Agenda item

Iain Wolloff declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6 by virtue of the fact that he was the Principal at Newbury College, which was the Sponsor for the new school being built as part of the Sandleford development. As his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter.)

 (Iain Wolloff left them meeting at 5.15pm)

Ian Pearson introduced the report which set out for approval the proposed criteria and budgets for additional funds for 2019/20.

The Schools’ Forum needed to consider the proposals under sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the report.

Ian Pearson drew attention to the first bullet point and Appendix A to the report, concerning Growth Fund Criteria for 2019/20. There would be a new school opening in 2019 and two sums of money had already been agreed. Funding would include the actual cost of staff appointed and in post prior to the opening of the new school up to a maximum of £75k, plus a fixed one-off lump sum of £25k for all the purchases necessary before the school opened.

Regarding the diseconomies of scale, this provided financial top up for the new school. The new school would be sponsored by Newbury College however a decision needed to be taken concerning the number of years support funding would be provided through diseconomies of scale. The Department for Education (DfE) expected diseconomies of scale funding to be provided for a minimum of two years and therefore three years was being proposed. Ian Pearson drew attention to the XX under paragraph two of section 2.1 and stated that ‘3 years’ should have been inserted into the report.

Ian Pearson moved on and drew attention to the second bullet point under section 2.1 concerning the Schools in Financial Difficulty Fund and explained that though various discussions at both the Heads’ Funding Group and Schools’ Forum an agreed position had been reached to cap the fund at £200k. Schools that had paid into the fund in 2018/19 would have access to the fund, however, because there was already a significant balance within the fund, no schools would be expected to contribute in 2019/20. This would allow the balance to decrease.

Ian Pearson drew attention to bullet point three under section 2.2 concerning approving the budget of £100k for schools with disproportionate numbers of high needs pupils. Local authorities could provide additional targeted support to individual schools from its High Needs Block (HNB) where it would be unreasonable to expect the first £6k of support for that schools high needs pupils to be met from the local authorities formula funding, due to an exceptional number of such pupils on its roll.

Jonathon Chishick noted that the agreed £100k had been spent within the current year and therefore asked if enough money was being allocated for this purpose and whether schools with higher than average numbers of children with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) were being underfunded. It was questioned if data on children receiving Special Education Needs (SEN) Support had been studied, to see if some schools had more pupils.

Ian Pearson reported that SEN support was a self-declared high level of support. If subsidies were to be provided for pupils in certain categories then this could cause a perverse incentive to place more pupils in categories. Ian Pearson confirmed that discussions around a central fund had not taken place. Regarding whether £100k was sufficient to support schools, Ian Pearson commented that it was too early to know. The Schools’ Forum could decide to increase the amount allocated however, this would impact on funding elsewhere.

David Ramsden commented that if the criteria was widened then there would be a risk that many more children could be funded, which would be unaffordable.

Ian Pearson reported that on occasion a school might present a case that it had higher numbers of pupils with Special Education Needs or Disabilities (SEND) that fell below requirements for an EHCP. It was confirmed that there was data available on pupil numbers

Rev. Mark Bennet referred to the issue regarding falling rolls and asked if local demographic data was suggesting that there might me a falling rolls issue in the future. Rev. Mark Bennet suggested that it would be worth looking retrospectively at the data. Ian Pearson reported that the Schools’ Forum had taken the view to remove funding support for this factor however, it was permissible to reinstate this funding. This required consideration going forward.

Catie Coltson referred back to the diseconomies of scale issue and asked what the Schools’ Forum’s responsibilities were for a new school receiving this funding. Ian Pearson confirmed that the new school would operate as a ‘free school’, which followed the same rules and regulations as academies. Funding would flow from the Education, Skills and Funding Agency (ESFA) directly to the school however, the Local Authority had to agree with the Schools’ Forum how the local funding formula would address the needs of the new school. Funding for the school would not be sufficient  to cover the cost of running the school and therefore agreement needed to be sought with Newbury College on threshold requirements and on how long additional support was required for.

The Chairman invited members of the Forum to vote on whether they agreed with the recommendations set out in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the report. Jonathon Chishick proposed that the Schools’ Forum support the recommendations and this was seconded by Keith Harvey. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum agreed the recommendations set out in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the report.