Agenda item

(Jacquie Davies, Chris Prosser, Jon Hewitt and Maria Morgan left the meeting at 5.14pm)

Melanie Ellis introduced the report (Agenda Item 7) regarding reconsideration of a clawback mechanism from 31^st March 2024.

A consultation had been undertaken with all schools in November 2023 and one of the Local Authority’s (LA’s) recommendations within this consultation was for a claw back mechanism to be placed into the updated version of the Scheme for Financing Schools (SFS). The consultation result had been 68 percent in favour of a claw back mechanism being introduced. The Schools’ Forum had voted on the recommendation in December 2023 and had voted to include a claw back mechanism however, only from 31^st March 2025. Since this meeting the LA had spoken to the Department for Education (DfE) about an appeal mechanism available when the Schools’ Forum voted against a recommendation. This had been discussed at the Heads’ Funding Group (HFG) at its last meeting on 5^th June, which had been of the view that the original decision should be reviewed by the Schools’ Forum before an appeal was progressed in light of school balance information for 31^st March 2024.

Melanie Ellis drew attention to the recommendations set out in the report. The HFG had recommended that the decision be reviewed by the Schools’ Forum. The LA were recommending the following: 

1)    The Schools’ Forum reconsider the balance information contained within the report, and reconsider implementation of the clawback mechanism on balances as at 31.3.24.

2)    The maximum amount that could be clawed back each year was the amount of school balance in excess of 10 percent of their budget share. This was subject to leaving the schools with a minimum of £50,000 balance. The actual amount to be clawed back would be recommended by Heads Funding Group after reviewing the commitments on the statement. Schools’ Forum would then make the decision.

3)    Funds should be returned as follows:

-       Special Schools – High Needs Block

-       Secondary Schools – High Needs Block

-       Primary Schools – Maintained Primaries

Melanie Ellis was aware of a possible amendment to one of the recommendations and invited Keith Harvey to present this to the Forum. Keith Harvey reported that he had consulted a number of headteachers from primary, secondary and special schools on the HFG and Schools’ Forum. It had been unanimously supported that the matter was brought forward to the Forum for a democratic decision rather than dealt with through an appeal. Having consulted with a number of headteachers it was felt that a counter proposal should be put forward that considered the claw back for 2023/24, only on balances over 15 percent for affected schools. It was felt that this would have a lower impact on budgets that had already been set for the year. It would also mean a lower number of schools would have to justify their excess balances to the Forum. Keith Harvey stated that it was still very important that schools with balances in excess of 15 percent were given the opportunity to justify any commitments over 15 percent.

Melanie Ellis asked the Forum if there were any comments or questions regarding the proposed amendment. Gemma Piper asked if there was broad guidance available regarding the percentages chosen. Neil Goddard reported that the DfE guidance set out clawback thresholds of eight percent for primary schools and special schools and five percent for secondary schools.

Melanie Ellis referred to recommendation three (above), which was based on the previous discussions in November 2023. Melanie Ellis asked if there were any counter views on the recommendation as she was aware from HFG discussions that the view might be that all clawed back funding should go to the HNB. Keith Harvey stated that he was of the view that if there was to be a clawback it would only be fair on secondary and special schools if anything clawed back from primary schools was also directed into the HNB.

Melanie Ellis drew attention to the remaining information in the report, which set out the schools that would be affected and invited any further comments. Gemma Piper raised a query about the form contained in the appendix to the report, which would be used to gather information from schools and asked if there would be merit in capturing the number of vacancies within a school, as it was often identified that surplus balances were often present due to an inability to recruit.  Melanie Ellis confirmed that she could build in a question to ensure this information was captured.

Jo MacArthur referred to section 6.2 of the report, which set out that schools’ statements should outline commitments for unspent capital, building etc and referenced unspent Sports Funds. Jo MacArthur reported that the Government had indicated that it would be clawing back any unspent Sports Funds and therefore this should not be included in the LA scheme.  Melanie Ellis noted the point and this should not form part of any clawed back funds to the LA.

David Ramsden commented on the logic for the decision returning to the Schools’ Forum for consideration rather than an appeal to the DfE. It was felt that to bring it back to the Schools’ Forum was more democratic and retained a measure of control. It also demonstrated an element of intent to DBV and the DfE that there was a commitment to reducing the deficit in the HNB. David Ramsden commented that it had been apparent to him and others that managing their own processes was better than going through what would be a long and arduous process with the DfE.

Nicolle Browning commented that it had already been alluded to that when the Forum had previously voted on the matter, it was prior to budgets being set. Budgets had now been set as of 31^st March 2024 and Nicolle Browing asked for assurance that committed funds would be safeguarded as some settings would end up in deficit if this did not happen. Melanie Ellis drew attention to the schools’ balance statement form in Appendix A, which would be requested from affected schools and subsequently discussed at the HFG. The HFG would then make a recommendation to Schools’ Forum. There would be the opportunity to detail the commitments and assurance was given that these commitments would be taken into account when decisions were made.

Keith Harvey commented on the process and noted that the Forum had made a decision in December 2023 not to claw back from 2024. Impacted schools had raised concerns about this however, had not been able to participate in the debate due to having to declare an interest. Keith Harvey felt it was important to share this point and that the main reason the HFG had felt the matter needed to be reconsidered by the Forum was to ensure the process was carried out democratically rather than on an appeal to the DfE.

Gemma Piper queried if the clawback was not supported by the Forum, if the DfE and LA had the power to overrule the decision and if so would they consider the 15 percent or if this would be based on the percentages set out in the report. Neil Goddard reported that based on the decision made at the Forum, the LA would need to take a view on whether it was appropriate to go to the Secretary of State for an exception. Assurance was given that if a decision was approved to clawback based on either ten or 15 percent, both would be deemed acceptable by the LA and the DfE would not be approached for an exception. 

Gemma Piper queried the process for reaching a decision. The Chair felt that based on the suggestion of the counter proposal for 15 percent, there could be a vote on this and if it failed the original recommendation within the report would need to be considered. David Ramsden referred to the original recommendation of 10 percent and that members of the Forum were aware that this was generous in comparison to the guidance from the DfE. There were already safeguards in place for the process, in that each school would be reviewed individually and committed money would be considered. He felt that they needed to be careful regarding how remaining schools would feel if the 15 percent was supported. David Ramsden stated that his recommendation was therefore that they continue with the recommendation as set out in the report. If at this stage the 10 percent was not supported then the counter proposal for 15 percent could be considered.

Keith Harvey commented on the difficulty of the matter. He understood there would be the opportunity for affected schools to declare commitments however, felt that 10 percent was a relatively low figure of carry forward for some schools. He felt that 15 percent would be an acknowledgement that whilst a change was being made to what had been agreed in December by the Forum, it would ease the situation for schools that had already set budgets. He stated that he would vote for the resolution put forward as he would rather the Schools’ Forum made the decision rather than the DfE however, he would rather the 15 percent be supported.

Gemma Piper believed the landscape had changed considerably since the matter was last considered. There was more clarity and understanding of the collective problem being faced. Gemma Piper was of the view that the recommendations should be voted on as set out in the report and if not supported the counter proposal should be considered.

Lesley Roberts voiced that she felt it was a shame the Forum was in the position faced given the time spent discussing the matter. Lesley Roberts commented on the process around safeguards historically and the risk that the trust amongst schools might have been eradicated. It was queried how effective the meetings could be going forward, given the situation and changes. Lesley Roberts however, felt that the 10 percent needed to be supported with the safeguard that affected schools were able to put forward any commitments. Lesley Roberts hoped that if the recommendation was approved, that it did not cause more vacancies in West Berkshire due to there being a feeling of not being able to work with the LA.

Nicolle Browning referred to comments made and that all members were there to work in the best interest of children in West Berkshire attending schools and also to represent colleagues. Nicolle commended the discussions that had taken place and consideration given to the matter, and it was important to show that steps were being taken to make a difference. Nicolle Browning voiced that she would likely support the counter proposal for 15 percent as she felt this would be the quickest way to expedite the process whilst ensuring school budgets and interests were protected.

Councillor Heather Codling queried if the 15 percent was supported if this would revert to 10 percent from March 2025. Melanie Ellis confirmed that this was the case. Councillor Codling felt that this could feel unfair to schools that might be affected the following year. Melanie Ellis believed that the reason for the proposal for 15 percent was due to the timing of the decision.

David Ramsden was concerned that changing the percentage level could seem unfair to certain schools. He recommended trusting the safeguards on committed money. It was an ongoing sensitive and immotive issue and therefore in his view no changes should be made.

The Chair summarised the discussion and commented on the difficulty of the matter as a decision that had already been taken was being revisited. His understanding was that it would be for the HFG to make recommendations to the Schools’ Forum based on information received and following review of the individual school statements. The Chair suggested that the Forum vote on recommendations 2.2 (1) and 2.2 (2) together (as set out in the report and above). If the recommendations were not approved then the Chair would invite the Forum to vote on the counter proposal.

The Chair invited to the Forum to vote on recommendations 2.2 (1) and (2) as set out in the report. It was proposed and seconded by maintained school members that the Schools’ Forum agree recommendations and at the vote the motion was carried. Two maintained school members voiced that they would prefer the counter proposal of 15 percent however, voted in favour of the recommendation. It was requested that there needed to be strong guidance for the HFG on what was classed as committed money.

The Chair drew attention to recommendation 2.2.(3). Keith Harvey proposed that the recommendation be amended so that funds clawed back from primary schools be returned to the HNB rather than to maintained primaries. The amended recommendation was seconded and at the vote with maintained school members was approved.

RESOLVED that

• It to be ensured that the surplus schools' statement form capture the number of vacancies within a school.
• Guidance be provided to the HFG on what was classed as committed money.
• The Schools’ Forum approved the following:

1)    Implementation of the clawback mechanism on balances as at 31.3.24.

2)    The maximum amount that could be clawed back each year is the amount of school balance in excess of 10 percent of their budget share. This is subject to leaving the schools with a minimum of £50,000 balance. The actual amount to be clawed back will be recommended by Heads Funding Group after reviewing the commitments on the statement. Schools Forum would then make the decision.

3)    Funds should be returned as follows:

-       Special Schools – High Needs Block

-       Secondary Schools – High Needs Block

-       Primary Schools – High Needs Block