Agenda item

Lisa Potts introduced the report (Agenda Item 8), which set out the results of the consultation with all schools on the proposed primary and secondary school funding formula for 2026/27.

Lisa Potts explained that the consultation had been issued to schools in late October and early November regarding the allocation of the schools funding formula for 2026/27. She outlined that five questions had been posed, with responses summarised in the report. There were 20 responses overall, with fewer responses on question five as it applied only to maintained schools. Lisa Potts highlighted the recommendations within the report under section 2.1 and the recommendations from the HFG set out in section 2.2.

The Chair invited the Forum to consider recommendations 2.1 (a) and (b) as set out below noting that, as set out in section 2.2, the HFG agreed with both of these recommendations. No questions were raised.

a)    To mirror the Department for Education’s (DfE) 2026/27 National Funding Formula (NFF) to calculate the funding allocations.

b)    To address any surplus or shortfall in funding by adjusting the AWPU values.

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and at the vote with School Members, the motion was approved.

The Chair moved on and asked the Forum to consider recommendation 2.1 (c).

c)     To consider whether to apply a top slice to the schools funding to support the HNB and at what percentage.

Neil Goddard clarified that any recommendation from the Schools’ Forum would go forward as part of the Local Authority’s (LA’s) budget setting process. He stated that it had not been set out in the report what any agreed transfer would fund, due to the scale of the deficit in the High Needs Block (HNB).  The transfer would help reduce the overall deficit, which was projected to increase significantly. He explained that the anticipated overspend for the next year was around £17m, on top of £30m for the current year.

Lisa Potts added that the current overspend was costing the LA approximately £900k in interest payments. Councillor Heather Codling reported that, if the Forum voted to not transfer any funding, no decision had yet been taken as to whether this would be appealed by the LA and this would be a political decision. Councillor Codling noted the Government’s scrutiny of financial decisions and stated that West Berkshire LA was likely to have to seek further financial support next year, as it had in the current year. Councillor Codling stated that it was likely it would be queried why support had not been sought from schools for the HNB. 

The Chair noted the HFG recommendation supporting no transfer and invited comments from the Forum.

Keith Harvey asked what effect a 0.5% transfer would have on interest payments.
Lisa responded that a 0.5% transfer would equate to a transfer of around £700k and said she would need to check with Treasury colleagues to confirm the impact on interest payments.

Jon Hewitt stated that he was against a transfer. He believed the transfer would have little impact compared to the size of the deficit. He stressed that the Government needed to take action in sorting what was a national issue.

Chris Prosser concurred with Jon Hewitt and was concerned that transferring money from schools would go against the SEND Strategy. The aim was to try and keep more SEN children in mainstream schools and taking money away from schools would be counterintuitive.

The Chair noted that the majority were against a transfer of funding including the HFG. A recommendation for a 0% transfer was proposed and seconded and at the vote with school members, the motion was carried.

The Chair invited the Forum to consider recommendation 2.1 (d) noting that the HFG had agreed with the recommendation.

d)    To approve the criteria for to be used to allocate additional funds.

David Fitter appreciated the detail added by Lisa Potts on high needs additional funding for disproportionate numbers however, he raised a concern that using only West Berkshire Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) numbers for allocation, negatively impacted schools that had significant numbers of EHCP students from outside the West Berkshire area.

Neil Goddard agreed with the points raised by David Fitter and acknowledged that the data should reflect all EHCPs, not just those from West Berkshire. He explained that the limitation was due to data reliability issues but committed to reviewing the approach and reporting back at the next meeting. Neil Goddard clarified that the principle of the criteria was being voted on, and any improvements to the data would be considered subsequently.

Recommendation (d) was proposed and seconded and at the vote with all Forum members, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that:

• The approach to how data was collected regarding EHCPs would be reviewed and reported on at the next meeting.
• Recommendations (a), (b), (c) and (d), as outlined above, were approved by the Schools’ Forum.
• Recommendation (e) was considered as part of the next agenda item.