Agenda item

Due to the funding consultation not closing until 17^th September these papers were only made live on the morning of the 18^th September.

Jenny Lawrence talked through the key points of her report and explained it had only been possible to table the report and outcome of the consultation late as the consultation closed on 17 September.  The timeline had been extremely challenging to develop these proposals.

 

The proposal had been to Schools’ Forum twice and the Task and Finish Group 3 times who unanimously supported the principles and the proposals - that all education providers should benefit from additional money but the Local Authority recognise that it is impossible to find a solution that meets every schools individual needs, the proposals provide the best solution for Leicestershire as a whole and will leave schools in a better place to respond to the introduction of a national funding formula.

 

Jenny stated that this is not a formula review but a basis to distribute the additional funding.

 

Jenny thanked the Task and Finish Group for their time over the summer to work on formulating proposals.

 

Jenny said the Local Authority had done as much as possible to alert all schools and academies to the importance of the consultation, but had only received 13 responses.  7 primary (unanimous in favour) and 6 secondary (mixed responses).  The Local Authority have proposed no changes to funding age range changes.  

 

It was important to note not all schools can get additional £240 per pupil largely due to the way the minimum funding guarantee works.  There are 23 schools who will not see a cash increase.  However, they would have seen a 1.5% increase.  No school will lose money as a result of these proposals.

 

It remains the Local Authority’s view that the proposals are measured and principled.  Schools will benefit from lower levels minimum funding guarantee from the formula.

 

Anecdotally secondary schools are telling the Local Authority that the proposals are not fair but the consultation outcome does not make this point – the LA feel that there is an alternative proposal which retains principles that Schools’ Forum may wish to consider which is to retain 7% AWPU primary school, retain 100% uplift at prior attainment (primary and secondary), retain funding increase early years providers and could provide secondaries with an AWPU increase of 2.75%.

 

If that option were supported the Local Authority would need to adjust primary and secondary AWPU 2014 data and this would also increase the number of schools remaining on minimum funding guarantee from 23 to 26 schools.

 

The Chair asked Schools’ Forum members whether they would like to adjourn for 30 minutes to allow time for consideration of the issues raised.  The Forum decided to continue with the meeting and not adjourn.

 

David Thomas referred to page 14 alternative proposal and asked whether this was a political proposal? 

 

Jenny responded no, the secondary position was reported by a limited group of secondary schools, the Local Authority are in consultation so took that informal feedback into account when the option was explored around an alternative that kept with those fundamental principles agreed in June.

 

Richard Spurr said this was an excellent piece of work.  The feedback he had received from secondary representatives had been negative, they fully understand the minimum funding guarantee, but the main issue had been around disproportionate increase directed more to primary than secondary. 

 

Jenny responded that the analysis shows basic entitlement funding into all schools for primary is 1.6% lower than in similar authorities, KS3 is 0.5% greater and KS4 1.22% greater.  

 

Karen Allen responded to Richard’s questions.  This is addressing a long term discrepancy primary have been coping with for a long time.

 

Jenny said the Local Authority can only take into account the views it receives and had not just provided the formal consultation feedback but also included the email responses received for completeness. 

 

David Thomas, as a member of the Task and Finish Group, expressed his disappointment in the number of consultation responses.   The alternative is a fundamental change from the consultation proposal.

 

Alex Green reported 6th form funding over the last 4 years had been cut significantly beyond any other area, which has a significant impact on secondary.  There is a Primary bias, understands why, but important to remember, at every stage secondary colleagues have promoted the primary additional funding, 6th form funding KS5 has never been mentioned.  Really would plead to consider latitude if flexibility in system to go for 2.75% centrally retained budgets – should come back to that – look at Schools Block in its totality, how and why it is split.

 

Jenny responded that DSG given to the Local Authority was for 0-15 year olds, there is no DSG funding for KS5.  Jenny clarified 2.75% was not considered by the Working Group.  Schools’ Forum approves the budgets that are centrally retained in the Schools Block.

 

Jean Lewis asked for clarification – whether these proposals were for the one year?

 

Jenny responded no, that they were recurrent and would carry forward 2016/17 and onwards.

 

Richard Spurr – key points about perception – principle is sound we should be realigning.  We should use extra money to readdress the balance.  As secondary academy representative must consider 2.75%.

 

Heather Stretton – understands minimum funding guarantee to safeguard schools.  Eventually there will be a price per pupil.  Proposal of 2.75% only floated last couple of days does not give much time to consider, and there needs to be more time.

 

Jenny responded there was no time, a report was to go to Cabinet on 13 October and papers needed to be issued a week in advance.  Minimum funding guarantee has been in place around 11 years introduced designed to ensure the Local Authority did not take more money than they should from the Schools Block, latterly used for ensuring school funding did not fall significantly year on year.

 

Karen Allen asked for it to be confirmed - if were to go for the new proposal of 2.75% - the only disadvantage would be an additional 3 schools retained on minimum funding guarantee?

 

Jenny responded yes, and it would also increase rates going into nursery education and SEN.  SEN can be funded from contingency already held.  Early Years allocation would increase from £730K to £920K, secondary schools were not supportive of funding going to early years providers.

 

Recommendation 3 - Schools’ Forum considered the consultation.

 

That the proposals should be amended – 5 voted in favour.

 

That the proposals should remain – 5 voted in favour, (6 in favour with the final casting vote from the Chairman).

 

The Chairman, considering the work of the Task and Finish Group, therefore agreed not to change the proposal.

 

Recommendation 5 - was agreed.

 

Jenny clarified that the final decision rests with Cabinet on 13 October. 

 

David Thomas – AWPU alignment – could that be negative?

 

Jenny responded yes, one example is the rates backdated over a number of years, if call on that increases all AWPU will need to be factored down.  Not possible to say whether it could go up or down. 

 

The Chair thanked Jenny for doing a tremendous job, given the extremely tight timescale.