Agenda item

(CSP: PC1)

Purpose:  To set out the requirements 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.

Resolved to:

1)    Replicate the DfE’s National Funding Formula to calculate the funding allocations and to introduce the mobility factor into the local formula.

2)    Address any surplus or shortfall in funding by a combination of reduced AWPU (age weighted pupil unit) rates and a cap on gains.

3)    Apply a top slice of 0.25% to the schools’ funding, in order to support High Needs, which would provide £261k additional funding for high needs.

If the Schools Forum do not agree with the proposals, the Local Authority can make the final decision on funding allocations, and can appeal to the Secretary of State to make a block transfer.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      a delay in implementing the decision could compromise the Council's position.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) concerning the primary and secondary school funding formula for 2020/21. The report set out West Berkshire Council’s funding proposals for 2020/21 post consultation with all schools.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon proposed acceptance of the report’s recommendations. He explained that it was an annual requirement for the Council to approve the funding formula for primary and secondary schools.

In terms of the consultation response, Councillor Mackinnon explained that largely favourable responses had been received to all of the consultation questions with the exception of question four which received a more balanced response: ‘Which of the following options would you support regarding a transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block for 2020/21?’

Nine of the sixteen respondents to this question supported a transfer, the remaining seven did not. Of the nine; four supported a transfer of 0.25% (the proposal in this report), three were in favour of a larger transfer of 0.5% and the remaining two did not specify a transfer amount.

Councillor Dominic Boeck seconded approval of the report’s recommendations.

Councillor Erik Pattenden noted that 16 (close to 20%) of schools had responded to the consultation. He queried whether a response from this number sufficiently represented West Berkshire’s schools. He also questioned how much weight could be given to responses from 16 schools and whether their feedback could have altered the recommendations.

Councillor Mackinnon responded. He agreed it would have been preferable for a higher response rate, but added that schools could not be forced to respond. The responses received did not alter the report’s recommendations.

Councillor Boeck added to the response by stating that many of West Berkshire’s schools looked to their representative(s) on the Schools’ Forum to be their voice on such matters. The Schools’ Forum was represented by each sector of West Berkshire’s schools. He would not expect small schools for example to respond individually.

Councillor Pattenden noted this, but pointed out that schools had been given very little time (ten working days) to respond. He was concerned that the consultation had been rushed. He was also concerned that the consultation responses would not be considered by the Schools’ Forum until 20 January 2020 ahead of a final decision needing to be made on 21 January 2020.

Councillor Boeck explained that this aligned with the consultation process conducted annually for the school funding formula. Councillor Pattenden felt this routine practice was flawed.

Councillor Mackinnon referred to the recommendations. He reiterated that the consultation response that related to recommendations one and two had been strongly in favour of approval. He felt it unlikely that a higher response rate would have elicited a different answer. Councillor Pattenden stated that a higher response would have given greater assurance of schools’ views. Councillor Mackinnon reiterated the point that all schools were represented on the Schools’ Forum.

Councillor David Marsh queried why the recommended top slice of 0.25% was unpopular to the majority of the responding schools. Councillor Boeck explained that he had not yet read all of the individual school responses in detail. Ultimately this would be for the Schools’ Forum to determine.

Councillor Marsh then asked what would happen in the event that the Schools’ Forum did not accept the Executive’s recommendations at its meeting on 20 January 2020. In response, Councillor Graham Bridgman drew Members’ attention to recommendation 2.2: ‘If the Schools’ Forum do not agree with the proposals, the Local Authority can make the final decision on funding allocations, and can appeal to the Secretary of State to make a block transfer.’

Following on from one of Councillor Pattenden’s comments, Councillor Lee Dillon felt that this annual process needed to be reviewed when considering that the final decision needed to be made one day after the Schools’ Forum meeting. The only path available in this short timeframe, should the Schools’ Forum reject the recommendation for a 0.25% top slice, was recommendation 2.2.

Councillor Dillon also voiced concern at Councillor Boeck’s comment that he had not read all the consultation responses in detail. Councillor Boeck clarified his response to Councillor Marsh by stating that he was aware of the responses provided by schools, but he was unaware of the motivation for their views.

Councillor Pattenden commented that he had read the detailed consultation responses, in particular the responses of schools opposed to the 0.25% top slice. There was acceptance that the High Needs Block was underfunded. However, there was concern that the proposed 0.25% (which amounted to approximately £261k) was not sufficient to meet the shortfall which, he had been informed by Officers, was in the region of £1.5m.

Councillor Mackinnon felt it entirely appropriate to look to alleviate this shortfall at least in part. Councillor Pattenden felt that schools wanted the underfunding to be acknowledged. There was concern that this could impact on education resources and class sizes.

Councillor Mackinnon commented, as noted earlier, that some of the schools that responded were opposed to a transfer of any funding, whereas others supported increases equal to and in excess of 0.25%. He clarified the point that this was not new funding, it would be a transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block.

Councillor Dillon agreed that additional funds would of course be welcomed. However, the Formula was not going far enough. West Berkshire’s schools were being underfunded in the region of £1.5m.

Councillor Boeck agreed with Councillor Dillon in that the funding was currently not right for West Berkshire’s schools. While the Schools Block allocation would increase by £5.3m in 2020/21, this not enough. He would continue to lobby through West Berkshire’s Members of Parliament to improve on the funding situation.

RESOLVED to:

1)    Replicate the DfE’s National Funding Formula to calculate the funding allocations and to introduce the mobility factor into the local formula.

2)    Address any surplus or shortfall in funding by a combination of reduced AWPU (age weighted pupil unit) rates and a cap on gains.

3)    Apply a top slice of 0.25% to the schools’ funding, in order to support High Needs, which would provide £261k additional funding for high needs.

If the Schools’ Forum did not agree with the proposals, the Local Authority could make the final decision on funding allocations, and could appeal to the Secretary of State to make a block transfer.

Other options considered:

A number of options were considered and consulted on for formula allocation.