Agenda item

Action

Claire White presented a proposal for changing the schools excess surplus balance claw back scheme. The report listed several reasons why the current scheme is no longer appropriate, and stated that schools should have autonomy to make their own decision on what is a reasonable balance in their own particular circumstances whilst taking their strategic longer term financial plans into account. Although the level of balances overall had not reduced over the last four years, the number of schools with an excess and the level of those excesses had significantly reduced. Four options were given – no change to current scheme, bringing nursery, special and PRU schools into the current scheme, totally remove the scheme, or introduce an alternative lighter touch review. The consensus from Heads Funding Group was that the current scheme should be replaced by a light touch review by Schools’ Forum. Claire provided an example of what data could be included in a light touch review, including each individual schools recent history of balances, their current balance as a percentage of actual income received, the difference between their planned end of year balance and actual end of year balance for the last three years, and their planned balances for the next three years.

Graham Spellman welcomed the fact that the Forum would be receiving more information than they receive now, though Peter Hudson was concerned that the Forum would have no power to do anything if they had concerns. Claire explained that after reviewing the data the Forum would be able to challenge schools on their financial management and identify schools where support may be required, which should provide a more helpful approach. The challenge could be in any format the Forum requested and felt was appropriate – from a written explanation to questions posed or the school being asked to attend a panel. It would be on an exceptional basis only rather than a blanket approach. David Ramsden felt that the reason the DfE had removed the ruling was political to allow Academies to have more autonomy. We would need to be careful on how the change was communicated, particularly in explaining this to schools who had suffered a claw back in the past. He was also concerned that the review would involve a lot of work. Claire confirmed that the data collection did not involve much work – all the data already exists for other purposes. Mary Harwood stated that as a governor of a school who had suffered claw back in the past she personally would not have a problem with the change. Sheilagh Peacock felt that schools should be trusted to make their own judgements, particularly very small schools. David agreed that if the review did not involve too much work then he would support this, though the annual review would need to ensure that balances are not creeping back up again. Peter agreed, and that it should be made clear that the claw back scheme could be reintroduced if need be. He also suggested looking to see what other local authorities use in their light touch reviews.

DECISION: Agreed to consult with schools on changing the scheme for financing schools to remove the claw back scheme and replace with a light touch review.

ACTION: Consultation to go out to all maintained schools with a report back to Schools’ Forum in September.

C White