Agenda item

To consider the Draft 2022/23 Schools Block Budget.

Katherine Vernon presented the draft 2022/23 Schools Block Budget.

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

·       The provisional October census data had been received.  There had been an increase of in the region of 750 pupils last year.  Initially modelling had been based on an income of £126million.  This had now increased to £130million.  The Growth factors which were based on the number of pupils from one year to the next had also been updated.

·       Katherine Vernon took the Forum through the results of the consultation with schools.

·       Katherine Vernon highlighted the draft figures that would be sent round to schools for comment.  The £128million referred to, took off the £1.5million which it was recommended would be retained for the Growth Fund next year.  Only schools that had received a drop in pupil numbers of 4% or more compared to last year would receive less funding than last year.

·       The Age Weighted Pupil Unit had increased for all levels and the amount allocated to the minimum per pupil funding level had decreased.  The Minimum Funding Guarantee allocation had reduced compared to last year.

·       Derren Gray thanked Katherine Vernon for the work that she had put into the different models.

·       The Chairman referred to Appendix D of the 2021/22 Revenue Monitoring Report, which detailed the Growth Fund and the figure recommended to be taken out of the Dedicated Schools Grant to allow growth across the Borough.  He questioned how the 2022/23 figures had been reached.  He was informed that for 2021/22 £800,000 had been retained from the Schools Block funding and £475,000 was carried forwards, giving £1.2million available to spend for this year.  Discussions were ongoing around primary contingency and secondary contingency relating to additional classes for January.  Officers highlighted the commitments for new classes of just over £1million for this year.  The difference between what was available and what was to be committed for the year was £260,000.  The Chairman questioned how much of the £1million remained as a contingency and was informed that it was £163,000, which could carry forward should the additional classrooms not come into effect in January.

·       Clarification was sought on the levels of contingency. 

·       Ginny Rhodes thanked Officers for the improved reporting.  She went on to refer to the formula for the Growth Fund and questioned whether the Growth Fund was funded to schools on the number of places that the Local Authority had requested, for example for a bulge class, or on the numbers of pupils that started at the school.  Katherine Vernon confirmed that it was the number requested as this was the number that the School would have had to plan for.  Derren Gray added that work was being undertaken around the best way to forward fund those contingency places.  Of the 240 secondary places in the contingency, 180 were for Year 7.  Last year 101 places were funded but only 67 pupils had taken up the places.  There was disparity between the four secondary schools with regards to funding.  Shirley Austin agreed and emphasised the need for accuracy of these predictions.

·       Derren Gray indicated that the 95% funding methodology had been applied.  In addition, the 2023/24 figures were provisional, and there were no secondary contingencies in 2022/23.  The figures would be updated over the year.

·       The Chairman asked the Forum whether they were comfortable with £1.8million as a Growth Fund figure for 2022/23.  Eleven Forum members indicated that they were, and one indicated that they were not.

·       In January it would be known whether the contingency set aside for possible primary and secondary classes, had been required.  If it was not taken up it would be carried forward and added to the Dedicated Schools Grant allocation for 2022/23.

·       Forum members expressed concern that although the Schools Forum had voted that there not be a move of half a percent from the Schools Block Fund to the High Needs Block Fund, Officers had exercised their powers to apply to the Education, Skills and Funding Agency for a disapplication.  The consultation of schools had also asked that this half percent move not be vired.

·       The Chairman commented that he had believed that Officers were required not to request a disapplication should the Forum and the results of the consultation vote against such a disapplication.

·       Lynne Samuel explained that within the guidance there was the ability for the local authority to submit for a disapplication.  Refence had been made in the report at the previous Schools Forum meeting and also at the School Business Manager briefing.  She apologised that it had been insufficiently highlighted.

·       It had not been an easy decision by the Director of Children’s Services to apply for a disapplication and was set in the context of the considerable financial challenges that the Borough faced.  Lynne Samuel commented that ideally Officers would have been able to share information presented in the High Needs Block update presentation at an earlier stage, to inform collective discussion.

·       It was recognised that a disapplication would reduce the funding available to the individual schools though the Authority Proforma Tool. 

·       It was confirmed that the Education, Skills and Funding Agency had been informed that the Schools Forum and consultation did not agree to a disapplication and had not yet indicated whether it accepted the local authority’s recommendation that the transfer be made.

·       Liz Woodards questioned whether a disapplication would mask the fact that the authority was one of the worst funded for Element 2, and whether this should be emphasised.  Lynne Samuel advised it was a difficult balance and Officers understood the pressure that individual schools were under.  There was a specific funding formula for each block.  Officers would look to ensure that they were funded appropriately.  The Education, Skills and Funding Agency would request various information in the consideration of the request for a disapplication, including Schools Forum minutes and the outcome of the consultation.

·       It was possible that the request for a disapplication could be refused. 

·       Brian Prebble asked that if the disapplication was approved Officers be very clear as to how the half percent would be spent, as this had not been the case in the past.  Lynne Samuel indicated that should this decision be made, Officers would come back to the Forum in order for a collective decision to be made as to how this funding would be targeted within the next financial year.

·       Councillor Margetts asked how communication around the decision making could be improved going forwards.  Lynne Samuel commented that Officers had worked hard to build relationships and transparency and would learn lessons. 

·       Corinna Gillard commented that the decision to apply for a disapplication did not aid the development of a partnership.  It was important that when a vote was taken, the outcome of it was listened to.

RESOLVED:  That

1)    the update on the Schools Block Budget be noted;

2)    the results of the consultation with all of the schools be noted.