Agenda item

To receive and consider the DSG Budget Planning 2022/23 update.

Katherine Vernon presented the report and stated that the results of the consultation would be known in November.  Schools Forum were being asked to support the Budget plans and the results of the consultation.

Wokingham Borough Council were advised at the end of July of the primary and secondary units of funding, and there was a 2% increase for the Schools Block.  The Growth Fund factor would not be known until December.  The figures used by the DfE were based on the census data from last year, the final funding allocations in December would take into account the pupil numbers from the October 2021 census.

The Early Years allocation would be received in December.

The Task and Finish Group had met and worked on a model including the 2% increase.  The Group also looked at the Lump Sum for primary and secondary schools (currently £135K) to be modelled at £135K, £121.3K (NFF) and £128.5K, aiming to spread as much money as possible to all schools.

The consultation with schools would start in November after the October half term.  This consultation would be on the principles of funding, a further consultation would take place once the numbers from the October census were known.  Schools would be asked again about the disapplication (proposed 0.5% transfer from the Schools Block to the HNB).  The consultation also included a de-delegation review for maintained schools.

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

·           The Chairman explained that although the DfE allocated £1.6m to the Growth Fund, it was within Schools Forum remit to decide how much of this fund was given to Growth Fund;

·           Derren Gray, Chairman of the Task and Finish Group confirmed that he was comfortable with the work and progress of the funding formula.  He stated that this was the first time that there were no ‘winners and losers’ under the current model every school was a winner;

·           In relation to Lump Sum, Derren Gray stated that there was variation between schools in the lower levels.  The Group was looking into this;

·           The Task and Finish Group would meet again once the results of the consultation were available;

·           The Chairman questioned the need/justification to increase the Growth Fund from £800K to £1.3m.  He pointed out that this extra money was to fund predicted future need for places, however the projections were not accurate and this money could be spent in schools instead;

·           Derren Gray agreed to look into the Growth Fund at the Task and Finish Group and to work with Piers Brunning on projections for 2022/23 and future years;

·           Sal Thirlway confirmed that it was for Schools Forum to set the Growth Fund, he pointed out that there had been unforeseen circumstances this year which had led to the need for additional funding for Growth Fund;

·           The Chairman was concerned over the figures presented in relation to this year’s Growth Fund.  He stated that overallocation to the Growth Fund meant that there was less funding for the pupils in all schools;

·           Sal Thirlway stated that there was a desire to be prudent with allocations to avoid pressures on the Schools Block;

·           Ben Godber clarified, and wished it to be recorded, that Bohunt had not received any Growth Fund for over two years, since the school had been full;

·           Brian Prebble stated that the School Admissions Group had seen figures and it was known that there was pressure for school places in certain school years.  He believed that Piers Brunning would be able to work out a more precise amount for Growth Fund;

·           Lynne Samuel suggested having a dedicated Task and Finish Group session on Growth Fund to work out the assumptions for this year and the contingency for future years;

·           The Chairman explained that the falling roll funding was very narrowly defined and it did not address geographical changes in pupil volumes.  It only addresses local short term shortages;

·           Carole Simpson was concerned that the falling roll fund was driven by planning data, the accuracy of which was questionable;

·           Corrina Gillard stated that two headteachers had raised the issue that their three-year budget plans were predicting future deficits of potentially upwards of £200K potentially.  They had been seeking support from the Local Authority, however they had been advised that they would not get support until they reached deficit.  This was linked to falling rolls and she suggested that these schools be supported now and not just in the future;

·           Liz Woodward stated that there had been a significant fall in the number of births during the pandemic period, and suggested that this be considered in the future planning;

·           Shirley Austin stated that the Forest School had not received any funding for fall in rolls.

Katherine Vernon stated that the consultation being sent out to schools covered five sections, as set out on the report.

The Chairman suggested adding the Task and Finish Group’s recommendation to the questions and making the questionnaire less wordy by attaching explanations as appendixes.

Derren Gray explained that often the final DfG allocation was more than expected, and the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) was then adjusted.  He agreed to review and re-word the questions.

There was a debate about the proposal to transfer 0.5% from the Schools Block to the HNB.  Sal Thirlway stated that there was a duty to consult with schools on this proposal.  There was agreement that the language used in the question needed to be clearer so that schools were made aware of the implications of the 0.5% transfer.

Lynne Samuel pointed out that there were other opportunities for discussions and clarifications with schools, such as the School Business Managers Briefing.

There was a general consensus that Schools Forum’s recommendations should be shared with schools, as it was agreed that Schools Forum had a more detailed understanding of schools’ finances.

In response to a question the Chairman explained that the 0.5% equated to £600K.

Upon being put to the vote Schools Forum decided not to support the 0.5% transfer from the Schools Block to the HNB.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Language will be added to the consultation questionnaire being sent to schools stating that Schools Forum does not support the recommendation to transfer 0.5% from the Schools Block to the HNB;

2)     Geographical fall in rolls be added to the December agenda;

3)     The report be noted.