Agenda item

Schools Forum was updated on how the DSG had been utilised in 2019/20.

Schools Block: there was a carry forward balance due to a residual amount from the Growth Fund and a small underspend in 2019/20 giving an overall cumulative carry forward of £313,000.

Early Years Blocks: it was noted that the LA expected confirmation of the final adjustment to be received from the DfE by the end of the current month.  The underspend was due mainly to DAF and  Growth Fund: it was added that if the Growth Fund were not used it would normally be recouped by the ESFA.

Central Schools Services Block (CSSB): was showing an underspend because of an £18,000 carry forward due to Licenses last year, where it appeared the VAT refund had not yet been received from the DfE. Susan Woodland was following this up.

It was noted there were minor underspends on Admissions and Assist Management.

High Needs Block: currently showing a £14m overspend although this was reflective of a number of local authorities.  A great deal of work had been undertaken by John Wood’s team which was ongoing.  John Wood’s report would give more detail.

The Chair thanked Susan Woodland for the comprehensive report.

A member referred to the school balances contained within Table 5:  concerns were expressed about Nursery funding, as three local nurseries were in deficit and it was queried whether there was any update available about long-term commitment. Susan Woodland explained there had not been any further updates regarding nursery funding and it was unknown whether the Maintained Nursery School (MNS) funding would continue beyond the current year.  The LA was aware of concerns and had been in correspondence with local nurseries about the difficulties experienced in managing their budgets.

Michael Jarrett added that the concerns regarding MNS funding had been raised directly with the DfE via a webinar attended by representatives from a number of local authorities. The LA wanted to make informed decisions but there was  uncertainty about the supplement and the settlement was awaited, which would enable that information to be shared with the nurseries: it was hoped these figures would be available by the end of the current month. 

In addition, there was an issue attached to funding entitlements and confirmation was awaited on whether it would be funded on actuals or projections.  Susan Woodland explained that a meeting held with the DfE in March/April had suggested funding would be on actual participation.  It was pointed out that if this were to be the case there would be a severe impact on not just MNS but the whole EYFS sector. It was already known that families were adjusting the way in which they took up their entitlements.

It had been pointed out there were three particularly large school balances on Table 5 and it was queried whether this was a trend and if the LA had any concerns. Susan Woodland explained she had not had the opportunity to find out the reasons or the history behind these, due to budgeting pressures and Covid.  However, it was confirmed the LA would not expect schools to be holding such large amounts of money and there was a piece of investigative work to be conducted to establish the reasons.

3.10pm: Peter Collins left the meeting

Phil Gregory thanked Susan Woodland and Michael Jarrett for highlighting the MNS issue and also thanked Schools Forum  for having written to the Secretary of State outlining concerns in January 2019.  It had continued to be difficult to manage financially, with the MNS settlement to the LA having been reduced by 33% and it was unknown how much could be cut back further.  It was added that although nurseries sat within the EY sector, a number were maintained schools. The supplementary funding would only last until March 2021 and it was questioned whether nurseries would still be able to operate in the summer of 2021. Nursery colleagues would continue to work with the LA on their deficit budgets and it was anticipated there would be a need for difficult discussions.

Susan Woodland stressed it was hoped the DfE guidance on future funding would assist and the LA was aware of the pressure on nurseries. A piece of work was scheduled to be carried out around this issue.

Annie Wood agreed to pass on the concerns expressed about the long-term levels of concern about the future of maintained nurseries and the need for clarity.

With regards to High Needs, John Wood felt there was a need to review independent and out of borough spend which were showing two large increases. It was suggested the baseline budgets had not been lifted for a considerable time in line with demand and the reasons for this were yet to be followed up.  Therefore, the budget was possibly not realistic and it might be considered it had been overspent.  The majority of places were not a high cost so could be considered as part of the local offer.

It was queried whether there was a common theme as to why some young people were in independent or out of borough placements.  It was explained the main reason was that the majority of local specialist places were full but there was possibly not yet the right balance. Such places were not too expensive or too far away, with a number being barely over the border charging no more than Slough schools.  There was possibly no need for more special school places in Slough as it was queried whether the LA should be applying for a special free school. However, Slough was  a small local authority with good special schools and all the evidence was not yet available.

A member added that, given the suggestion out of borough and independent were not more expensive, it meant High Needs was underfunded to which John Wood did not disagree.  He added that maintained schools were uplifted, with a years’ lag in funding, whereas independent places were commissioned, there was no planning for them. The creation of High Needs had historically been based on places, whilst mainstream was based on population growth. High Needs was underfunded especially considering Slough’s demographics.

Schools Forum noted the overall deficit on 2019/20 DSG which would be reversible on the next year’s DSG.