Agenda item

School Funding Issues

Jenny Lawrence introduced her report to the meeting which aims to clarify for schools and Schools’ Forum the process behind three aspects of schools funding which are the subject of much debate but often based on partial or incorrect information namely;

• The allocation of the additional £20.5M school funding
• Funding age range changes
• The 1% AWPU reduction in 2016/17

Jenny reported that this paper contains no new information to reports presented at different times to Schools’ Forum where it had been discussed widely.

Jenny stated that firstly the local authority must treat all schools equally; there is no differential between academies and maintained schools.  The local authority may treat primary and secondary schools differently usually within the funding rates.  Current decisions on schools funding affect maintained schools, academies and the two studio schools but not special schools.  It was also worth noting that School Funding Formula is the basis for allocating a fixed pot of funding and that governing bodies determine how the funding is spent.

Allocation of Additional £20.5M in 2015/16

Jenny stated that paragraph 11 states how the allocation methodology was determined.  Paragraph 12 sets out how the recommendations were made which schools were widely consulted on.  The working group representation was 56% secondary and 36% primary.  Paragraph 13 sets out how it was delivered and paragraph 14 sets out the consultation on the proposals.

Nick Gorforth asked why the 2.75% AWPU increase was rejected.  Jenny commented it was not supported by Schools’ Forum following a very vigorous discussion.

Funding age range changes

Jenny referred to paragraph 16 which confirms that that the local authority has consistently stated that it has no revenue or capital for age range changes.  The first group of academies undertaking age range changes did so with the knowledge of the 1 year lag in funding which then resulted in the EFA requiring local authorities to fund such changes by pupil number variations or face the EFA removing the money they thought necessary to fund age range changes from DSG.  The local authority worked with schools and the EFA to establish a system whereby expanding schools being funded for estimated September pupils and protection of 80% for falls in pupil numbers in the first year of change, funded from headroom in the overall DSG settlement.  Jenny emphasised that no school has ever been or ever will be funded for 100% of its number on roll and this was still the position.

Steve McDonald asked what the method of calculation was for age range changes and when was it shared with secondary schools.  Jenny said that it was agreed by Cabinet and the method of calculation was the October 2013 scheme formulated with schools.  Steve McDonald commented that there was no indication of the method when the first schools went through age range changes.  Jenny reinforced that the local authority did not provide this scheme for the first year of age range change but had to respond to changes in the operation guidance issued by the EFA in year two of change. The scheme was discussed many times and whilst the local authority had a responsibility to inform schools then those schools also had a responsibility to clarify the financial position prior to submitting business cases.

Karen Allen stated that the age range change was discussed at the September 2015 Schools’ Forum.  If a school was making a change they should be expected to find the information on how this would affect school change.  The funding formula does exist and was part of the process.

Sonia Singleton commented that not all schools agreed with the age range protection policy or fully understood its implications and at that time proper consideration had not been given by schools in their business planning.

The 1% AWPU reduction in 2016/17

Jenny referred to paragraph 21 which outlines the current system of needs led top-up funding for high needs which was introduced in 2013/14 and since April 2013 the cost of top up funding has increased by 32%.

Jenny stated that the high needs costs issue was being contained and the funding gap was closed through allocation of headroom, savings set for SEN services and reduced AWPU.  For 2015/16 the overspend had been met from reserves.

David Thomas commented that paragraphs 23 to 26 indicated considerable uncertainties.  Jenny said that there were lots of uncertainties some of which she outlined to the meeting.

The meeting discussed getting better value from placements and more effective commissioning.  Paul Meredith said that there was a similar issue in social care which is now being managed.  Paul said that he would present some ideas at the September meeting.

Graham Bett set out his view that schools were now being made to pay for past inactions of the local authority to control expenditure and that that schools do not have a shared responsibility for the overspend

Schools’ Forum noted the local authority position and process for determining the approach to;

·         The allocation of the additional £20.5M school funding in 2015/16

·         Funding age range changes

·         The 1% AWPU reduction in 2016/17