Agenda item

(Chris Prosser, Nicolle Browing, Jacquie Davies and Maria Morgan left the meeting at 5.18pm)

Melanie Ellis introduced the report (Agenda Item 7) and explained that some Part II information had also been circulated to members of the Schools’ Forum. If anyone wished to discuss something specifically in relation to this information this would need to be done so confidentially in Part II. 

Melanie Ellis explained that at the last meeting of the Schools’ Forum in June 2024 it was approved that a clawback mechanism should be introduced from March 2024 and the maximum amount that could be clawed back each year was the amount of school balance in excess of 10% of their budget share. This was subject to leaving the schools with a minimum of £50,000 balance. It had been agreed that the Heads Funding Group (HFG) would review the commitments on the School Balance Statements and then a recommendation for an amount to be clawed back would be brought back to the Schools’ Forum in July for approval. This process had been followed and the proposed amount to be clawed back from each school was included in section seven of the report. Two schools would be reviewed at the next meeting of the HFG, these were iCollege due to the different way the setting was funded and The Castle because members of the HFG wished to see the split between The Castle and the Castle at Theale.

Melanie Ellis drew attention to section eight of the report, which set out three areas raised by HFG that had required clarification. These areas had been checked and were clarified as follows:

1)    Garland – check that the HR and toilet blocks are fully committed/spent: Melanie Ells confirmed that these areas were fully committed/spent.

2)    John Rankin – check that the £65k hardware has been committed/spent: Melanie Ellis confirmed that this had not been committed and spent but was due to be by the end of 2024/25. This funding could therefore be clawed back if the Schools’ Forum wished to agree a different amount to what was set out in the report for the School.

3)    Beedon – recommend taking the minimum (£15k) rather than zero: This was for consideration by the Schools’ Forum.

AnnMarie Dodds confirmed that the process agreed by the Schools’ Forum had been followed. Schools had made submissions and a four hour meeting had taken place where the HFG had gone through the detail for each school in question.  The report provided by Melanie Ellis was essentially a summary of this meeting where schools had been invited along to answer questions about their balances.

Lesley Roberts commented on why she felt the clawback had returned to the Forum for consideration and stated that it was because the Local Authority (LA) had wanted to appeal to the Department for Education (DfE), which in turn would have impacted more schools. The decision by the Forum to overturn the decision taken in December 2023, had been done in an effort to protect more schools. Lesley Roberts queried if the clawback amounts were agreed, if schools impacted would be able to appeal. There had been little time for schools to respond and they had been provided with only 15 minutes to attend the HFG. Lesley Roberts commented on the HFG being required to consider vast amounts of detail provided on each of the schools, which had needed to be read in a short amount of time. Lesley Roberts was of the view that schools should be able to appeal due to the way the decision had come about.

In response to the comments raised by Lesley Roberts, AnnMarie Dodds commented that the process had been agreed by the Schools’ Forum and an appeals process had not been identified. To add this at the current stage would be adding something to the process that was subsequent to the original decision. If clawback amounts were not agreed, there would be two options available. All of the information could be provided to the Secretary of State, who could be asked to make a decision, or the Secretary of State could be approached and asked to revert to the original decision in line with the original consultation. This could result in a five and eight percent clawback position, which could be more detrimental to the schools involved than what was proposed currently however, this would be matter for the Secretary of State. Lesley Roberts stressed that her request was only for an appeal mechanism for schools in relation to the LA, due to the short amount of time involved. 

AnnMarie Dodds stated that it was a Schools’ Forum decision to revote on the clawback and not an LA decision. The LA had informed the Schools’ Forum of the action it intended to take and subsequently the Schools’ Forum had decided there should be a revote on the matter. For the LA to take the matter to the Secretary of State was the legitimate appeals process. AnnMarie Dodds voiced her concern that it was being implied that the LA had undermined the Schools’ Forum. Lesley Roberts was of the view that it felt like this because the only reason the clawback from March 2024 had been approved was because more schools would be impacted if the LA appealed to the DfE. Lesley Roberts acknowledged that there was not an appeal process available for schools because the LA would again take the matter to appeal. Lesley Roberts was concerned that the Schools’ Forum was not able to do the role it was supposed to do and was having to make the best of a bad situation.

Reverend Mark Bennet reported that he had not been present for the discussion at the last Forum meeting in June. He noted in the report that there were a number of ‘avoidable items not committed’ and he felt that ‘not committed’ items could cover a wide range of areas and he was not clear on where the line had been drawn or how it had been assessed in terms of the balances that schools could legitimately hold. Regarding commitments, Melanie Ellis reported that all the details had been provided in the balance statements/other documentation. Melanie Ellis referred to areas deemed avoidable and not committed within the tables and highlighted that most schools would be left with a balance that was sufficient to cover these areas.

Keith Harvey referred to the question on what was deemed avoidable and unavoidable and stated that the HFG had looked at all the financial statements and supporting documents however, as highlighted previously he had not had time to read through all the information in detail. The LA had therefore been asked to form a recommendation for the Schools’ Forum. He queried for clarity how the decision was made regarding what was avoidable and unavoidable. He referred to Springfield Primary School and the rebuilding of their fort that would have to be knocked down as part of drainage works. Keith Harvey was of the view that this was a necessity. AnnMarie Dodds clarified that anything impacted by building works would form part of a building plan and returned to its previous state. The school had proposed keeping money separate for something that was already part of a building project. Regarding what was deemed committed, these were areas already underway or where purchase orders had already been raised. These areas had either been included as additional sums of funding or through schools holding onto ten percent plus any commitments, enabling the work to be completed.

David Ramsden acknowledged the difficulties referred to by Lesley Roberts and that individual schools would find decisions on clawback difficult. David Ramsden commented on the time spent on the matter and although the timescales for paperwork for the current meeting cycle had been short, members of the HFG and Forum had been dealing with the issues for months. The merit of going to the DfE had been discussed originally at HFG and concern had been raised regarding the risk of this in terms of more schools being involved and also the possibility of a harder cut. David Ramsden also referred to concerns about West Berkshire being moved into the DfE’s Safety Valve Programme and commented that there had not yet been any mention at the current meeting of the real issue, which was that the High Needs Block (HNB) was significantly in deficit. David Ramsden felt that there had been robust, professional and sensitive consideration of all the issues. Many of the schools concerned would see money excluded from the clawback because it was already committed. A sensible rationale had been applied and it was not about the LA versus schools but rather about the HNB and what was being done to properly address the issues being faced.

Lesley Roberts clarified that she did not see the situation as the LA versus schools. Her concern was due to the way the LA was operating to get what was needed and the Schools’ Forum was being used as a vehicle to get there. For transparency reasons Lesley Roberts felt that there should be an option for schools to appeal.

Charlotte Wilson reported that as Chair of the Secondary Heads Forum she had been asked to communicate that there had been concern raised about the amount of documentation the headteachers of the schools concerned had needed to prepare in the timescales, the robustness and consistency of the process and the impact on individuals in preparing for this meeting. Charlotte Wilson noted that there were two schools that would require a decision at a later stage as further information was required and she questioned the parity and fairness around this.

In response to Charlotte Wilson, AnnMarie Dodds clarified that a decision would be taken at a later stage for two schools because the mechanism for funding for alternative provision was different and needed approaching in a different way. The funding for the Castle and the Castle at Theale needed separating out so it could be identified where the surplus was.

Keith Harvey stated that he had come into the meeting unsure if he was going to abstain or vote for the motion. He stated that having listened to the discussion he planned to vote for the motion however, only due to the consequence that the matter would be taken to the DfE if not agreed. He stated he would therefore be voting reluctantly for the motion.

The Chair acknowledged the sensitivity and difficulty of the decision required however, encouraged members to vote either for or against the motion rather than abstaining due to the amount of work that had gone into the matter.

The Chair invited the Schools’ Forum to consider the LA recommendation to agree the clawback amounts proposed for each school as detailed in section seven of the report. It was proposed and seconded by maintained school representatives that the recommendation be approved. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the clawback amounts proposed were approved by the Schools’ Forum.