Agenda item

Growth Fund 2020-21

Minutes:

Schools Forum was asked to note an update on expenditure for the current year, approve additional underwriting for places at Grove Academy, review the allocation model for 2020/21, and to agree the maximum 2020-21 top slice from the DSG.

It was explained that although the birth rate in Slough was now falling the previous primary ‘bulge’ was moving through the school system at secondary level.

The allocations were based on AWPU funding, but it was pointed out that that the 2020/21 figures were provisional numbers and yet to be finalised.  It was noted that the background information provided in the report had been shared with members in the past and was included for completeness.

Surplus school places were required to allow for intakes to the system, with children moving into Slough on a weekly basis.  Where necessary, the LA would approach a school on a termly basis.

With regards to Grove Academy it was pointed out that Schools Forum had agreed, for the past two years, to support 50% of the underwriting. It was confirmed that monies were not returned from underwriting.

With regards to falling rolls, it was acknowledged it was an issue for some primary schools but only those rated  ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools could be supported through such a fund. It was noted that Marish had opened a bulge class at short notice; although there had been sufficient places in Year 5, there had been a shortage of places in other parts of Langley and this action was to avoid children having to travel across the town. It was confirmed that no schools had requested falling rolls funding. 

Appendix A of the report was highlighted: it was explained there were now fewer primary schools receiving Growth Fund allocations, with currently only Claycots and St Mary’s affected but with an increasing number of secondary schools. The 2020/21 figures were estimates, with only Claycots still expanding. 

A member asked how many empty places there currently were at primary.  It was explained that Key Stage 2 was ‘tight’, particularly in Year 6 but Key Stage 1 had an increasing number of surplus places.  As noted, the birth rate forecast was low; however, there was no need for a reduction progamme and the LA was aware.  Where necessary, modular buildings had been added at school sites.  Inward migration was below its’ peak but a number of new dwellings were being built in Slough.  It was understood a figure of approximately 5,000 would be accommodated but it was difficult to predict how school places would be affected. It was pointed out that development could have an adverse effect on a school which would be outside their control. Cate Duffy confirmed she would be willing to discuss with any such primary school affected.

It was queried whether the work with the Admissions team would enable schools that were not full to apply to reduce their PAN for a bulge class.  It was confirmed such a request would not need to go to consultation but would be referred back to Schools Forum. 

8.35am: Neil Sykes arrived at the meeting

It was queried whether there would be a need to consider secondary bulge classes and, if so, which schools: it was acknowledged it was different dealing with bulge classes at secondary level. Further work was required on area-based planning and the pattern of demand across the town had changed.

It was confirmed the LA had agreed principles which needed to be met to attract Growth Fund: good quality schools, popular schools (with capacity) and ideally, schools which any child would want to attend.  Schools had not been named.

It was suggested that a strategy was also required for post-16 within the next four years but it was pointed out that the LA did not have the same statutory duties for that age group.  It was necessary to make the best use of the provision already available and to note that Arbour Vale was currently expanding its’ secondary places.  It was pointed out there was a link between growth and population in special schools but it was acknowledged there was a need for a detailed conversation regarding post-16 education.

Clarity was requested about the number of forms of entry at Grove Academy with plans to move from two form entry to four forms in 2020/21, given earlier discussions about falling rolls and surplus places in Reception and Key Stage 1. There was also an awareness of the DfE’s requirements, and it was suggested this be raised with both the ESFA and at SASH.  The LA acknowledged the situation regarding places had changed since the opening of Grove Academy.

A request was being made for an increase in the underwriting allocation for Grove Academy to £90,000 in the current year as the originally agreed £60,000 would leave a ‘tight’ carry forward: it was hoped with a carry forward of £58,000 from the current year it would be possible to roll forward approximately £100,000 the following year.  It was queried how the amount of £60,000 had increased to £90,000: it was explained this was due to having reduced the amount the previous year because of uncertainty and members queried how the figure was calculated. Nic Barani explained the mechanism used, which also included a timing issue.  It was proposed if approval were given there should be clarification of how the figure was reached.  Grove was guaranteed 240 places, with the LA agreeing to underwrite the gap which could be evidenced through the DSG. There also needed to be an understanding of which birth rates had fallen and there was no guarantee places would be needed in perpetuity.  It was added that LAs did not have complete autonomy following the introduction of the free schools programme.

It was noted that declining numbers in schools were discussed through Places Strategy and it was suggested this issue should also be considered by the Partnership Board and Phase Groups. 

Schools Forum:

APPROVEDthe Growth Fund top slice of £600,000 for 2020/21, giving an estimated underspend of £24000

and,

APPROVED the underwriting for Grove Academy 2019/20 at £90,000 (previous agreed value £60,000).

It was agreed that a Falling Rolls fund was not considered necessary at the current time.

 

The Chair thanked Tony Madden for his comprehensive report and the clarity regarding Grove Academy.

 

9.05am: Tony Madden left the meeting

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: