Agenda item

Wendy Howells introduced the report (Agenda Item 10), which set out the changes and requirements for setting the primary and secondary school funding formula for 2019/20 and to set out the funding proposal to go out to consultation with all schools.

In 2018/19, as agreed by the Schools’ Forum, the National Funding Formula (NFF) had been followed. In 2019/20 the NFF would operate as a ‘soft’ system, which meant that the Local Authority would receive a total allocation and then allocate this out to schools according to the local formula. In the summer of 2018, the Government announced that this ‘soft’ formula would be extended until 2020/21.

Wendy Howells reported that it was being proposed that a top slice be applied. Wendy Howells drew attention to the supplement pack which had been circulated, which contained the consultation document which would go out to all schools.

Table 1 detailed the National Funding Formula Rates and Annex A contained the funding factors and allocations for each school before the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG), funding floor or cap on gains were applied. Two proposed formula allocations would be sent out to consultation and these could also be viewed under Annex A. 

One of the proposed formula allocations would cause 16 schools to lose funding and the other (recommended) option, would cause two schools to lose funding by around £200 each.

Wendy Howells stated that the consultation document suggested that there should be an allocation of £400k from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block (HNB) and this needed to be firmed up to specifically ask schools if they agreed that a top slice should be applied.

The current funding regulations allowed for a few exceptional circumstances to be funded outside the formula and be top sliced from the DSG. For each fund the Schools’ Forum would need to agree the amount set aside and establish clear criteria setting out circumstances in which a payment could be made (Agenda Item 11). The two funds falling within this remit were the Growth Fund and funding for schools with a disproportionate number of high needs pupils which could not be reflected adequately in the formula funding.

Keith Harvey asked what the amount of £400k for the HNB was based on. As far as he was aware, the maximum amount that could be transferred was 0.5%, which equated to around £500k. Wendy Howells stated that the amount quoted was lower because she had excluded rates however, if preferable the amount could be rounded up to £450k. Keith Harvey was of the view that the maximum amount should be applied for.

Ian Pearson summarised that there were two funding options for consideration along with whether funding should be transferred into the HNB and if so how much. If the decision was taken to transfer money into the HNB, then this would not become an annual commitment.

The Schools’ Forum was required to take a view on whether to put both formula allocation options out to schools for consultation or alternatively just one. Jon Hewitt reported that special schools were heading towards a deficit and the number of children with high needs was increasing. He was therefore of the view that it would be sensible to transfer the maximum amount possible to the HNB from the Schools Block. This would help to support invest to save initiatives going forward. 

Patrick Mitchell felt that it was important that schools were provided with a consultation rather than a recommendation. He also felt that supporting the HNB needed to be a priority.

The Chairman invited the Schools’ Forum to vote on whether one or both funding options should be submitted for consultation with Schools and it was agreed that both options should go out to consultation.

The Chairman invited the Schools’ Forum to vote on whether transferring funding into the HNB from the Schools Block should be included in the consultation with schools and it was agreed that it should be included.

Jon Hewitt stated that it was important to note that more than 0.5% could be transferred from the Schools Block to the HNB however, an application would need to be submitted to the Secretary of State for this.

Charlotte Wilson suggested that it would be useful when the information was sent out to schools to include information from other local authorities for comparison along with numbers of high need pupils. Jon Hewitt commented that benchmarking in the sector was particularly difficult. Charlotte Wilson queried if there was a specific trend in West Berkshire that was causing the deficit in the HNB.

Wendy Howells added the caveat that the information was going out to consultation on the 16^th October 2018.

Councillor Lynne Doherty stated that there was a South East Leaders piece of work taking place which involved South East benchmarking. A report would be made available in the near future however, it would not in time for the consultation.

Ian Pearson suggested that an email be sent out to all schools after the consultation had commenced to provide schools with some background and comparison information for the high needs area. He confirmed that he would speak to Jane Seymour regarding this. Councillor Doherty highlighted that some of the information was already contained within the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Strategy.

Ian Pearson added that there was an underlying issue in the way local authorities were funded to support children with special needs. Charlotte Wilson stated that if more money was required for pupils with high needs, then Headteachers should be provided with a reason for why this was.

RESOLVED that:

1)    Both funding options should go out to schools for consultation.

2)    The option to transfer the maximum amount of funding from the Schools Block to the HNB should be included in the consultation with schools.

3)    Ian Pearson would liaise with Jane Seymour regarding providing information on high needs in West Berkshire for schools. This would accompany the consultation document.