Due to the
consultation closing on 30 November this will be a verbal update.
Minutes:
Jenny Lawrence
presented an analysis of the consultation outcome to gain final views of the
Schools’ Forum to inform the recommendations for Cabinet on 9 January
2018. A copy of the consultation
unabridged comments submitted by schools during the consultation period were
circulated to members of the Forum.
Jenny stated that
95 schools responded to the consultation; 55 primary and 40 secondary.
Two options were
presented for Primary Schools and one for Secondary Schools:
Primary Option 1:
To adopt the NFF
principles but local variation in respect of prior attainment, lump sum and
deprivation.
Primary Option 2:
Move as close to
the NFF as possible excluding sparsity.
Secondary Option:
To align to NFF as
close as possible excluding the sparsity factor.
Jenny commented
that the local authority had replicated what sparsity looked like through the
working group. The responses for Option
1 were 42 and for Option 2 were 37.
Based on the primary responses only Option 1 was more favourable across
Leicestershire schools. Jenny asked the
Schools’ Forum for any comments.
David Thomas commented that he would go against the formula with the
local variations as it failed to demonstrate a clear benefit from deviation
from the National Funding Formula proposals, which was the remit against which
the modelling had been done.
A primary
maintained headteacher made it clear he would lose out over this formula and
was uncertain if this was a transition to a NFF in two years’ time. This was a time risk and ‘cliff edge’
argument.
Jenny commented
that it was impossible to speculate on what year 3 would be as the DfE had not
made any information available. Moving
on the next steps would be based on the spending review – difficult to know
where the cliff edge is, if indeed there will be one. The baseline budget for 2019/20 will be
2018/19 school budgets. There is growing
speculation that it will not be possible to implement a hard formula in
2020/21.
Callum Orr asked if
Year 3 was near to the NFF or the existing Leicestershire formula. Jenny said that the expectation would be that
with a hard formula Year 3 would be the NFF, if a soft formula, it would be the
adopted formula for Leicestershire. Mr
Ould commented that he had attended a F40/DfE meeting recently and whether the
additional £1.6 billion over the next 2 years was baselined would depend on the
next spending review.
Following a vote 14
members did not support the Local Authority proposal to adopt the NFF
principles but local variation in respect of prior attainment, lump sum and
deprivation for primary schools and there were 2 abstentions.
A Forum member
asked what the next stage was. Jenny
commented that this was the final stage in consultation. Jane Moore emphasised that if Forum are
proposing not to agree with the LA proposal they need to be really clear around
the decision and be transparent about the decision the Schools’ Forum is
recommending.
Jenny referred to
the one option for the Secondary Formula.
Jenny added there was only one school that triggered sparsity funding
but its position at the funding floor resulted in no more funding if included.
Jenny referred to
the two areas where it would be necessary to rebalance the Leicestershire
formula to ensure it did not exceed the funding available. They were:
·
Balance
the cost of any pupil characteristic changes in the school sector in which they
arise and;
Forum members agreed with the local authority proposal to balance the
cost of any pupil characteristic changes in the school sector in which they
arise.
·
The
local authority’s intended approach to balance the cost of changes in rent,
rates, existing age ranges changes and pupil growth through a universal
adjustment to the AWPU rate
A Forum member
asked why this does not come from all schools instead of individual
schools. Jenny commented that this had
been dealt with in the budget and headroom in previous years but this was not
possible in the new method of calculating DSG allocations. The Forum discussed this in detail and it was
agreed to defer any decision on this due to uncertainty on costs. A more suitable approach would be looked at
in the autumn term when costs would be clearer.
Jenny referred to
Question 10 which asked about supporting the retention of any DSG surplus in
2018/19 to meet increased cost in 2019/20.
Forum members
expressed concern about the level of funding required in 2019/2020 and said
that the 2018/19 surplus should be distributed to schools. There was a significant view from the
secondary schools that any surplus should be used to support KS3. Jenny commented that any surplus cannot be
targeted at KS3 as the floors and ceiling mechanism in the NFF would not allow
this. A Forum member asked if this was a
2 year programme or a rolling programme.
Jenny commented that information was only available for 2 years. Discussion took place on the number of
respondents to the consultation and the classic division of responses. Concern was expressed about the communication
mechanism of the consultation.
Jane Moore asked
Forum Members to vote on whether they agreed that the LA should use the
adjustment in AWPU:
Agree: 7
Disagree: 6
Abstained: 3
Jane asked Forum
members whether they supported the retention of any DSG surplus in 2018/19 to
meet increased cost in 2019/20:
Agree: 0
Disagree: 14
Abstained: 1
A Forum
representative commented that members were uncertain about making decisions
where the impact arising from them could not be quantified. Suzanne Uprichard expressed concern that
there was no organisation governors could refer to. Jenny commented that it was difficult for
governors to communicate with their groups.
Alison Bradley agreed to speak to Governor Development Service about the
communication with governors.
The Forum unanimously agreed that the Local
Authority should implement the NFF from 2018/19 for both primary and secondary
school budgets.
It was agreed that in respect of the
balancing adjustment for the school led factors this would be revisited at the
beginning of the autumn term.