Minutes:
Jenny introduced
the report which presents the 2020/21 Schools Budget outturn position and
confirms the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Reserve.
Jenny referred to
paragraph 4 in the report which outlines a challenging year with significant
high needs overspend and the local authority block overspend. These are two consistent issues one of which
is high needs and the other in relation to social care both of which have
significant transformation projects looking at their current working
format. Jenny added that of the DSG deficit
of £17.5m high needs accounts for £17.5m of the deficit which is offset against
a surplus from the schools block which is mainstream school growth funding
allocated to the local authority that will be needed as new schools open in
future years. Jenny stated that schools
block cannot be used for high needs therefore the commissioning of new places
in terms of specialist provision contributes to the deficit.
Jenny referred to
paragraphs 11-15 which will be discussed on the next agenda item. Paragraph 14 refers to the Dedicated Schools
Grant ‘Safety Valve’ Agreements and further information has become available
from the ESFA about how they are working which Jenny reported to the meeting.
Jane Dawda referred to the tables in paragraph 4/5 and queried the early
years block which was £-109 but also asked if there was a reason for the
difference in the high needs block which was £10,387 in paragraph 4 but 10,634
in paragraph 5 and the schools block as it is £-3,139 in paragraph 4 but in
paragraph 5 it is as £2,923. Jenny
stated that paragraph 4 is the overall financial position and paragraph 5
highlights the significant overspends in the service areas that sit behind them
so there will be other minor areas of service that affect the numbers.
Jane Dawda queried paragraph 14 in terms of the Dedicated Schools Grant
‘Safety Valve’ Agreement as it mentions those Local Authorities who have received the funding as their
deficits were in excess of 10% and asked if Leicestershire would be considered
for any extra funding. Jenny stated that
these are local authorities where their overall dedicated schools grant was
higher than 10% and it is 1.8% in Leicestershire so would not be considered
currently by the DfE. Jenny added that
there is no public information about the criteria on why those 5 authorities
gained that funding and no national information on DSG balances for local
authorities. It was suggested to the DfE
making some benchmarking information available but confirmation of this has not
been received. There may be information
available when the 2022/23 funding arrangements are released in July but that
is yet to be seen.
Carolyn Lewis commented on how useful the report was and raised a query
on paragraph 7 and asked if there was a picture of maintained schools in terms
of school balances. Jenny said that
paragraph 6 states that indications are that maintained school balances have
risen by £1.7m and if that position is replicated across academies that is
suggesting an increase in balances of around £8m across the board. Jenny said that interestingly colleagues in
other local authorities are also reporting that position despite the challenges
of last year and therefore may ultimately give some schools issues around the Covid emergency fund in terms of it being clawed back.
Kath Kelly asked in terms of academies and whether or not that picture
is replicated is it not possible to draw down the financial position from the
financial reports. Jenny said that this
is difficult as it can only be found in published Statements of Accounts for
individual Trusts that may only become publicly available in January. Kath stated that a lot of secondary schools
report they are struggling financially and looking at potentially restructuring
and over the last 12 months schools have been in a better position than in non-covid times even without the additional government support
due to closure and saving on utilities but is not sustainable looking at one
year in terms of long-term decisions.
Jenny commented it was difficult to draw any conclusions from the level of
school balances as it is a snapshot in any particular point in time. Jenny informed the meeting that additional
resources had been invested in to work with schools to try and understand how
schools are planning their budgets and Jenny outlined some of the factors that
have been identified.
Graham Bett asked if the £8m can be transferred into a percentage. Jenny confirmed it was 1.9%. Graham asked what the total reserves as a
percentage would be. Jenny said that she
would need to confirm this as concentration was on the movement between one
year and the next and are in the process of the gathering of the Consistent
Financial Reporting returns from maintained schools that will split that
balance between capital and revenue and then would be able to confirm what the
overall percentage for those maintained schools would be. Graham commented on how the 1.9% was
insignificant without the background information. Jenny agreed as it was just a position in a
point in time and it was not clear how much of the 1.9% schools planned to use
in later years because of specific projects coming up or staffing issues that
needed resolving. Graham expressed
concern that it would been seen that schools have had an increase in their
school balances and therefore the interpretation of the narrative would be that
schools have additional money.
Jane Moore stated that Graham’s point was important and Kath’s point
about the translation of it is important.
Jane clarified that this sharing of information is as a point of
information as this is the end position of maintained schools. The point around the narrative is crucial
because it does not necessary depict that there is a system with lots of money
and indeed would be wrong of the local authority to translate that across the
whole system as the points Kath made about academies so the point is around the
narrative but also the wider narrative on what that actually means for the
schools. Jane said it was a valid point
to make and that it was important to ensure this is translated into what it means
for Leicestershire.
Karen Allen commented that every school is in a unique position and has
unique challenges and situations so therefore an overall figure of £1.7m is
quite meaningless because some schools will carry a large carry forward for a
number of valid reasons and other schools will be struggling. Karen added it was important not to try and
make assumptions in any one sector and in terms of the over cautious planning
this was a symptom of a long time of working within a really challenging
landscape of underfunding.
Jenny commented that when the initial research was carried out for the
school financial capacity work there were conversations with academies as there
was only a small sample size from primary schools. Jenny said she was happy to repeat this
exercise to have a more informed position across the academies. Kath Kelly was happy to support this.
Schools Forum noted the content of this
report.
Supporting documents: