Agenda item

Melanie Ellis introduced the report (Agenda Item 6), which set out the requirements and changes for setting the primary and secondary school funding formula for 2023/24 and to approve West Berkshire Council’s funding proposals to go out to consultation with all schools.

Melanie Ellis explained that the draft allocation for West Berkshire was £125.7m, which was an increase of £5.9m from the previous year and excluded growth funding, which would be allocated at a later date. The funding could change because it would be updated based on the pupil numbers from the October 2022 census.

Melanie Ellis drew attention to the briefing and consultation document for schools on page 17 of the agenda pack. The purpose of the consultation was to outline and seek views on the areas listed under section 2.1: the proposed funding formula; an up to 0.5% block transfer from the Schools Block to other funding blocks; the criteria to be used to allocate additional funds and the proposed services to the de-delegated (covered on more detail under Agenda Item 7).

The consultation would be open for a period of three weeks from 19^th October until 9^th November 2022.

Melanie Ellis explained that 2023 was the first year of a move to a direct schools National Funding Formula (NFF). All the funding formula factors now had to be used and local authorities needed to move their local formula factor values at least 10% closer to the NFF. In the majority of cases West Berkshire already mirrored the NFF with the exception of sparsity. A minimum funding guarantee had to be set like in previous years and up to 0.5% could be transferred from the Schools’ Block to another block. The Local Authority was still responsible for making the final decision on the formula.

Once the October census pupil numbers were received, figures would be adjusted to calculate the final allocations and the growth funding allocation would also be known.

Melanie Ellis drew attention to section five of the report regarding sparsity, which was an area where West Berkshire had slightly differed from the NFF in previous years. Last year 16 local authorities had diverted from the NFF for sparsity with 15 of them setting a lower value. West Berkshire had set sparsity at 80 percent of the NFF value. For 2023/24 West Berkshire would need to set this closer to the NFF and the minimum value was 82 percent of the NFF.  Following the Heads’ Funding Group meeting (HFG), Officers had formed a recommendation supported by the HFG to continue to use the minimum sparsity rate.

Another area that required consideration by the Forum was how to allocate any under or overspends against the block and the recommendation for this area, like in previous years, was to amend the AWPU values. There were other options available and this was included as a question in the consultation.

Allocations per schools compared to last year were detailed in Appendix A.

Regarding a block transfer, Melanie Ellis reported that setting a balanced budget in the HNB continued to be a challenge. The overspend position at the end of 2021/22 was £3.6m and the overspend in the block was set to reach £5.3/5.6m by the end of 2022/23. Block transfers required approval annually. The HFG had requested information on what transferred funding could be used for and it was proposed that if a transfer was supported it could be used to increase the band values for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPS) for mainstream and resource schools. The implication of this would be that a transfer was only one off funding and if the uplifted values were to continue then permanent funding would need to be built in from 2024/25. HFG had supported block transfer options (0/0.25/0.5 percent) being included in the consultation.

Melanie Ellis drew attention to section eight of the report, which detailed additional funds outside of the school formula. West Berkshire currently did not have a falling rolls fund as this had been stopped in 2018/19. The criteria for allocating the funds would be included in the consultation with schools.

Ian Pearson explained that a regular report to the HFG and Schools’ Forum was on deficit schools. Demographic decline in the primary sector was having a disproportionate negative impact on a number of school budgets. It was felt that there was a case to be made for reconsidering the reintroduction of a falling rolls fund. A question of whether this fund should be put back in place could be included as part of the consultation. It would help support schools finding themselves in financial difficulty on the basis of losing a large number of pupils. Schools could take a view on this through the consultation and the Schools’ Forum would then need to take a view of the responses before making a decision.

Melanie Ellis reported that the consultation proposal were included under section 10 of the report, with an additional question to be added on falling rolls.

Reverend Mark Bennett stressed that schools were facing huge uncertainties currently over what would happen in the next year along with pressures with energy costs; recruitment of support staff and unfunded pay increases. He queried if there was a case for adding an additional question to the consultation, which asked schools for the three most challenging areas for their budget going forward so that the Forum could map the challenges being faced. Melanie Ellis agreed that this question could be added.

Gemma Piper referred to section 7.11 on page 17 of Appendix A, which set out the possible use for transferred funding if agreed. Gemma Piper queried if there was anything that could be added to the information that would demonstrate how the funding would be distributed and how many pupils it would support. Melanie Ellis reported that she would speak to Jane Seymour about adding this information.

Ian Pearson added that fundamentally it was being suggested that schools might wish to consider setting aside money, which all schools would potentially benefit from. Regarding funding the Local Authority received for these children, there was no direct link between the number of EHCPs and the amount of special needs funding received. The cost of employing staff who worked with these children had risen. The aim would be to try and rebalance this and ensure schools received a more appropriate level of funding for children with an EHCP receiving support by additional staffing. It was felt to be a positive way to use funding that supported the most disadvantage pupils.

RESOLVED that:

·         A question be added to the consultation that asked schools for the top three areas of challenge for their budget going forward.

·         Information to be added to the proposed possible use for a transfer of funding to demonstrate how the funding would be distributed and how many pupils it would support.

·         The Schools’ Forum agreed the consultation should be undertaken with all schools on the areas detail under section 2.1 of the report, including an additional question regarding the falling rolls fund and exclusion of item four (de-delegations) as this would be voted on as part of the next agenda item.