Agenda item

Atul Lad presented the paper and reported that the Task and Finish group met on two occasions. He explained that the unit values will be submitted to the DfE by 21^st January and schools’ budgets done on 23^rd January.  Atul mentioned that the Mobility factor has been removed as agreed at the December meeting and the funding added to social deprivation. He also referred to the increase in the Growth Fund, which is the subject of a later report, but the implications of increasing the Growth Fund to £1.5 million are included in determining the unit values.

He drew members’ attention to the Task and Finish Group recommendations that:

• The formula factor unit values in Appendix 1 are supported (see report).
  
  
• Schools Forum notes that the following amounts have been added to the 2014-15 Schools Block from previous years’ underspends:

-  £567,293 from the 2012-13 unspent contingency

-  £300,000 from the remaining 2012-13 DSG underspend

-  £400,000 from the estimated 2013-14

It was made clear that the Task and Finish group had focussed on the unit values and had looked carefully at the modelled impact on individual schools. The ratio was an outcome of this process. 

There was considerable discussion around the financial impact of the unit values, particularly in terms of the impact on the primary: secondary funding ratio. The unit values recommended by the Task and Finish group lead to a change in the primary: secondary ratio, moving it from 1:1.39 to 1:1.38.  The Task and Finish group had looked at a range of models and had looked at the impact each model had on individual schools.

Paul McAteer asked if there was evidence that led to the shift in the ratio.

Maggie Waller referred to the interesting but inconclusive work by Sam Ellis commissioned by the Schools Forum and to a letter she had received from Primary Headteachers outlining pressures including regarding establishing leadership structures.  Navroop Mehat made reference to Primary Headteachers’ concerns.

Mary Sparrow referred to the need to be cautious as the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) will protect short term but is not guaranteed beyond 2015.  She also referred to the reduction in per-student funding post-16 and the removal of transitional protection and the pupil premium increasing at a higher rate for primary pupils.

John Constable noted that £220,000 would be moved from secondary to primary as a result of the recommended change to the unit values and the negative impact of this would be spread across all secondary schools pre MFG. However, it would impact on 5 secondary schools, selective and non-selective after MFG. The gain would be across almost all primary schools after MFG.  He also said that it was important to consider the totality of funding for schools in both primary and secondary phases, and whether the other funding sources are increasing or decreasing.

It is because this change had such a specific negative impact on a small number of schools that a greater change was not recommended by the Task and Finish group.

Nicky Willis mentioned that Primary Headteachers are not comfortable taking money from the 5 schools. She mentioned that when children come into education they are coming in below average on entry. Key Stage 1 and 2 results were improving but attainment was still below average on entry to secondary education.. She also referred to comparisons of ratio with statistical neighbours and the national average of 1:1.28.

Maggie Waller noted that comparison with other LAs is difficult as these LAs may not have selection and it is not always clear what is included for the purpose of calculating the ratio.

A member mentioned that there is a difference between an ‘average’ and a ‘median’, meaning that the ‘average’ ratio may not be the most common, as outliers with particularly low ratios could skew the ‘average’.

Paul McAteer noted that the link between achievement and funding is not evidenced. He expressed concern that clear evidence had not been provided to support the recommendation being made. He requested that the model with the financial implications of the changes be circulated to Schools Forum members. Action: Atul Lad to circulate the model with the financial implications to Forum members..

Helen Huntley reported that the Task and Finish group was mindful of the impact in both phases and did not look at this in isolation.  The group also looked at the Growth Fund which will increase by over £1 million and primaries will benefit initially. She also referred to £1 million in Cambridge Education, money for school improvement, recognising Key Stage 2 results.

Barbara Clark suggested that Schools Forum agree the recommendations of the Task and Finish group as they were working on behalf of the Forum. 

Mary Sparrow referred to forthcoming changes in curriculum and how important it is that all schools remain tenable. She said that it was important to find a way forward collectively and there was general support for this approach from both primary and secondary phase members.

Maggie Waller mentioned that the Task and Finish group was not unanimous but that the majority of those on the group were in agreement with the values proposed and this included primary and secondary colleagues, hence the recommendation.  She noted that is it important for Schools Forum to pass on a clear recommendation to the LA.

Schools Forum agreed to endorse the recommendation, accepting the unit values proposed but registering concern about the impact.