Agenda item

The Forum considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which provided an overview of the total budget position for 2016/17 following the Government’s announcement on school funding in December 2015.

The Department for Education (DfE) announced the school funding Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) settlement for 2016/17 on 17 December 2015. DSG funding was split into three funding blocks – schools, early years and high needs, each calculated in a different way. As expected, there would be no increases to the funding rates for the schools block and early years block, but there would be a small increase to the high needs block allocation.

The below table summarised the overall funding and budget position for 2016/17.

Schools Block

Although the DSG funding rate for the schools block had not increased, the overall number of pupils had risen, with a corresponding grant increase of £626k. The increase in pupil numbers was in the primary sector, with numbers in the secondary sector showing a decrease. This had resulted in headroom of approximately £213k in per pupil funding, due to the fact that the primary funding allocation (AWPU) was lower than secondary – so less of the funding received (at £4,368 per pupil) was required in the primary allocation of the funding (at £2,937 per pupil).

The remaining headroom of £393k had arisen due to a reduction in the number of pupils meeting the prior attainment and deprivation criteria. If the funding rates for these factors were to remain the same, less funding would be required, though this would result in many schools receiving less funding than they currently did for these factors.

The figures assumed there would be no carry forward of funding in this block from 2015/16. John Tyzack clarified that Agenda Item 9 would require Schools Forum members to make a decision on how to allocate, or not, the headroom in the Schools Block.

Early Years Block

Early years funding for 2016/17 would be based 5/12 on the January 2016 census and 7/12 on the January 2017 census. The figures presented in the report had also been presented at the previous meeting but they would be revised once the outcome of the January 2016 census was known. The figures assumed there would be a net carry forward from 2015/16 of £450k.

High Needs Block

The significant shortfall in funding in the high needs block for 2016/17 (£1.9m), was due mainly to the following factors:

•              A significant over spend in the current year high needs block which will need to be met from next year’s DSG.

•              Carry forward of under spend from previous years in the high needs block have been used up in the current year.

•              Pupil numbers and needs in the high needs block continue to rise without any increase in funding.

•              Only a minor increase to our funding allocation to go towards increasing numbers and demands.

The Government had allocated a small increase to this block of funding of £284k. Since the last report, current year and next year forecasts had been revised using the latest information on placements, but even with the additional funding the position has not significantly moved and an overspend of £1.9m was still anticipated.

Appendix B demonstrated the DSG reconciliation between the DfE notification and West Berkshire Council’s budget.

Bruce Steiner expressed the view that the method by which schools were funded was illogical and it would be difficult for the Schools Forum or Local Authority to make strategic decisions when funding remained level in the High Needs Block despite increased pressures. He asked whether there was any scope to appeal the DSG settlement. David Ramsden advised that Bruce Steiner should contact the Secretary of State for Education and that Ian Pearson had formally taken this up with the government. Claire White agreed that the original allocation for the High Needs Block was not based on actual need.. The government was due to launch a consultation of changes to the funding of all three block which would provide all with an opportunity to respond.

Peter Hudson, referring to paragraph 4.2 of the report, enquired whether levels of deprivation had reduced, or whether the assessment criteria for deprivation had changed. Claire White advised that the government had been using out-of-date indicators and schools had previously been receiving funding that they would not have been entitled to had more up-to-date data been used to assess levels of deprivation.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.