Agenda item

Claire White presented the report on the additional funding criteria 2015/16.

Growth Fund

In 2013/14 £100k was set aside for the Growth Fund, but actual expenditure was £200k. In 2014/15 £250k has been top sliced from the DSG for the Growth Fund.

The 2015/16 funding requirement will only be known once the October census data is available and so it is proposed to keep the fund at £250k. The 2015/16 budget can be adjusted in the January 2015 submission to the EFA if required.

The only proposed change to the growth fund criteria is an element that supports diseconomies of scale when a new school opens but is not full. If a new school is less than 90% full then a lump sum of £1000 per percentage point below 100% capacity is made, up to a maximum of £80,000 (i.e. 20% full) and payable for the first two years only.  

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the Growth Fund 2015/16 criteria change.

Falling Rolls Fund

The use of the falling roles fund is restricted to schools classed as good or outstanding by Ofsted so it cannot be used to support unpopular or failing schools. It is unlikely to be used in the current year as rolls are generally rising except in schools with a poor Ofsted.

The Heads Funding Group discussed whether to leave the budget 2015/16 at £120k, reduce the budget or remove the funding. The Heads Funding Group recommended that the fund be reduced to £40k.

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the Falling Rolls Fund 2015/16 criteria to remain the same and the reduction of the fund to £40k.

Funding for Primary Schools in Financial Difficulty

It is proposed that the criteria remain the same for 2015/16 but with the addition of specified benchmarking data to be included in the application.

DECISION:  The Schools’ Forum agreed the change to the criteria to include specified benchmarking data.

Additional SEN Funding

Four options for 2015/16 were discussed:

Method A

The current method where the number of high needs pupils receiving top ups is greater than 2% in primary schools and 4% in secondary schools.

Method B

As the current method but funding to be proportionate rather than based on rounded down pupil numbers.

Method C

Using the actual average percentage of high needs pupils in the local authority per primary and secondary sector plus 1%.

Method D

Funding the difference between the actual notional SEN the school has received and the actual number of SEN pupils receiving top ups x £6000.

The Heads Funding Group recommended method C which gives the most amount of funding and reflects the actual numbers of high needs pupils in each sector within West Berkshire.

Concerns have been voiced by some small schools regarding insufficient notional SEN formula when all the pupils with additional education needs below the £6k threshold are added to those high needs pupils at the school receiving top ups. Unfortunately nothing can be done through the formula to address this problem as all schools are funded on the same basis; making efficient use of the funding available is essential. 

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed to option C for 2015/16 which is regarded as the fairest way of targeting funding and produces the highest level of additional funding.

Action