Agenda item

Growth Fund 2019/20

Minutes:

Tony Madden explained that this item was presented annually to Schools Forum, with regards to the allocation of school places for the following academic year.  The information had also been updated for the current year. It was explained that the allocation criteria were based on the Operational Guide 2019/20.  There were no changes proposed to the previous growth fund model and a recommendation had been made to continue supporting bulge classes for academy schools in the second year of operation where appropriate.

 

Those schools who had received the growth funding were highlighted to members.

 

The bulge classes at Marish were highlighted, along with the second-year funding for Grove Academy classes.  James Elliman had been included but a reduction in their PAN had been postponed.  Members were asked to note that Priory should not have been included in the documentation for the second year as it was not funded as an academy.  If all agreed, there would be a carry forward of £111,000 at the end of 2018/19.

 

A DSG top slice for 2019/20 of £900,000 was requested, based on estimated expenditure although the final AWPU allocations for 2019/20 were as yet unknown.  The contingency assumed some funding to support Grove Academy in the third year of opening.  It was confirmed that SBC aimed to work with a large contingency to avoid requesting funds from Schools Forum mid-year. It was suggested that AWPU rates would be higher than the estimates but only by a small amount.

 

In answer to a further question as to whether contingency would triple for 2019/20, Tony Madden explained this was standard contingency shown at this time of year, based on junior year groups.

 

It was noted that £56,000 had been allocated for the Marish bulge and a question was raised as to why there was more funding for the second year.  In the first year the standard AWPU rate had been used but the second year was based on estimates, as taken from the October census.

 

It was queried whether consideration should be given to top slicing a smaller amount from DSG due to the relatively high projected contingency and the current stress on school budgets.  It was explained it had been proposed to retain the current top slice and in the third year of National Funding Formula (NFF) there would be less need to top slice. 

 

A query was raised for an explanation of the difference between the underwriting and the bulge at Grove Academy.  There had been three bulge classes at the time of original opening, which contained low numbers, the support was in place for the second year in academies due to being paid in arrears.  Historically, an agreement had been made by SBC to allow the School to open in a unique set of circumstances.

 

The underwriting was due to an agreement with the ESFA certain year groups which were not full would have to be underwritten in order for the opening to go ahead.  The amount shared with the ESFA was contained within the report.  The figures for 2017/18 showed the actual numbers but the 2018/19 numbers, based on the Census showed that the majority of classes outside Reception and Year 7 were not full.  The main pressure area was Year 7 which SBC was asked to underwrite, with Schools Forum agreeing to fund £90,000 in 2018/19.  It was confirmed that in the figures shared, some Year 7 and 8 classes had been rolled forward in 2018/19.  Tony Madden would check the Year 7 numbers.

 

Schools Forum agreed the criteria for expansion as outlined together with the underwriting of places in the current year at Grove Academy.

 

It was suggested falling rolls should be discussed first: it was explained there was a timing issue and that Tony Madden would present further details at a future Schools Forum meeting.

 

It was confirmed that the 2019/20 allocation was the final year for underwriting the places at Grove Academy. In principle, Forum agreed to a maximum of £60,000 or 50% of the cost whichever was the lower.

 

Tony Madden explained that the £111,000 ten-place contingency had to be retained.  It would be approximately £130,000 at the end of the last year, which would be funding for almost two classes.

 

It was suggested that after all these commitments were taken into account, it would make sense to reduce the DSG top slice to £800,000 to leave an estimated carry forward of approximately £130,000 at the end of 2019/20.

 

Tony Madden explained that a number of schools were experiencing falling rolls, particularly in Key Stage 1 classes, which was impacting on funding.  The allowed mechanism of a ‘falling rolls fund’ was outlined to the meeting:  the purpose of such a fund was to provide a bridge where there was evidence to show there would be growth again in the future.  Births were not anticipated to rise to higher levels and schools could not be funded unless they were judged ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’.  It was thought the year likely to be affected would be 2021/22 and it was suggested a supporting paper should come to Schools Forum in the summer. Cate Duffy confirmed that there would be discussions with schools affected with the possibility of addressing the issue through admissions, and a paper would only be brought if it were felt that a falling rolls fund was really necessary.

 

It was confirmed the plans would be updated based on new builds taking place in the area.  Tony Madden added that if current housing rates continued, those plans had been taken into account.

 

9.10am: Ray Hinds and Tony Madden left the meeting

 

Supporting documents: