Agenda and minutes

The Forum received a verbal update from Phil Cooch, C & E Finance team on the statutory requirements surrounding the submission by schools of three-year budgets, and his thoughts on the continuation of the process. Concerns had been raised at the previous Schools forum meeting about the viability of submitted budget for three years in advance, when the current DSG estimates cover only one school year.

Key points were as follows:

• To vary the application of the Minimum Funding Guarantee would require approval from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on a case by case basis.
• The process would have require a full consultation to be concluded by the end of April
• The method of budgeting, and the prudent, forward-looking approach to financial planning that it implied was already embedded in the working practises of the Local Authority and the area’s schools.
• The modelling software used by the council and schools – HSS, relies on inflation assumptions dictated by the local authority.
• The second- and third-year budgets are indicative: they can be, and frequently are revised, due to pupil numbers other than initially expected.

It was explained that the Chief Finance Officer’s view was that requiring three-year budgets was in keeping with the local authority’s emphasis on medium-term financial planning.

A brief discussion emerged, and the key unknowns for the second and third years were identified as the number of pupils; the value of the pupil premium and variability of the DSG. It was expected pupil premium funding would rise as a result of wider measures of eligibility (Free School Meals ever).

Members of the forum were asked to approve the forthcoming year’s inflation assumptions.

Resolved:

i)             That schools forum recommends not to go to consultation in order to vary the application of the Minimum Funding guarantee (MFG)

ii)            To approve the inflation assumptions of:

Staffing                                             0%

Non-staffing costs                         3.5%

Income                                              0%

Funding Guarantee                       -1.5%

Pupil Premium                                x1.25 each year

The report was taken as read, and summarised by Liz Williams, who explained that the recommendations from the working group were present to inform the Forum’s response to items no.9 and 10 on the agenda [minute no 122 and 123 respectively].

Resolved

To note the report and minutes and the recommendations of the SFWG.

Liz Williams updated the Forum regarding the discussions of the SEN Working group, and drew members’ attention to the recommendation that the (notional) amount within AWPU that was SEN funding be included on the Funding Certificate for each school.

Trevor Daniels, Head of SEN provision explained that he had investigated this, and these costs equate to approximately 2.4% of the AWPU. Schools could then be advised of the totality of the funding that they receive for SEN, respond to requests for information, and budget accordingly.

It was explained that this notional element of the AWPU represented fixed funding for SEN provision, regardless of the school and number of SEN-statemented children attending. It was a reflection of the estimated costs every school must incur to have a basic structure/capability to handle special educational needs. For example in a low-needs school this would include a proportion of teacher, Education Support Assistant and admin time. 

Resolved:

That the notional SEN element of the AWPU will be identified on the funding certificates as part of the notional SEN funding in the school’s budget. 

Liz Williams introduced the item and summarised the report and general aims of the proposals contained therein.

A discussion ensued  and the following key points were made:

• The funds generated by the recoupment of cost from bringing children back ‘in-county’ did not always return, in their entirety to schools, as these external placements were often co-funded by partners such as social care or the NHS.
• Mrs Finney re-iterated that the underlying rationale was to build a robust system which can aid early intervention in SEN cases. The NPA was reflective of needs.
• Trevor Daniels also expressed the benefits of delegation – prevention and early intervention, and also the reduced bureaucratic burden that comes with a system which identifies need properly and at an early stage.

Forum members discussed how best to allocate the funds released from the earlier considered review of transitional protection [Agenda Item no.16 / Minute no .117, and were strongly in favour of keeping any savings made in SEN provision within the SEN budget, and redistributing accordingly.

Resolved

i)             Savings from the review of Transition Protection at Downlands School would be added to the total funds outlined for delegation and/or band funding

ii)            The first call on the funds be to fully fund (100%) the special school bands 1+ - 5.

iii)           The remainder of funds to be used to increase the amount of SEN funds delegated to primary schools as

iv)          That savings in the second year from the review of Transition protection also stay with the central SEN budget, to help achieve fully funded band values 1+ - 5 for special schools, or fund other pressures on the SEN budget as necessary 

Stephanie Denovan, Service Director Schools & Learning, thanked the Schools Forum and officers for their work in the area of delegation, which had produced a system much improved on that which was previously in place. She also thanked the Special schools themselves for their help in this project.

Phil Cooch spoke to his report and explained the limited powers Schools Forum would have in future, regarding the application of the Minimum funding guarantee.

The purpose of the guarantee is to provide stability and predictability in school funding. The starting point for the MFG calculation is the per pupil amount that an individual school received in the previous financial year, known as the baseline budget share per pupil.

It was explained that following new regulations Schools Forum no longer has the general power to approve variations to the MFG affecting schools covering no more than 50% of pupils in the authority.  Exceptions were noted, but for all other variations School Forum’s agreement must be sought to vary the normal operation of the MFG and then to seek the Secretary of States approval for proposed changes.

Resolved:

i) The following baseline adjustments should be applied to avoid inappropriate minimum funding guarantees:

·         To remove new school and new year group allowances from the MFG Baseline

·         To remove small schools curriculum protection from the MFG Baseline

·         To remove service school safety net from the MFG Baseline

·         To remove SLC funding from the MFG Baseline from schools experiencing significant pupil growth

·         To remove the 6th form non AWPU adjustment from the MFG Baseline

·         To remove the basic flat rate from the MFG Baseline for schools experiencing significant pupil growth

·         Where a Specialist Learning Centre is to close, to remove the associated funding from the Baseline

·         1-2-1 allocations of grant paid in 2010-11 as these are deemed to be one-off allocations

ii) That the above adjustments are applied where necessary for the 2011-12 financial year and that the Secretary of State’s approval is sought for these adjustments.

Liz Williams outlined her report which concerned several elements which needed to be considered, before officers can finalise the schools revenue budget in readiness for approval at Cabinet and Full Council.

Background & Risks

Schools Funding Settlement – The Department for Education (DfE) financial settlement is for one year only. No details have been provided for 2012/13 financial year. This settlement contains significant changes from previous years, including the mainstreaming of a number of former standards funds in to the Dedicated Schools Grant, and the addition of a Pupil premium.

Estimate of Dedicated Schools Grant – A confirmation of the final level of grant will not be received until June 2011 and the final level of grant could be higher or lower than the estimate.

Use of one-off funding in 2011/12 – Currently it is estimated that there will be an underspend of £2.369 million in 2010/11 and this can be utilised against priorities, however there is some risk in this projection because of uncertainty around take up of the extended free entitlement for 3 & 4 year olds.

Academies – The estimate of DSG includes those academies known in January to be converting to academy status by April 2011.

Dedicated Schools Grant – Estimate for 2011-12

Officers recapped the elements of the estimated grant, which was based on a 0% inflationary rise. A minimum funding guarantee of -1.5% will be applied to individual school’s budgets. Numbers of pupils used in the estimate have been based on the October pupil count and adjusted for trends and other known changes.

The budget requirement [see Appendix 1 to the Agenda] was considered by the forum along with the potential cost pressures so far identified [Appendix 2 to the agenda]. A shortfall was identified of £1.246 million against the estimated level of DSG if the identified cost pressures are to be funded.  This shortfall would increase to £1.536 million if Schools Forum were also to invest in the Young Persons Support Service following the review of the service.

This shortfall can be met from taking part of the 2010/11 rollover however this would mean investing up to £1.536 million of one-off funding in to the 2011/12 budget. 

Officers and members of Schools Forum agreed that the risk associated with investing one off funding in 2011/12 must be mitigated by the development of savings across central DSG funded services of at least £1.6 million, or 5%, in time for 2012/13. The Chairman explained that work had already begun in this respect, and papers with proposals/updates would likely return to the Forum in the Autumn.

Trevor Daniels explained a secondary issue was dealing with changes to, and the budget definition of, services which are not provided directly through schools – an example raised by forum members was Broadband contracts and provision, where the leeway for action by individual schools and the regulations would need assessing.

Following discussion on the merits of providing the identified funding for the YPSS, Liz Williams reminded the forum that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.