Agenda item

Claire White introduced the report that set out the current criteria and budgets for additional funds for review by members of the Schools’ Forum to ensure they were all still relevant and met their purpose. There were two proposals that needed consideration concerning the removal of the Falling Rolls Fund and widening of the criteria for primary schools accessing the Schools in Financial Difficulty Fund. These changes would be subject to consultation with all schools and the final decision would be need to be taken by the Schools’ Forum at its meeting in December 2017.

Claire White drew attention to the proposal under paragraph 4.2 of the report. No changes were proposed for the Growth Fund, Financial Difficulty Fund or High Needs Fund however, it was proposed that the Fallings Rolls Fund was removed. Only one school in four years had qualified for payment from the fund. 

Claire White referred to the Schools in Financial Difficulty Fund, which concerned primary schools only, and suggested that with so many schools facing financial difficulties that the criteria could be reviewed to make it more accessible for schools not in deficit but needed to undergo a restructure to avoid deficit. The current criteria made it so the fund was only accessible to those schools in deficit.

David Ramsden was concerned about widening the criteria for the Schools in Financial Difficulty Fund as it could place pressure on schools budgets and therefore was not a feasible option. Ian Pearson explained that the proposal meant that there would be the option to support primary schools before they hit crisis point. This was a primary school budget and therefore it would be up to primary schools to decide. Keith Harvey was in support of the proposal as it gave schools the opportunity to avoid deficit. It would increase the pressure on schools budgets however, if sound financial reasoning was involved he felt that it was a sensible way forward. Ian Pearson reiterated that the pressure would not be incurred by secondary schools.

Helen Newman asked for clarification regarding the table on page 45 of the report concerning the Growth Fund. Claire White explained that the budget was being built up for the new primary school. However, because the build date for the new school had been pushed back, the Schools’ Forum had taken the decision to allocate the funding back out to schools in 2017/18, taking the balance back down to zero.

Paul Dick asked why the papers were being brought back the Schools’ Forum meeting in December and Claire White confirmed that all proposals had to go out to schools for consultation before a decision could be taken.

Claire White referred to the Growth Fund Criteria on page 47 of the report and proposed that in order to comply with finance regulations the word not be removed under paragraph 2.4 which would read as follows:

Increase in Pupil Admission Number (PAN)

This is payable where a school has increased its admission number by 5 or more pupils in agreement with the authority, but this has not necessitated an additional class, or and is not in response to basic need for a bulge class or general pupil number growth in the area.

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum approved this amendment.

The Chairman drew attention to the recommendations set out under section two of the report.

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum approved that the following changes should go out to consultation with all schools:

·           Removal of the Falling Rolls Fund from 2018/19.

·           Widening of the criteria for primary schools in financial difficulty to enable schools currently not in deficit to apply for funding towards meeting restructuring costs that were required to avoid a deficit.