Agenda item

To consider the information report.

Jack Cutler, Quality and Commissioning, BCP Council, presented the report.

When a pupil is excluded there is a financial adjustment that follows the pupil into another school or an Alternative Provision (AP). There is a statutory minimum that must be applied and that minimum is currently applied across BCP.

The report proposes a change to the way that the financial adjustment is made and looks for a decision from Forum members to support the decision. If agreed by Forum, the Local Authority will approach all BCP schools to request their sign-up.

The proposal addresses the fact that a pupil would attract funding to the end of that financial year (reflecting the different financial year for academies) and for the next year also if the pupil was excluded after census. That is the school would have the funding but not the pupil. The proposal means that the admitting school would receive a larger share of the funding. This will also mean that the funding contribution to the high needs block for the costs of AP would be greater.

The proposal also considers when the pupil is still on roll at the school but receives Medical Provision. It proposes that the daily rate of funding is adjusted for the Medical Provision. The rate would be based on the funding attracted by that pupil to the school on an annual basis and worked out at a daily rate.

There are 2 options:

1.    Continue to apply the statutory minimum required under the Financial Regulations.

2.    Apply the proposed enhancements across excluded pupils including Medical Placements and other Alternative Provision arrangements.

Table 2 shows in 2018-19 the financial impact under the two options. Table 1 indicates that this is a growing area of concern, especially in the secondary sector.

The Forum was asked to consider the 2 options.

Concerns were raised about the money following the child. If a child is excluded in Yr7 after the October Census the school will not have received funding for that child until they were in Yr8. Potentially the proposal could generate an unfair approach.

A discussion was held on the Operational Guidance. It was suggested that schools do not manage their budget based on individual pupils and that option 2 goes against operational practice in schools. Concerns were raised about the option being fair to the receiving school but unfair to the school that would lose the funding.

Other concerns were raised regarding Yr11 students and how option 2 would potentially lead to perverse outcomes.

It was questioned whether there are any schools within BCP that were on estimated funding. It was suggested that the option would not work for these schools. It was agreed that special arrangements for these schools would need to be taken into account.

It was stated that all schools need to agree the option and there would be a clearer case for schools if Schools Forum have agreed the option. A view was put forward that there is a lot of movement between schools, so potentially it would balance out.

It was questioned whether there could be an option 3 where the funding would not continue for the same length of time as proposed?

RESOLVED:  Schools Forum voted on a proposal to adopt Option 2.  This was not passed with 7 votes for, 7 against and 4 abstentions.  A revised proposal will be brought to the next meeting