in response to last year’s data (2) key long term improvements to get to outstanding and (3) Outreach Support and Appendices indicating ‘What Excellence Looks Like’ (WELL).

Q: LF asked whether part 3 was long term.

A: JM said that the school was already accredited for various sorts of training and that they had applied for Teaching School status and expected to hear soon.  Also JM had applied to become a National Leader of Education.

Q: KB asked whether more information was available about the Google/Chromebook line.

A: JM said that this was expected to be one day per week.

Q: GC said that he liked the format as it was accessible and asked whether deadlines might be added in to section 1.

A: JM said yes; they were on the short term action plan and could be added here.                                                                                                  ACTION: JM

Q: BC asked how the Action Plan related to the Dashboard.

A: JM said yes, the ‘milestones’ linked.

It was agreed that the Action Plan would be a standing agenda item.


- JM reported that the internal audit had gone well; all findings were ‘green’ apart from a single ‘amber’ as one post-school-trip report had not been signed off.

Thanks and congratulations to HS.



Further to the draft minutes and papers distributed with the agenda GC explained that TKAT South was a federated organisation incorporating Portfield, Seal and Front Lawn Primary academies.  TKAT South had a single, integrated Local Governing Body (LGB); all governors on each individual school’s Local Committee (LC) were also members of the LGB.  The full LGB would probably meet only once each year to deal with general administrative and constitutional issues.  The Local Committees would each meet at least termly and monitor each school’s progress on the path to outstanding.  In addition to the individual school LCs and the overall LGB there was an Executive Committee (EC) to co-ordinate between the schools.  Each LC was to nominate two non-staff representatives to the EC, see below.



• HE confirmed that all existing Front Lawn governors had been appointed as governors of TKAT South and started new terms of office with effect from the inaugural meeting on 28th Feb 2017.

Constitution of the LC was:

Heads of School (ex-officio)               2   (JMcC & KC)

Elected Staff governor                       1    (BB)

Elected Parent governor                    1    (MR)

LC appointed                                     6    (BC & LF)

Executive Head (ex-officio)                1    (JM)

Chair of EC (ex-officio)                      1     (GC)


Total (max)                                        12


• KB and PN confirmed that they wished to join the LC.  Governors present agreed their appointment as LC-appointed members with immediate effect leaving 2 LC appointed vacancies.  Governors discussed the skills required.  JM highlighted knowledge of the area.  GC said that he was happy to talk to people to explain what being a governor was about; he was looking for people who were passionate about the school and would hold the Headteacher(s) to account.  It was agreed that it would be helpful for GC to meet with prospective governors.

• GC explained that, as mentioned in 7 above, two governors from Front Lawn LC were to be nominated to sit on the Executive Committee.  It was agreed that:

- LF would sit on the EC, however she was unable to go to the planned meeting on 3rd April

- LF would liaise with MR to see whether she wished to remain on the LC and, if so, whether she wished to sit on the EC.                                           ACTION: LF

Further it was agreed that KB and, subject to work commitments, PN would also represent Front Lawn at the EC meeting on 3rd April.             ACTION: KB & PN



• KC gave an update on the Nursery

This had opened in September 2015. In 2016 about 60% of Yr R came via the Nursery and it was felt that is had an impact on the data.  In September 2016 no children were ‘well below’ expected levels of development and most were where they should be.  It was hoped that in future a greater % of children would come via the Nursery.

Q: DB asked whether there was a transition period for children to get to know the school.

A: JM explained that places in Yr R were allocated at the end of April after which there was a familiarisation programme for parents and children.  Children in the Nursery also got used to going over to the school for stories.

Staffing, Budget and Admissions – refer Attachment 3

Website – All governors were asked to look at the new website and provide feedback.                                                                                         ACTION: ALL

Teacher Career Profile & Attendance – refer Attachment 3

JM advised that teachers were no longer graded as ‘good’ etc but were assessed against the Teachers’ Standards using a matrix, Attachment 4.  100% of KS1 teachers and 70% of KS2 teachers were at ‘embedding’ or better; JM wanted them to do their best for the children, not just to be good when observed.

Q: KB asked whether parents might give feedback on a teacher via the electronic school gateway.

A: This might be possible.

Q: GC asked whether the assessment matrix was having an impact.

A:  KC said yes, there was another section on progress.  It was agreed that JM would e-mail an electronic version of the ‘Teacher Career Progression’ document.                                                                                         ACTION: JM


JMcC circulated copies of the Dashboard, Attachment 5, and took questions arising.

Q: GC asked why attendance looked low.

A: KC explained that there were 4 or 5 children on part time timetables and the particular cases heighted in Attachment 3.  If necessary they could provide case studies of individual pupils.  Attendance was improving and was expected to continue to improve.

Q: BC noted that exclusions were up and asked whether the 1.3% was pupils or days.

A: JM explained that the % was based upon a formula in RAISE.

GC requested that in future exclusions data be given as the number of exclusions, number of days (or sessions) & the number of pupils.   ACTION: JM

JM said that current exclusions were accounted for by 2 or 3 pupils.

Q: LF asked which were the key figures in the Dashboard.

A: The end KS2 attainment; last summer there had been a drop but this was consistent with the national picture and resulted from the extension of the curriculum and new ways of assessment.

Q: What was the meaning of the percentages?

A: These reported the % of pupils that had reached a defined level, the ‘Age Related Expectation’ (ARE) for their age group.  JM said that they would like the %s to be higher but they were improving. JMcC added that there had been a number of late joiners in Yrs 5 and 6 and particular gaps for groups, boys, Pupil Premium (PP) and special needs (SEND).  Two pupils had been on part time timetables to help manage their behaviour.

Q: KB asked whether (more) homework might help raise attainment.

A: KC explained that this was unlikely to be helpful as, in their experience, only 10% ever came back.  JMcC said that there had been an increase in the number of Chromebooks going home; the challenge was to engage parents.

JMcC highlighted that the current Yr6 was the last pre-conversion cohort and that there were only 41 in the year group.  Subsequent years were more stable and full, close to 60 in each.

Q: LF asked what was behind the relatively poor progress in Yr3.

A: JMcC said that 3 members of staff in Yr3 were being mentored.  The spring term data would be available shortly and she would e-mail an update.
                                                                                                      ACTION: JMcC

Q: Did Yr3 have strong teachers last year?

A: Yes.



It was agreed that this was to be updated.  HE would e-mail last year’s plan to LF and GC.                                                                       ACTION: HE, LF & GC






JM explained that in previous years it had been agreed that the Heads of Schools’ expense claims would be approved by the Executive Head and vice versa.  The auditors had now requested governors’ approval for this arrangement to continue.  Governors agreed that expense claims of the Executive Head would be authorised by one of the Heads of School and that Heads of School claims would be authorised by the executive Head.



It was agreed that the next meeting of the Front Lawn LC would be at 1pm on Thursday 4th May.


The meeting closed at 2.50pm

6 6 0 7 4 Visitors