Agenda item

Claire White introduced her report (Item 7), which set out the results from the consultation with schools on the proposed primary and secondary school funding formula for 2018/19 and also set out the final recommendation.

Claire White moved to section 4.4 of the report, which detailed the consultation responses. Although there were a number of emails and telephone calls to clarify or discuss how certain elements of the formula worked, or to stress the impact on individual schools, there were only four formal responses to the consultation. These were from Winchcombe, Brimpton, Kennet and John O’Gaunt. Section 4.4 of the report included the main points raised as part of the consultation, either formally or informally.

The first point was raised by Brightwalton, which had an issue on the application of the sparsity factor for their school. Claire White explained that if the nearest school was more than two miles away then the sparsity factor was payable. Brightwalton’s nearest school on which the distance criteria was based, was Chaddleworth (1.8 miles) however, Brightwalton had declared that no pupils were taught on the site and all the pupils attended the school at Shefford. Claire White reported that she had made an application to the Secretary of State (SoS) for Education to see if the regulations could be dis-applied in this instance and the SoS had agreed that in this instance the regulations chould be lifted as there were exceptional circumstances, but subject to Schools’ Forum agreement.

Reverend Mary Harwood reported to the Schools’ Forum that there were occasions when children attended the school at Chaddleworth. Children were dropped off at the school at Chaddleworth and then taken to the school at Shefford by minibus. If the school at Brightwalton was closed for any reason then children would be sent to Chaddleworth. Claire White clarified therefore that if Brightwalton was not accessible for any reason, then children could be accounted for at Chaddleworth. Mary Harwood confirmed that this was correct and although children were not always taught at Chaddleworth, it was open and children were registered there.

Ian Pearson summarised that Brightwalton had made a case to receive the extra sparsity funding, on the basis that it was more than two miles from its closest school. However this only applied if this closest school was Shefford School. Mary Harwood had declared that Chaddleworth was still open and operating and if this was the case then Brightwalton should not receive the sparsity funding. David Ramsden concurred that if Brightwalton did not meet the criteria then it should not receive the funding.

The Chairman asked the Schools’ Forum to vote on whether the sparsity funding should be given to Brightwalton School based on the case they had submitted as part of the consultation, taking into account what had been stated by Reverend Mary Harwood. At the vote the notion not to award Brightwalton School the sparsity funding was carried.  The reason for this was that Brightwalton’s closest school was Chaddleworth School, which was less than two miles away.

Claire White referred back to section 4.4 of the report which outlined the additional points raised as part of the consultation. The second points concerned, how long the minimum funding guarantee would last into the future, and how reliant schools could be on this element of the funding in their future planning. The third point raised was concern regarding the impact of the lowering of the lump sum on small schools, and Claire White stated that she would come back to this point as there was a proposal that required consideration.

Moving on, Claire White reported that the fourth comment raised as part of the consultation concerned the statement given by Nick Gibb that ‘every school would see an increase in funding through the formula from 2018’ and this was clearly not the case for some West Berkshire Schools. This was down to the lack of understanding that the national funding formula was a method of allocating funds to local authorities and in reality could not be replicated.

The final point raised was that West Berkshire should continue to lobby the Government for increased funding in order to enhance, or as a minimum maintain education standards.

Claire White stated that since the consultation, there had been two further pieces of information from the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). Firstly there was now no requirement to apply to the SoS for Education to set a minimum funding guarantee of between 0% and 0.5%. This could be agreed locally and so was now a firm recommendation for the West Berkshire formula rather than it being subject to approval.

Secondly Claire White reported that the sparsity factor calculation used in the National Funding Formula (NFF) was not the same as the calculation allowed in the school finance regulations (SFR). It had been assumed that the SFR would be updated. If there was support for the use of the NFF, then an application would have to be made to the SoS.  The SFR calculations applied a taper to the funding according to the number of pupils in a school, whereas the NFF calculation used a weighting according to the year group size. Small schools qualifying for sparsity received more funding by applying the NFF methodology (a difference of about £68k overall). The Heads Funding Group had been of the view that as schools had not previously received sparsity funding (as this was new funding), it could be at a reduced level in the first year by applying the SFR rather than the NFF calculations.

Ian Pearson clarified that in this particular case, if the NFF calculation was used then a larger sum of money would be given to schools which qualified for sparsity funding. Keith Watts noted that this seemed like a plan by the Government to close small schools, but with the understanding that it was not viable to close all small schools. Claire White confirmed that six schools in total qualified for the sparsity funding.

The Chairman asked the Schools’ Forum to vote on whether to agree the first three recommendations under section 2.1 of the report collectively:

·           Use of the National Funding Formula (NFF) rates for every formula factor, applying a funding cap on gains of 3% per pupil.

·           Apply a minimum funding guarantee of 0% but up to the maximum allowable of 0.5% according to the amount affordable based on the final funding allocation.

·           If required after the above had been applied, scale every formula factor upwards or downwards in order to match the final funding allocation available for distribution to schools.

Chris Davis proposed that the Schools’ Forum agree the first three recommendations (set out above) and this was seconded by Catie Colston. At the vote the motion was carried.

The Chairman asked the Schools Forum to vote on whether to agree the fifth recommendation set out under section 2.1 of the report:

·           Use the School Finance Regulations calculation of the sparsity factor, rather than the NFF calculation.

It was proposed by Chris Davis that the Schools’ Forum agree the fifth recommendation (set out above) and this was seconded by Jonathan Chischick. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Schools Forum agreed the recommendations set out under 2.1 of the report (detailed above) apart from the recommendation detailed under bullet point five (detailed below).

RESOLVED that the Schools Forum did not approve the recommendation:

·           An application to be made to the Secretary of State for Education to dis-apply the financial regulations in order to change the distance of the next nearest school for Brightwalton in the application of the sparsity factor.