Agenda item

To consider a report outlining the financial pressures arising from the Education Services Grant removal

The Forum considered a report and presentation on Agenda pages 25 to 38, presented by the Interim Assistant Director of Learning and Achievement, outlining the impact of the removal of the Educational Support Grant (ESG) from April, which would result in a funding gap.  He proceeded to detail a package to meet this funding gap, highlighting proposals to claim a sum of £380 k from the DSG (equating to a portion of the rebased ESG) and to raise £370 k by top slicing the Early Years and Childcare DSG allocation.

He went on to clarify that the top slice, whilst previously unlimited, had now been limited in the regulations to 7%.  He stated that Wokingham Borough Council had not previously laid claim to this top slice and that, following discussion and re-calculation with colleagues, showed a proposed top slice at 4.08% for 2017/2018.  He then informed the Forum that the remaining funding gap of approximately £1.1 m would be partly met by an uplift in the Wokingham borough Council subsidy leading to a final identified funding shortfall of £723 k.

Members of the Forum representing Early Years raised concerns that a top slice would result in a net loss of income due to the reduction in other areas of their funding and asked for clarification as to whether the claw back of the Early Years Contingency referred to in Agenda Item 11 would be ring-fenced for Early Years provision.

In response to questions from the Forum, it was clarified that the sum referred to in the report as DSG claimed back to replace the ESG did in fact represent a proposal that the projected increase in pupil funding of £15 per capita which was being paid for by the removal of the ESG be redirected to cover the cost of the functions that had traditionally been covered by the ESG.

In response to questions, the Interim Assistant Director of Learning and Achievement clarified that the final decision as to any redirection of this increase was that of the Forum itself and individual schools. 

The Forum put forward a suggestion that the model for buying of services from the Council be changed to one where individual schools could choose what services to buy in.  This was felt to be particularly important for academies that were part of a trust as they paid a fee to the trusts for similar services and felt they would be being charged twice for some services and were not able to access the open market.  The Interim Assistant Director of Learning and Achievement commented that there were elements of the services provided by Wokingham Borough Council that were not recharged to academies when they bought in a particular service.  He stated that the Council would need to carry out a lot of investigative work about potential levels of buyback to be able to set up an alternative model.  Liz Meek, Head of Addington School, commented on the concept of a buy in model, stating that there were statutory levels of service and that these needed to be done well.  She stated that the cost of buying in services from external bodies and independent providers was far in excess of the costs outlined in the budget if the Council was to provide the services and that the payments to the Council for its services were a form of insurance against problems an individual school might face in the future.  She indicated that there was no level of means testing applied to the services.

In response to questions, the Interim Assistant Director of Learning and Achievement clarified that the figures allocated to School Improvement represented posts and that at the current moment all School Improvement Officers worked in early years and primary.  He stated that regulations did not indicate what School Improvement should look like, but what aspects had to be carried out.

Concerns were raised about the forward planning and a need to improve the strategic and medium term planning process.  The Interim Assistant Director of Learning and Achievement indicated that the Forum was empowered to make a decision as to whether schools would provide a set figure of £380 k or a figure adjusted to actual income levels.  There was a general consensus that more information would be required from Officers before the Forum would be able to make a decision and that this information would be presented to the Schools Forum Meeting on 18 January 2017. 

Actions:  that

·       clarification would be provided on what the scenario would be in regards to the budget and the top slice percentage if the figures looked at for this decision cycle were markedly different to the actuals that emerge;

·       confirmation in regards to the proposed change of the business model to one of ‘buy in’ from 2018/19 or suggestions of alternative models;

·       clarification be provided in the minutes as to the number of pupils on role and the figure of £380 k and how the sum of £15 per capita was reached;

·       clarification on the expectation of receiving this amount from academies;

·       clarification on the impact of staff reductions on the service level provided by WBC;

·       clarification would be provided in the minutes on the figure allocated to premature retirement and redundancies referred to during the Briefing on 7 December;

·       figures would be provided that would show the costs allocated on a per capita basis; and

·       a business plan will be presented at the Meeting on 18 January 2017 outlining the budgetary position if the Forum agrees to the proposals or if the Forum disagrees with the proposals, what the services are and a judgement as to whether services are needed or could be cut.