Agenda item

Update on National/Local funding issues

Minutes:

It was noted that the main paper had been supplied in two parts. Part A requested Schools Forum approve the transfer of £500,000 from the High Needs Block to the Schools Block.  This was to correct an historical error in the 2017/18 baseline and, although the request had also been made to the ESFA over the past two years, they had advised they were unable to make the correction.  It was confirmed that the same request had been made to Schools Forum the previous year.  The Chair invited comments.

A member queried whether Schools Forum could request that the ESFA make this transfer, but it was repeated that the LA had been advised the ESFA was unable to do so.

The funds would form part of the 2020/21 Schools Block allocation and it was therefore beneficial to action this transfer early in the term.  Schools Forum APPROVED the transfer as outlined.

Part B of the report gave an update on national issues and feedback from the two recent 5-16 Funding Task Group meetings.  Schools Forum was asked to note the options for the 2020/21 local formula, details of which schools would be consulted upon. It was known that a 3-year settlement was to be made by the DfE but, at this stage, it was unknown how much would actually be received at local level: this detail was expected later in the current month. However, it had been necessary for modelling work to commence. 

DfE had indicated that the LA would receive a minimum 1.84% per pupil increase in overall funding.  Nationally, DfE had stipulated that the per pupil primary sector minimum funding would increase to £3750 in 2020/21 and a minimum of £4,000 in 2021/22 and from £4,800 to £5,000 for secondary in 2020/21. It was noted that the majority of Slough schools were already receiving funding at these levels. There would also be a continuation of £1.5 billion for teachers’ pensions, which was treated separately.

The supporting report highlighted the updates, including the National Funding Formula (NFF) factor rates which would increase by 4%, excluding FSM, which would increase by the rate of inflation. It was confirmed that the ESFA was moving towards a hard formula by fixing the minimum per-pupil funding rates. The MFG had also been changed, with a range from +0.5% minimum to a maximum of 1.8%, with capping and scaling for growth removed.

It was noted that LAs were authorised to transfer 0.5% from the Schools Block to other blocks, primarily to ease in-year pressures on the High Needs Block.

The LA was to issue a separate consultation regarding support for the High Needs Block.  A number of options had been discussed and the first models had been drawn up prior to the ESFA releasing their data. 

The LA had worked on three options for the 5-16 Schools Block in 2020/21: 65%, 85% and full NFF.  The second Task Group meeting had agreed to reduce from three to two transition options, 65% and 85%.  65% represented the current position, and 85% essentially a half-way position between that and full NFF. Nic Barani emphasized that it was not advisable to move to 100% NFF as, although Slough could afford this within the current allocation, applying the full NFF formula could possibly result in a potential capping of current funding levels.. The models provided were based on actual or estimated pupil numbers; it was explained that an email had been sent to schools requesting pupil numbers in order to model with more accuracy but there had only been approximately 50% response.  Nic Barani emphasised again that the amount of funding in the Schools Block had been increased by 1.8% which would increase individual schools’ funding.

It was noted that figures shared were as accurate as possible, based on the information provided by the DfE and by schools in respect of pupil numbers. Option 1 (65%) was based on MFG +0.5%, so any schools on full MFG  protection would receive a minimum increase of 2% on the previous year when MFG was set at -1.5%. Option 2 would be 85% as part of the move towards NFF.  It was added that Slough historically had high deprivation so schools which were more reliant on this factor would receive a smaller increase under this model. The circulated graph was a summary of change, indicating a mix between those gaining and losing.  Nic Barani invited questions to be directed to himself or his team.

In answer to a query, it was confirmed there had been no indication from the DfE to date with regards to the continuation or amount of Pupil Premium funding going forward. It was added that it would be helpful for Headteacher colleagues to have this information as this funding could impact on budgets.  It was not included in the figures presented and it was currently assumed it would continue.

In answer to a further question, Nic Barani indicated that column K in the modelling spreadsheet showed some schools with decreased rolls. It was confirmed again that not all schools had responded to the request for pupil numbers and it was known that not all Slough primary schools were full.  The Annual Pupil Census would give more indication and the LA would receive this information from the DfE in early November.

The Chair thanked all those who had been involved in the work of the Task Group and their endeavors to formulate an approach which minimised potential issues for schools.  The Task Group recommendation was that two options should be reviewed, being 65% NFF as in 2019/20 but inflated by the additional monies and MFG, or 85% NFF which was working towards full implementation.  Schools Forum were asked whether the consultation should go out on both options or just one and, if so, which one?

Nic Barani agreed that consideration would be given to including the base model and it was pointed out that a lot of information was being shared in a short space of time. There would be an explanatory document accompanying the consultation: it was planned to send the consultation out during the current week, giving a two-week turn around period (update: the consultation went live on Friday 4 October).

It was AGREED that the 65% and 85% models should go forward to consultation, as recommended by the Task Group.

It was queried whether the final decision could be delayed until more information were available. particularly as there was a great deal of uncertainly for schools around High Needs funding.  Nic Barani explained that due to the budget setting timeline, the deadline was November and this issue would be addressed at the next meeting of Schools Forum, which was scheduled for Tuesday 12 November.  The LA was only able to work with the information available to them.

A Headteacher confirmed there was a considerable impact on school budgets for those supporting pupils with High Needs, particularly if the school concerned had falling rolls. 

In regard to the request for a 0.5% transfer from Schools Block to the High Needs Block, it was noted that the LA was anticipating a total cumulative overspend in the region of £10.8m on the High Needs Block at the end of the current year.  This was due to a number of contributory factors which had been shared with Schools Forum previously.  The LA continued to do all it could to mitigate the pressures on the High Needs Block. Liaison continued with other LAs and work was ongoing to negotiate broker deals for placements. The requested top slice would be approximately 25% of the expected in-year deficit for 2020/21, not for the historic deficit. 

Discussion followed about communicating the consultation information to schools and it was noted this was usually emailed via Headteachers and School Business Managers.  It was pointed out that if The Link were used, not all schools now subscribed.  It was agreed it was a good suggestion for the information to be shared via phase groups. Members were asked to urge colleagues to respond. A request was made for all Schools Forum members to receive notification.

The 5-16 Task Group was scheduled to meet on Monday 21 October to consider the results.

The Chair thanked Nic Barani for the comprehensive reporting provided and the detailed data made available at recent Task Group meetings.