Agenda item

This report sets out the outcome of applying the 2024-25 National Funding Formula (NFF) to the October 2023 schools census data and options for the local mainstream schools funding formula linked to a transfer of funding to high needs.

It also sets out the 2024-25 growth fund budget for approval.

The Assistant Chief Finance Officer presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'C' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Forum was advised that the report set out the outcome of applying the 2024-25 National Funding Formula (NFF) to the October 2023 schools census data and options for the local mainstream schools funding formula linked to a transfer of funding to high needs. The Forum was also advised of the 2024-25 growth fund budget which was included for approval. According to the Policy agreed in December there was just under £400k available for transfer. It had been requested at the December meeting that the total amount to close the gap was modelled. It was noted that this was not achievable and not something the local authority was planning to do. The 1 percent option was also modelled but it was really only option 2 (0.5 percent) which was relevant. The Forum was asked for its thoughts on options outlined at 2a, 2b and 2c in the paper for the transfer of funding to the high needs block if the DfE was minded to agree this despite the decision of the schools Forum.The Forum was reminded that there was also a need to agree level of growth fund. It was noted that 0.5 percent would not require DfE approval if agreed by the Forum. Anything above this amount would require approval from the DfE or if the 0.5 percent was not agreed by the Forum.

The Forum was reminded that it was agreed in the previous year to transfer the small surplus to the early years budget but a 0.5 percent transfer was not agreed.

The Chair outlined the options within table 7 of the report and the issues which needed to be considered by the Forum.

The Chair went on to outline the central growth fund for 2024/25 and sought agreement for this from the Forum. This was agreed before proceeding to consideration of the other options outlined within the report. The Chair advised that he had been communicating with Head Teachers and there had been a number of questions raised which the Chair would draw together outside of the meeting and provide with the minutes.

Feedback from the Primary Heads was that historically SEND and Social Care systems had been struggling and schools had been compensating for this. The view of primary heads was that cutting funding further it would be very difficult for schools to manage and create more problems for Head Teachers. It would have bee easier for schools to accept this action if the systems performance was better. There was also impacts on school budgets for falling pupil numbers and the partially funded pay increases. However, the biggest pressure in mainstream schools was on SEND. Schools had to resource this from their own budgets and once funding was secured it wasn’t backdated. Even a 0.5 percent transfer would be a serious challenge for primary schools. It would have been prudent to involve head teachers in discussions before the plan was submitted.

The feedback from the consultation was that there shouldn’t be a further transfer at 0.5 percent. The Chair confirmed that the wider headteacher community was opposed to the transfer the SF members can vote as they wish. It was noted that there would need to be a vote on the proposed transfer.

It was noted that feedback so far was that head teachers did not support any kind of transfer due to the very severe implications on schools budgets moving forwards. The full allocation of the funding schools expected was seen as essential for the continuation of schools in BCP. A strategy to reduce costs in the long term was needed. The scale of the problem appeared to be increasing. There was concern that schools would be impacted adversely and a plan in place which did not succeed in achieving its objectives.

In accordance with recommendation 3. in the report to agree a level of transfer for the schools NFF to high need, the Chair took a vote on the transfer of 0.5 percent.

Voting: 0 in favour, 4 abstentions

For clarity the Chairman also took a vote on the transfer of an additional 0.5 percent for a 1 percent total transfer.

Voting: 0 in favour 4 abstentions.

Therefore the Schools Forum did not agree a level of transfer from the schools NFF to high needs but it was:

RESOLVED

1. That none of the proposals presented to Schools Forum be recommended to Council from Schools Forum.

2. That the growth fund budget requirement of £134,000 as set out in paragraph 17 of the report be agreed.

The Chair advised that the Forum had agreed previously that surplus be used for a specific reason and suggested that a conversation be had as soon as possible in terms of use of the approximately £400,000 of surplus.

The Forum was advised that should the Council and the DfE go against the recommendation of the Forum and agree a 0.5 percent transfer, a recommendation from Forum was needed to decide how that transfer should be made.

The Forum’s attention was drawn to section 35 of the report which outlined what appeared to be the preferred method through the consultation which excluded minimum per pupil funding levels being reduced and added capping for the highest gains. It was noted that section 6 of the report indicated some extreme impacts for some schools.  It was noted that when the consultation took place schools did not know what the impact would be following the schools census.

The complexities of the situation were highlighted in terms of the demographic changes. It was suggested that all schools contributing a little rather than a few contributing a lot would be a preferable outcome. If the Schools Forum recommended this option (option a) this would also need approval from the DfE as this would mean going below the minimum per pupil funding levels.

It was acknowledged that the view of the Forum was that no transfer was wanted. It was confirmed that options 1 and 3 were no longer relevant.

A vote was taken on options 2a, 2b and 2c as outlined in the report:

Option 2a – 7 in favour

Option 2b – 6 in favour

Option 2c – 1 in favour

There were 3 abstentions.

The Chair recommended that there should be communication with all school head teachers particularly noting the very equitable split within the voting for these options and the outcome of the previous consultation.

It was asked that it be clarified with head teachers as soon as possible if a request for a 0.5 percent transfer is made to the DfE.