Agenda item

To consider the information report.

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

At the last meeting the data was provisional but there is now more certainty on the figures as detailed information and clarifications have been received. 

There has been a significant change to the Minimum Per Pupil Funding Levels (MPPFL). The formula factors have received a significant increase of 4% excluding Free School Meals (FSM). Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) has been applied against the 19/20 NFF allocations rather than against the individual school’s budget distribution formula. The MFG in the local formula protects against last year’s actual funding rates.

As there was transfer between blocks last year this meant that school allocations were slightly below NFF. This and other vagaries in the formula methodology mean there is £100,000 surplus after all schools have been allocated NFF allocations for 2020/21. This could be transferred to high needs or for distribution to mainstream schools. The Growth Funding has not been announced yet.

It was explained that in 19/20 the NFF had been scaled back of for the transfer to the High Needs Block through various levers – MFG, cap, MPPFL and levels of the Basic Entitlements.

It was noted that the MPPFL is expected to be used as a mandatory factor in 20/21 and set at the level of the NFF.  To reduce these a disapplication request will be needed with this linked to affordability as Ministers want these levels to be achieved as a matter of policy. 

MFG can be set between +.5 and +1.84% which will see an increase against last years figures. There has been an increase of 4% in the formula rates for most factors. There is no cap in the NFF 20/21 but a cap can apply to the LFF. 

In 2019/20 the NFF was adjusted in 4 ways to achieve a funding level for transfer. The MFG could be varied and scaled back. Formula schools funding could be based on a decision to scale all formula factors  or only the basic entitlement, the maximum scaling would be when all formula schools can be put onto the MFG. It was noted another option was to set a gains cap all formula schools and this will target those who have the largest gains. The last option was to scale back the MFPPL from the NFF rates but note this requires the DfE to agree.

There have been changes in the formula factors for 2020/21. The data from 3 census details have been used to determine mobility in a new formulaic way. This has allocated more money to BCP. It will be £400,000 compared to £50,000. Mobility funding will be included in the MPPFL not on top.

It was questioned how many schools in BCP would be impacted by the changes to the mobility factor. It was estimated that 10 schools would be impacted. The threshold for mobility has been lowered with more schools now qualifying in the LFF.

Table 3 shows the indication of the NFF allocations when applied through the LFF based on the October 18 census pupil numbers and characteristics which could be subject to change when the October 19 census details are received in December. There will be larger gains in the Primary phase area due to the larger increase in MPPFL. 

About 40% of primary and ? secondary schools have protection on the MPPFL. The schools that are on Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) have reduced as funding rates have increased by 4%, lifting more schools on to the formula.

It was confirmed that Table 5 showed an indication of the indicative amounts that could be transferred to the HNB. It was noted that Table 6 shows the effect of varying the MPPFLs. A disapplication would need to be applied for to achieve this outcome. Table 7 shows the impact of variable Funding Gains Cap. Some schools could see a gain of 10%.

Table 9 shows the impact of scaling back the basic entitlement factor with the MFG at 1.84%. If this was scaled back to 0.5% table 10 shows the impact and how much funding could be released. Table 11 indicates the different ways to transfer to the HNB similar to last year.

It was clarified that there were 2 options. The Forum to be consulted based on the principles outlined in the report. A sub-group could be established to look at the funding formula in more detail.

It was acknowledged that there was the intention that there will be a school funding consultation based on the report to look at potential transfer. Schools will be consulted on the principles outlined in the report.

It was noted that the requirements for the disapplication vary. There will be MFG protection for one school equal to 20% of its annual budget and this could be reduced through a disapplication request to DfE.

Option 2 would see a lower MFG set. 10% of schools would see a more significant reduction. 0.5% of the amount would go to the HNB. The disapplication requirements would not apply to this option. Growing all through schools (adding primary year groups) require a different MFG calculation to avoid over protection of funding at the higher secondary level.  The MFG baseline pro-forma from the DfE is used but it still requires formal approval by the DfE. This has been approved by the Forum previously.

It was confirmed that both options would need a disapplication request. It was noted that the view from Central Government that you must have a strong case to vary funding levels.

A question was asked regarding the expectation that a further transfer would be required for 2020-21. Nationally it was noted that the DfE’s position is that they have provided additional funding allocated to the HNB. This could be sufficient for the DfE to block disapplication’s. Locally there is significant budget pressure and the amounts are not enough to create a balanced budget. It was considered that there is not sufficient funding and a balance will be required. It was suggested that an affordability issue may be grounds that the DfE may consider.

The Deficit Recovery Plan drawn up in June assumed the DSG could be balanced in-year only with significant extra funding from the DfE and with 0.5% transfers from mainstream schools continuing.

It was noted that there is an alternative to transfer to decrease the need for HNB. It was confirmed that the transfer was not addressing the under lying issue. The DfE are looking to legislate to include that Councils are not responsible for clearing the DSG deficit and should not top up the annual budget without express approval from the Government. A consultation is currently live with the outcome now after the election. It was questioned that if the LA was not responsible for the deficit and paying it back, who was?

It was put forward that the recovery plan would affect the schools with the largest amounts of SEND the most. It was also suggested that if more of the funding came to the school that the school could help solve the HNB by having the resources in school to deal with it. It was noted that more pupils with EHCP leave mainstream schools as there is a lack of experienced staff to deal with the pupil in school. It was acknowledged that the number of ECHP’s have gone up by 50% but there had been cuts to the SEND budget.

It was suggested that the options being put forward were the same as the previous year and that a different approach needed to be considered.

It was agreed that a consultation sub-group be arranged to discuss the options available prior to the consultation. It was confirmed that the LA follows the legislation in the amount that must be transferred.

RESOLVED that disapplication requests be applied for (but could be withdrawn or amended subsequently following further consultation) by unanimous agreement.