Agenda item

Apologies were noted for the supporting paper having been posted as a supplementary document to the agenda.

The overall position of the DSG for the financial year 2020/21 would be outlined as updates were still being received. It was planned that a final paper would be presented at the next meeting of Schools Forum when all blocks had been updated.  Members were reminded these were indicative figures.

Schools Block: acarry forward into the current year was expected through the Growth Fund, which it appeared would be overspent this year. The report showed a breakdown of supplementary grants which included the Teachers’ Pay grant, Pupil Premium, UIFSM etc., for the current year.  As previously noted, Teachers’ Pay and Pensions would now be shown within the whole settlement for 2021/22. During the current year there had been two additional grants: Covid-19 Catch-up Premium and Covid-19 School Fund Exceptional Costs.

Early Years: there was a carry forward of £547,000 into the current year which was likely to increase. The end of July adjustment this year had received an increase for additionality of uptake, and it was anticipated there would be a carry forward balance of more than £1m into 2021/22. The supporting paper explained the adjustment made, noting there had been a number of impacts on this sector due to Covid-19, making it difficult to predict a final outcome.

The EY funding settlement would be predicated on the January 2021 census. It was noted numbers might not be as high as previously seen.  Where attendance was below 85% of the January 2020 census and the LA could provide evidence for increased attendance in the spring term, the DfE would top up the additional places taken after January 2021 count. This would give settings and the LA more stability offering some protection.

The EY Block was currently forecast to carry forward approximately £1.048m into 2021/22, of which £0.547m related to prior years’ underspend. It had previously been reported that the cumulative EY underspend would be £0.547, but it was highlighted that the ESFA would make a final adjustment for 2019-20 in the July update as in previous years.  The ESFA had made an additional payment of £0.423m in July 2020, therefore substantiating the £1.048m carry forward balance (update: revised figures are below):

High Needs: included any overspend and was expected to increase by approximately £4m, taking the cumulative deficit to £18m. It was felt the breakdown of income and expenditure was a fair and clear reflection and although additional monies had been allocated to HNB they did not cover the demands of the Block.  Members were aware this area had been under close scrutiny and a great deal of work was being carried out to mitigate the overspend and to streamline the funding. The DfE had now moved to the Deficit Management Plan, which would be covered in more detail during the meeting.

It was noted that in-borough maintained £235,000 overspend was mainly due to those with EHCPs and the work on the funding matrix in 2019.  Those in Years 5 and 9 with EHCPs had been reviewed, in line with new funding matrix and other year groups would follow.  Independent schools showed increased numbers and costs.  There was an overspend of just under £1m on Post-16s which was due to increased learners and the age range of EHCPs having been extended up to 25 years of age. Out of Borough costs had been outlined in the table provided.  Independent schools and out-of-borough costs were two of the areas being included in the work of Mark McCurrie.

Central Schools Services Block (CSSB): The overspends on expenditure were highlighted:

Admissions were due to the increased costs as outlined to Schools Forum at their previous meeting.

An unexplained overspend appearing in the Schools Forum budget was being investigated by Susan Woodland to establish what it covered and it was hoped an answer would be available for the next Schools Forum meeting (update: this has now been resolved).

9.55pm: Tony Madden was admitted to the meeting

A typographical correction would be made in the Virtual School report under the ‘projections’ heading.

In answer to a query, it was confirmed that the High Needs place funding for academies reflected ‘zero’ as the funding came directly from the ESFA. The information had been included to cover any adjustments which might have to be made to the ESFA.

It was noted that it was good practice to obtain the approval of Schools Forum and, as recommended, Schools Forum:

NOTED the financial position as outlined and,

APPROVED the carry forward of any deficits, dependent on figures coming back to Schools Forum at their next meeting.

The Chair thanked Susan Woodland and her team for all their work in supplying such a comprehensive report for the meeting.