Agenda item

(Michelle Harrison declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 7  by virtue of the fact that she was the School Business Manager at St Finian’s RC Primary School which had submitted one of the bids due to be considered by the Forum. As her interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, she 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.)

(Michelle Harrison left the meeting at 5.19pm.)

Melanie Ellis introduced the report (Agenda Item 7), which summarised the bids that had been received from schools to access funding from the ‘Primary Schools in Financial Difficulty’ de-delegated fund that were recommended for approval by the Heads Funding Group. There were four bids in total and the detail of the amounts each school was bidding for was included under 2.1 of the report.

Melanie Ellis drew attention to 2.2 of the report, which included a proposal for an additional criteria for allocating funding to schools, which had been supported by the HFG as follows:

To allow extraordinary payments of up to £5k to be made if at the end of the maximum deficit recovery period of 5 years a school has a deficit balance of £5k or less and the school is able to submit a surplus budget for the following financial year.

Melanie Ellis drew attention to 2.3, which included a recommendation in line, with recommendation 2.2 above, to approve an extraordinary payment to St Finians RC Primary School of up to £5,000, to enable them to end their five year deficit.

Melanie Ellis provided information on each of the bids that had been received as detailed in sections four, five and six of the report.

Jonathon Chishick referred to the bid from St Finians in light of recommendation 2.3 and asked if the £5k would be in addition to the bid amount of £2,492 if approved. Melanie Ellis confirmed that the £5k would be in addition to the amount being bid for. The £2,492 was covering the reason for the bid and then in addition to this would be a payment of up to £5k depending on what the school’s deficit was at the end of the five years.

Jonathon Chishick raised a further question regarding the bid from St Finian’s. He noted that at period nine the forecast deficit was £4.4k and he queried if this would be the position if the bid was awarded. He queried why if the school’s deficit positon was £4.4k they were being awarded nearly £8k. Melanie Ellis reported that the forecast deficit was £4.4k and if the school was awarded the bid then the forecast deficit would be £1.9k. If £1.9k was the deficit position at the end of the year then this is what the school would be awarded to bring the balance to zero. If the bid was not awarded and the school had a closing deficit of £4.4k then the recommendation would be that this amount was awarded. 

Jonathon Chishick raised a question regarding the bid from Kintbury. The report stated that it was the first year that the school had operated with a deficit however, he recalled that the school had bid for £30,700 in 2019 and therefore presumably it was not the first year the school had operated with a deficit.  He noted that the school’s forecast deficit for the current year was £49k and he therefore queried why the school might potentially be awarded £58k. Melanie Ellis reported that the school was in the first year of the current deficit cycle. Ian Pearson explained that a school could return to deficit following a previous deficit that had been balanced. The previous award to the school in 2019 had been followed by a balanced budget. It was therefore the first year of the current deficit. Ian Pearson explained that Jonathon Chishick’s second point related to the specific circumstances of the school in that it had put in two bids for two separate items. If bids for the two items were awarded then the sums would exceed the period nine forecast deficit of £49k. It therefore needed to be considered if the whole sum should be awarded or a sufficient amount to bring the school’s budget back to a balanced position.

Ian Pearson further explained that there would be an issue in terms of accuracy regarding Kintbury because the period nine forecast might not be the final position. He drew attention to section 7.4 of the report, which showed that the budget that had been set for 2021/22 indicated a deficit of £62k but when re-assessed in period nine this had come down to £49k. It was suggested that rather than awarding a sum of funding relating to costs, that a lesser total amount be awarded that brought the school back in to balance.

Jonathon Chischick added that it would also depend if the school could set a balanced budget in the next financial year. Ian Pearson explained that the purpose of submitting a bid was not just to address a deficit in the year the bid related to, but to also to help the school become self-sustaining in balancing its budget in the years thereafter. Jonathon Chishick was uncertain about whether the full amount should be awarded currently or if the Forum should wait and award an amount sufficient to cover the deficit at the end of the year. If this was less than the school had asked for then he felt that the school’s budget for next year would need to be considered. If the full amount was required to balance the schools budget at this point then he would be happy with this however, if this was not the case Jonathon Chishick stressed that due to limited funds, funding needed to be spent carefully. 

Phil Spray queried how the Heads’ Funding Group (HFG) had arrived at the figure of £5k in relation to recommendation 2.2. Ian Pearson explained that the proposal had arisen as the result of looking at the St Finian’s positon. If the bid from the school as it stood was awarded then at the end of a five year deficit recovery period, which was the maximum time permitted, the school would still likely be in deficit. It had been felt by the HFG that further support could be provided to schools approaching the end of a five year deficit recovering plan, that were very close to reaching a balanced position. Based on a limited pot, up to £5k had been felt to be a reasonable figure. There had been an empathetic understanding of the challenge faced by schools and a desire to see schools close deficits within the five year period.

Melissa Cliffe highlighted that Kintbury were currently trying to recruit a new headteacher and it was likely to be a first headteacher post. It had been discussed at the HFG that the school had already been through one unsuccessful selection process and it was felt that a new headteacher was less likely to take on the position if the school was in deficit. The HFG had felt the issue needed resolving so that the school could become financially sound and in a better position to recruit. If the school had to keep going out to selection then this would cost more money.

In light of Jonathon Chishick’s comments and moving forward, Ian Pearson explained that the Forum could either consider the existing recommendations or they would need to be amended and then considered again.

The Chair invited the primary school representatives to vote on the recommendation under section two of the report. Jonathon Chishick stated that he was happy to vote in favour of the recommendations on the condition that funding was only awarded to the amount that would resolve the deficit. At the vote with maintained primary school members the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that:

·         The bids from St Finians, Beenham and Kintbury primary schools as set out in section 2.1 were approved.

·         The additional criteria for allocating funding to schools as detailed in section 2.2 was approved.

·         An extraordinary payment to St Finians RC Primary School of up to £5,000, to enable them to end their five year deficit as detailed in section 2.3 was approved.