Agenda item

A report to follow as a supplementary publication to the agenda.

A late report as listed in ‘Agenda Supplement 1’ was presented to the meeting by Grant Davis. Mr Davis highlighted that the report summarised the budget proposals for 2016/17 and that the report was for information only, as no key decision was needed to be reached.

It was explained that the funding allocated through the DSG was then modelled through the Wiltshire funding formula, to ensure that the schools budget was affordable. This also incorporated all the decisions that the Schools Forum had made regarding funding. It was noted that for 2016/17 the schools block had been set at £260.156 million, which was an increase of £3.621 million on the 2015/16 funding level. Mr Davis divulged that this increase was as a result of an increase in pupil growth in the County. The meeting was informed that the High Needs Block had seen an increase of £823,000 and that Wiltshire had received funding of £88,000 per year for Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs).

Mr Davis drew the meeting’s attention to the table listed under paragraph 7 in the report. He emphasised that primary pupil numbers had increased by 832 pupils and that there had been an increase in 958 pupils for 2015/16 in this realm. It was noted that secondary school pupil numbers had decreased by approximately 500 pupils for 2014/15 and 2015/16.

It was highlighted that Wiltshire had received a fairer funding allocation of £5.7 million for 15-16 and that, going forward, this would be built into baseline funding for Wiltshire. It was also noted that the funding that had been received for Wiltshire was based upon the Schools Block Unit of Funding (SBUF) and that the SBUF had increased by 4 pence, which could have enabled a minor increase in pupil funding, however, this was not deemed to be sustainable and would not be taking place; therefore, per pupil funding had been retained at the current rate adjusted for the cost of copyright licences.

In terms of the per pupil funding, the funding rates for deprivation, prior attainment and English as an additional language were discussed.   Mr Davis explained that the overall quantum for the total amount of funding awarded had been retained in each case and that the movement in figures was based on the shift in pupil numbers. It was noted that this principle was the same as what had been agreed in the previous year. Concern was raised by some members that a procedure should be devised, which would allow more detail on the per pupil funding to be brought to the Schools Forum; especially detail on the amount of money available and what the impact on such a sum could be.

It was highlighted that the amount of schools who had been in receipt of MFG had increased to 48 and that the number of schools that had been capped was 27.

A discussion was had where several points were made, including the following: 

·       That an explanation of how the 2016-17 quantum and per pupil rates were calculated be provided;

·       That the Schools Forum be provided with a better understanding and explanation of how the whole figure for per pupil rates originates;

·       That all the above listed information be provided at the next Schools Funding Working Group meeting

Having been put to the meeting, it was

Resolved:

       i.          That the Schools Forum note the content of the report

     ii.          That an explanation of how the 2016-17 quantum and per pupil rates were calculated be provided at the next School’s Forum meeting;

   iii.          That the Schools Forum be provided with a better understanding and explanation of how the whole figure for per pupil rates originates at the next School’s Forum meeting