Agenda item

Pupil Movement and Lagged / Double Funding

To receive and consider a report regarding pupil movement and lagged/ double funding.

Minutes:

Piers Brunning, Service Manager, Policy, Strategy & Partnerships presented the Pupil Movement and Lagged / Double Funding report which was set out on the supplementary agenda pages 19-24.

 

Piers explained in great detail the contents of the report and gave various examples to illustrate different possible scenarios.

 

Piers highlighted the recommendations:

 

·           That Forum agrees to fund primary schools for the additional cost associated with opening a new class until such a time as school formulaic funding is sufficient to make the class sustainable;

·           Planned expansion X AWPU (Age Weighted Pupil Unit) X Operational months / 12

·           That from 1 April after the expansion of the school the funding should be on the basis of:

o   (planned roll – allowance for unfunded places (lesser of 3 or 5% of the planned year group roll) – actual roll ) X AWPU

o   That in the event that planned roll numbers do not materialise Officers can agree that funding be based on a new planned roll based on mixed age groups (no more than two age groups within one Key Stage)

 

Piers recommended that the Local Authority should operate with a reasonable amount of surplus places, in the region of 3-5% because this was the figure the DFE recommended should be used.  This was gap funding, the difference between the PAN and the actual number on roll.

 

During the discussion of the item the following points were made:

 

·           Janet Perry asked for more detailed information on the plan, including proposed numbers, identified pressure areas and the cost and how this was going to be funded.  Piers stated that Loddon was one of the schools that was identified for expansion in Year 1.  He stated that a mechanism to sustain that expansion had to be found as there was need for additional school places in that area.

·           Piers stated that no volunteers had been found for expansion in Years 2 and 4 to date.  Part of the problem was the inability to demonstrate to schools a funding mechanism illustrating the viability of the extra spaces;

·           The Chairman believed that this was part of the 1.3 million growth fund;

·           Jane Winterbone stated that this was a strategic piece of work that needed to be undertaken back in the office, including a case by case scenario to understand the pressures.  She strongly believed that a 1% surplus places was not enough, she would prefer a 5% surplus.  The overall strategic picture should be shared with Schools Forum, explaining the rational for decisions made;

·           Corrina Gillard stated that on occasions School Admissions mistakenly told parents that her school was full when in fact it was not full.  She believed that the communication between schools and School Admissions needed improving;

·           Elaine Stewart stated that she felt uncomfortable with the idea of sustaining a 5% surplus places in her school.  Jane Winterbone clarified that the 5% surplus would be spread across the Borough;

·           Jane Winterbone explained that there were additional issues to be considered.  For example, free schools had the liberty to open spaces without the Local Authority’s agreement, and these places were not necessarily where spaces were needed.  Jane informed that she was new to the service and she needed a bit of time to understand the demographics in order to advise on a strategy;

·           Carole Simpson believed that the current formula worked well.  Schools needed a degree of certainty in order to expand;

·           Jane Winterbone stated that Forum may wish to consider top slicing the growth fund to enable a exceptional cost budget which schools could submit a request to, for example if there was a high percentage of SEN children within their growth cohort.

 

The Chairman concluded that there were three aspects to be considered in relation to growth fund:

·           There was more transparency of how the budget was put together and its implications;

·           A policy was likely to be recommended of either 3-5% surplus places, aligned with costs;

·           The implication of new build to Growth Fund and control over the fund.

 

RESOLVED That the report be noted and that Schools Forum would continue to monitor growth fund.

Supporting documents: