Agenda item

(It was decided that item 11 would be discussed prior to item 10)

Melanie Ellis introduced the report (Agenda Item 10), which set out the requirement and changes for setting the primary and secondary school funding formula for 2020/21 and to set out West Berkshire Council’s funding proposals to go out to consultation with all schools.

The basic structure of the National Funding Formula (NFF) had not changed for 2020/21. The factors that would be taken into account when calculating the Schools Block Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding through the NFF were shown under section 4.1 of the report.

Appendix One to the report compared schools’ allocations to the previous year. A decision would need to be reached on how any shortfalls or surpluses were allocated.

Regarding the High Needs Block (HNB) the report proposed the possibility of a funding transfer and this was included within modelling options. Section 5.6 of the report set out six different options for allocating funding to schools. The Local Authority had modelled a number of scenarios to determine the impact on the options of individual schools’ budgets. Options four to six under section 5.6 had not been taken further. Modelling was based on an assumption that the funding available to schools would be reduced by £520k. Melanie Ellis highlighted that some schools would not contribute as they were already at the minimum per pupil funding level.

Melanie Ellis reported that Option Three (a combination of options one and two) had been supported by the Heads’ Funding Group. This option protected 17 schools and provided a more even distribution of funding across schools. The information would go out for consultation with schools from 10^th until 31^st December 2019. Melanie Ellis reported that Appendix B to the report provided a consultation document on the Funding Formula and Appendix C was a document consulting schools on the potential block transfer.

Catie Colston was concerned about the short turnaround time for the consultation. Melanie Ellis reported that councils normally received the allocation information in July however, this had not been received until October 2019. The formula had to be submitted to the Department for Education (DfE) by a statutory deadline of 21^st January 2020. Keith Harvey felt that some of the language used within the consultation document was difficult to understand and suggested that a summary document be included when the information was sent out to schools.

Jonathon Chishick queried why schools were not listed alphabetically and Melanie Ellis agreed to update this.

Graham Spellman referred to pupil numbers and queried when the October 2019 census data would be available. There was uncertainty when this would be available. Ian Pearson reported that a re-balancing of phased numbers might be required and this would need to be looked at.

Ian Pearson referred to Appendix C on page 111 of the report, which set out the consultation proposals regarding a transfer for the Schools Block to the HNB. A sliding scale had been used and was detailed under section 6.3 of the report. The table under section 6.4 of the report showed how this funding could be allocated if schools approved the transfer. The exact detail of how the funding would be used would need to be agreed by the Schools’ Forum.

Jonathon Chishick noted the sliding scale that had been applied under section 6.4 however, queried why any increase in funding as a result of the sliding scale was shown under the Vulnerable Children Grant (VCG). He queried, if money was no object, how much this area would require. Ian Pearson reported that this fund had been reduced over time and was being exhausted. Schools using this fund were schools that had a need that could not be met by any other fund. Issues requiring schools to call on the fund were often short term. The VCG was currently being depleted very quickly. Ian Pearson reported that currently areas were not funded based on their level of need and this formed a structural problem in the way local authorities were funded. An attempt was being made to re-balance the costs to schools that currently schools were trying to re-balance on an individual basis.

Michelle Sancho reported on the area of Therapeutic Thinking and that ideally she would fund more Officers to lead the area or work and would fund further training. The VCG was however, currently the largest issue of concern. For example the VCG might be required by a school if it was faced with a child at risk of being permanently excluded that it was unable to retain due to pressures on its budget. The child might not meet the criteria of requiring an EHCP however, was still vulnerable. This was an example of when a call would be made on the VCG.

Jane Seymour commented that if there was more money available for ASD services then she would increase the size of the team. Jane Seymour reported that she had tried to form realistic proposals.

Ian Pearson reported that a transfer of funding had been proposed in 2018/19 however it had not been supported by the Schools’ Forum. Ian Nichol queried what view the Heads’ Funding Group had given regarding the transfer of funding. Ian Pearson reported that it had been agreed that it should be included in the consultation. Ian Pearson had also attended the Secondary and Primary Headteacher Forums to help schools understand the background to the issue. It was up to individual schools how they should respond on the issue.

Catie Colston referred to page 112 and struggled to see how schools would answer the question regarding the transfer without knowing what they would have to forfeit as a result. Jonathon Chishick felt that there should be another option for schools to choose, which was to transfer no funding. Schools should also be given the opportunity to provide an explanation for their choice.

Jon Hewitt added that 0.5% was not the maximum amount that could be transferred, but anything above this would need to be agreed by the Secretary of State.

The Chairman invited members of the Schools’ Forum to consider the proposals under section two of the report. Keith Harvey proposed that the Schools’ Forum approve the recommendation that the proposals included in the report should be sent to all schools for consultation before setting the school funding formula for 2020/21. Secondly, due to short timescales, the results of the consultation should be emailed to Schools’ Forum members to review and comment ahead of the next meeting in January. Keith Harvey’s proposal was seconded by Jonathon Chishick and at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that:

·         A summary document be included with the consultation with schools.

·         Schools should be listed alphabetically within the consultation document.

·         The recommendations set out in section two of the report were approved by the Schools’ Forum.