Minutes:
Jenny Lawrence
presented a paper on the 2019/20 Dedicated Schools Grant Settlement for
Leicestershire and the 2019/20 Schools Budget.
The report builds upon a number of reports presented through the 2018/19
financial year.
Jenny explained the
background to the funding system in terms of how it is received into the local
authority and the role of the Schools Forum in setting the 2019/20 Schools’
budget.
Jenny referred to
paragraph 17 which sets out the purpose and scope of the 2019/20 Schools’
Budget and the action required.
Jenny referred to
the Dedicated Schools Grant (paragraph 20) section in the paper which sets out
the funding settlement for 2019/20. The
provisional overall DSG is £500m which is broken down into four separate blocks,
the use of which Jenny outlined to the meeting.
In terms of the
high needs block there was an announcement in December that gave Leicestershire
£1.4m each year for 2018/19 and 2019/20 but was unsure whether this will
continue, the High Needs Development Plan accounts for this funding on an
on-going basis. This would ease some of
the high needs pressure but confirmation of this funding was still
awaited. The Early Years final grant
will not be confirmed until June 2020.
Jenny stated that
in terms of the Schools’ Block a ‘soft’ funding formula has been confirmed for
2020/21 i.e. local authorities retain responsibility for setting a school
funding formula but there is no further information on school funding. The Leicestershire funding formula continues
to reflect the National Funding formula (NFF) with the exception of sparsity
funding. 2019/20 is the second year of
the NFF and schools will receive a minimum per pupil increase in funding of
0.5% on the floor (a total of 1% compared to the 2017/18 baseline). Jenny stated that the formula has been
submitted to the ESFA who have queried one element of the submission. Until this is resolved school budgets cannot
be issued. It was hoped to get the issue
sorted around 2017/18 baseline which is used this year but cannot use next.
The current
overspend position of SEN placements and it is projected that an overall high
needs overspend of £5.2M will be present in 2022/23 after which the deficit is
recovered. The situation is expected to
stabilise as new provision comes through the system. Jenny highlighted the £4.3m protection
funding mentioned in paragraph 27 which is not guaranteed and it is uncertain
how long that will remain in the funding system. A submission to the ESFA in December for the
places expected to commission from the high needs providers for the following
academic year are shown in Appendix C.
Jenny stated that
there was no new information on the grants for universal infant free school
meals and PE and sports.
Jenny stated that
funding school growth funding for a new school works well but is proving to be
a barrier in terms of growing mainstream school capacity which is something
that needs to be addressed.
Jenny outlined that
for 2019/20 funding for school growth is formulaic based on increases in pupil
numbers between 2017 and 2018 October census and the allocation for 2019/20 is
£2.3m which is a significant increase from 2018/19. However the cost of delivering the full NFF
in 2019/20 exceeds the school element of the Schools Block by £0.6m. £0.2m of this relates to a difference in the
formula budget and DSG allocation for the new Lubbesthorpe
school opening in September 2019. The
growth allocation has fully funded the shortfall resulting in a proposed school
growth budget of £1.7m for 2019/20.
The dedicated
schools grant reserve is at £1m which is planned to take forward.
Chris Swan referred
to paragraph 45 and asked for clarification of the growth funding policy. Jenny explained how it worked in principle
and stated that the local authority had a statutory duty to consult on
policies.
David Thomas asked
Jenny if she could provide figures for each element of the DSG reserve (est £1m). Jenny
would add this to the minutes (see below).
2018/19 DSG Reserve; |
|
£,000 |
|
|
|
||
Schools Block - School Growth |
1,282 |
||
Early Years Surplus |
41 |
||
High Needs Deficit |
-299 |
||
|
|
||
DSG Surplus c/f |
|
1,025 |
Jenny stated that
the overspend on the high needs block is £2.5m with £2m in reserve.
Graham Bett asked if there was any other county council or
authority that have the same policy in that DSG expenditure needed to be
contained within the grant available.
Jenny stated that this is the position in most authorities. Graham asked if a list of local authorities
that provide funding in addition to DSG could be provided for the next
meeting. Jenny said that this
information could be provided for 2018/19 but not for 2019/20. Note
– the format of the data published by the DFE for 2018/19 does not identify
this information.
Nick Goforth stated
that there were no surprises in terms of funding for 2019/20 but asked for
thoughts on funding from 2019/20. Jenny
stated that 2020/21 will be a
soft formula and she expected 2020/21 to continue the 2019/20 funding
levels. Jenny stated what happens to the
floors and the ceilings is something that is unknown.
Nick Goforth asked
for thoughts on the Secretary of State’s view that a 2% increase in teacher pay
is affordable from school budgets. Jenny
assumed that it will go through but was unsure whether there will be any
changes to the pay grant. Jenny added
that unless the pay award increases this will be another pressure on school
budgets. Nick added that LSH had
responded to headteachers on this and this may something LPH should do as well.
Jenny informed the
meeting that it was necessary to increase capacity to work with schools in
terms of financial planning. The
recruitment process for this post had taken place but was unsuccessful. The post has been advertised again and from
applications received it was hopeful an appointment will be made this time
around. Jenny added that when the
recruitment process started the immediate focus was maintained schools but
discussions through LEEP and factors identified by academies have raised how
this resource will be most effective.
Graham Bett raised concern of the lack of money in the school
system and the concern that schools are losing high quality staff at a time
when the number of children in the system is increasing. Representatives of this group should join
forces to make the Government aware of the Schools Forum concerns and the
damage being caused to the school system.
Jenny stated that schools do operate successfully within their budgets
but agreed that the issues need to be tabled.
Nick Goforth stated
that the 2020/21 budget will be down to the comprehensive spending review. Jenny stated that a decision was due autumn
2019 which leaves it late for planning into 2020/21. There is a suggestion it will be a one-year
settlement. Discussion took place on the
2% increase which will be extremely difficult to find – is there a place for
Schools Forum to express its concern.
Nick Goforth stated
that from a meeting with the Regional Schools Commissioner schools not in a MAT
should be for school efficiency. Jenny
stated that previously the DfE used to convene
conferences for Schools Forum but now there is no such mechanism.
Jenny asked Schools
Forum to note the notional SEN budget of £33m outlined in paragraph 50. This SEN funding is a subset of the funding delegated
to all schools and academies and was established to guide schools in the
allocation of resources to meet additional needs of pupils.
Jenny outlined the
arrangements in paragraph 52 for reclaiming funding from schools excluding
pupils permanently. The rates are also
applied to the funding adjustments made in relation to dual registered pupils
at Oakfield, the charges levied for the education of children with medical
needs and will be recommended to the Secondary Inclusion Partnerships.
Jenny added that
the pupil premiums and early year provider funding rates are unchanged.
Jenny stated that
the pressures in the local authority budget are clearly visible in paragraph
58; Leicestershire are however in a reasonable position. Jenny added that a balanced budget has been
set for the next 2 years and in terms of Children and Family Service there is
growth to increase capacity in the SENA service to address the issues.
There are no new
savings, but work continues the process for savings around commissioning of
looked after children, internal foster carers and reduction of high cost
residential placements. The Children’s
Commissioner has started to work on costs which will feed into the
comprehensive spending review.
There was no
further update on the Free School Bid.
Suzanne Uprichard asked if the Educational Psychology Service will
shrink and less psychologists available due to the savings of £100k. Jenny understood that the service will be
staffed to capacity so the staffing budget will be reduced.
Chris Parkinson
raised an issue regarding the implications of the costs in terms of key stage 4
pupils - average cost for the year is £10K which is approximately £55 per
day. The suggestion is that the local
authority should match that as a charge.
Jenny set out that the charge as set out in the report was a mandatory
charge, any other needs to be the subject of local agreement.
Chris Parkinson
stated that housing growth is happening because of economic development – this
should not be coming from schools budgets.
Jenny set out that funding for basic need growth was provided to the
local authority through a specific allocation within the Schools Block. This funding is on top of that for the NFF
for schools so retaining school growth has no impact on the delivery of the
NFF. Jenny also pointed to the use of
£0.6m of the local authorities growth allocation being used to fund the NFF
delivery in 2019/20 as the DSG allocation was insufficient to fund the NFF.
Schools Forum approved the retention of a
budget to fund school growth (paragraph 17, item 2).
Schools Forum approved the retention of
budgets to meet the prescribed statutory duties of the local authority and to
meet historic costs (Paragraph 17, Items 3 & 4).
Schools Forum approved the centrally
retained early years funding of (Paragraph 17 Item 5).
Schools Forum noted the number and average
cost of commissioned places for children and young people with High Needs
(Paragraph 32).
Schools Forum noted the 2019/20 school
funding rates (Paragraph 39).
Schools Forum noted the value Dedicated
Schools Grant Reserve (Paragraph 48).
Schools Forum approved the action to be
taken in respect of schools where the Special Educational Needs (SEN) notional
budget is insufficient to meet the aggregated value of High Needs Funding
Element 2 (Paragraph 50).
Schools Forum noted the average per pupil
funding to be taken into account for recoupment for excluded pupils and other
purposes (Paragraph 52).
That Schools Forum noted the payment rates
for the Early Years Funding formula (Paragraphs 56 -57).
Supporting documents: