Agenda item

The funding formula had allowed for local discretion in the model for allocating money to schools. However, the proposals for a National Funding Formula (NFF) removed this discretion. The majority of components of the final calculations were now being set nationally; however, whilst this was announced previously the details were limited. A consultation on the matter would conclude on 22^nd March 2017.

The calculations left most schools in Slough with reduced settlements. Schools in neighbouring authorities tended to have a more mixed picture, but the fact that Slough appeared to have been treated as a London Borough left local schools in the same position as schools in those areas. The situation could have some minor changes as the figures presented to the Panel were based on 2016 – 17 statistics, but this was likely to be limited.

The main changes could be summarised as follows:

·  The Primary / Secondary Ratio had been set at 1: 1:33 (meaning that Secondary schools received 33% more funding). This would move to  1: 1.29 before 2019 – 20, leaving secondary schools with less.

·  The Lump Sum was not affected by pupil numbers, and currently stood at £100,000 for primary schools and £150,000 for secondary schools. The new arrangement would alter this to £110,000 for both.

·  The Growth Fund would now be calculated using historic data. In addition, the current flexibility for local authorities would end.

SBC and other parties would be responding to the Government consultation through 3 channels:

·  SBC’s response.

·  The Schools Forum’s collective response based on a discussion.

·  Individual schools’ responses.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  2018 – 19 was, under the current proposals, a year for a transition towards the NFF. SBC would move towards the final settlement during this time to prepare for 2019 – 20, which would see central Government control put in place.

·  The figures presented to the Panel were for the 1^st year of the NFF. The rationale for these estimates had not been provided by the Department for Education. Whilst the funding floor had been included in this data, it was unclear if this commitment extended beyond the 1^st year.

·  Many Slough schools already had budget deficits. As a result, minimum funding had been in place for the last 5 years. However, with costs due to rise over the next 3 – 4 years (e.g. pensions, national insurance contributions, progress of staff through salary scales) innovative methods of reducing costs may be required. These could include increased class sizes, reducing the teaching staff or number of teaching assistants or the introduction of 4 day weeks for Key Stage 3 pupils. This would put immense pressure on maintaining quality of education and the outcomes for children. Examples of situations which were already being caused were the removal of A Level subjects from some schools’ options.

·  Given the concerns raised by the above point, the head teachers of local secondary schools had written directly to the Prime Minister. A copy of this letter was circulated to the Panel.

·  Primary schools were struggling to recruit teachers. This had led to agency staff and the resulting long term pressures on finance, concerns over provision for SEND students and ratios of pupils to staff. As with secondary schools, innovative approaches to savings may be required.

Resolved:  That the Panel receive a verbal update on the matter in autumn 2017.