Agenda item

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2015 (copy attached)

It was resolved:

To agree and sign the minutes as a true and correct record of the meeting

held on 12 November 2015 subject to the following amendments:

·       Item 50 – ‘the work of the f40 group was noted as already having secured additional funding for the authorities through the ‘fairer funding’ allocations which provided Wiltshire with extra funding of £5.7m in 2015-16’.

·       Item 50 – ‘Wiltshire was noted as not currently being a member of the f40 group, but was however eligible to be one due to its position as the 7^th least funded local authority, in England, out of 151 authorities’.

·       Item 51 – ‘Wiltshire Council operates a growth fund and Schools Forum agreed to a number of criteria for the allocation of funding for pupil growth in the 2015-16 financial year. The Growth Fund is compliant with the EFA guidance and is confirmed annually.  A revision to the scheme factored for in-year infant pupil growth. This was explained as because funding could only be provided for either growth due to basic need, or to meet infant class size regulations’.

·       Item 51 – ‘The revised wording proposed a single-pronged approach. This involved dividing school pupils by 30, and awarding additional funding where the additional pupil numbers required an extra class. The above change in wording was explained as having been made due to its original non-compliance. It was confirmed that the Education Funding Agency (EFA) would not declare that this change could not be done’.

·       Item 52 – ‘The report aimed to set out the situation where if a school had more than the planned number of pupils, what needed to be done to fund those extra pupils. Two scenarios were given.

Ø  The first was when a pupil moves from a mainstream school setting to a High Needs School setting,

Ø  and the second was when a pupil moves from one High Needs School to a new High Needs School’.

·       Item 52 – ‘Within the first scenario a problem was highlighted where the paying of £10,000 per additional place resulted in schools being over funded for the additional High Needs place.  If the school is already in receipt of an AWPU for the child, then to receive additional place funding of £10,000 would result in double funding’.

·       Item 52 – ‘It was noted that care would also be required to ensure that funding was in place for new  year 7’s starting with ELP’.

·       ‘Resolved:

1. To note the content of the report.

2. To revise the methodology and include within the first scenario that it does not include new Y7 ELPs.

3. To include that when school is already in receipt of AWPU it will receive a reduced  top up (£10,000 – AWPU), when it is not in receipt of AWPU then it will receive the full £10,000’.

·       Item 53 – ‘Some members from the Schools Funding Working Group had been contacted to help deal with queries from schools once they had received their invoices’.

·       Item 53 – ‘The top-ups considered for recoupment were used for specific resource base places and ELP’s. Named Pupil Allowances were also noted as an area that could be recouped’.

·       Item – 53 ‘The Forum discussed the recoupment situation and it was noted as partly being a result of the financial crisis, which had resulted in looking into funding areas which had previously not been looked at’. 

·       ‘Resolved:

1.     To note the contents of the report.

2.     To continue to recoup through top-ups as near to what has been overpaid for the rest of the 2015/16 financial year.

3.     To note that the definition of top-ups includes Resource Bases/ELP’s/NPA’s/and any other top-up as a part of SEN.

4.     To recoup using the NPA allowances as well as the top ups’.

·       Item 54 – ‘It was noted that with academies the agreement must be more formalised, but with maintained schools they could be by LA agreement. Any changes to the place numbers for academies needed to be agreed between the local authority and the academy and would form the basis of the EFA funding’.

·       Item 54 – ‘Option 5: Revise the number of ‘places’ agreed to mirror a certain point in time in the 2015-16 year to maximise the number of filled places to be funded, but retain the mechanism to recoup from top ups’.

·       Item 54 – ‘It was noted that if the zero figure is returned to the EFA, would take that as a sign that there were no high needs places at the schools. As a result the future funding from the EFA could be zero if this option were to be taken. Option four was noted as being high risk due to the EFA not confirming what their approach would be’.

·       Item 54 – ‘If there were to be any fluctuation in numbers, as a result of army rebasing for example, it was confirmed that these would be funded. A consultation was expected in spring 2016 on the future of High Needs Funding’.

·       Item 54 – ‘Resolved

1. To note the content of the report.
2. To accept option five in the report “Revise the number of ‘places’ agreed to mirror a certain point in time in the 2015-16 year to maximise the number of places funded, but retain the mechanism to recoup from top ups” with the following amendment:
   1. That recoupment of places continues up until the introduction of the revised place numbers
   2. To continue recoupment from maintained schools and academiesfrom April 2016
   3. To fund ELP’s based on the number from the table in appendix 1, subject to any Local Authority intelligence regarding actual numbers. If numbers drop below that within the table then recoupment will take place. If it increases then the change will be funded’.

·       Item 57 – ‘Delegation of Central Expenditure 2016-17

Grant Davis presented Schools Forum with the results from the recent consultation with schools regarding the delegation or de-delegation of central services.  A consultation document was sent out to all maintained schools in the middle of September to seek views on the delegation of central budgets. 

The results have been analysed and were presented to Schools Forum.  The budgets/services which had been consulted on are as follows:

Schools contingency

Free School Meal Eligibility Service

Licences and Subscriptions (including SIMS, HCSS)

Trade Union Facilities costs

Maternity costs

Ethnic Minority Achievement Service

Travellers Education Service

Behaviour Support Service

The resposes received from schools had proposed that the services were delegated and de-delgated as per the current situation for 2015-16. 

Resolved

To agree that the Delegation of Central Expenditure 2016-17 as per 2015-16 and the responses received’.