Agenda item

To consider the report

Jack Cutler presented the report at Agenda item 5 in detail relating to the Mainstream Schools Funding Formula Consultation responses. 

·         This information was presented in order for the Forum to consider whether they continue to support the funding formula principles as set out within the consultation paper in full or whether any adjustments should be made.

·         This consultation referred to the formula used to distribute rather than looking at the size of any transfer from the school’s block to the High Needs Block (HNB).

·         The response rate to the consultation was relatively high at 63 of 89 schools including 2 special schools out of 7.

·         The report provided the analysis of responses and a summary with commentary.

·         Section 3.2 shows a breakdown of respondents and indicates a good spread across all phases.

Queries and responses were as follows:

·         Why is MFG being set at potentially -1.5% when there is a 1% floor? It was stated that the technicalities of this are quite subtle as there is potentially floor protection compared with 2017-18 funding but the MFG applies against 2018-19 and it may not impact on a lot of schools – it is possible this has skewed the responses. There was an overwhelmingly positive response to question 1b (1% floor to be introduced if there is no transfer of funding).

·         Clarification requested on the lump sum payment as there are a range of schools including first schools and middle schools. Jack Cutler clarified the payment would be a lump sum per school irrespective of type of school.

·         Split site funding was queried – there is only 1 primary school this applies to. The impact of including that or not was discussed. The amount impacting on that school would be 66k from an equitable perspective should this be included or not. That particular school is not currently impacted by this potential funding adjustment.

·         Some clarification requested around question 3b (approach that all schools should contribute to the transfer using the various levers proposed). The principle behind this question was how do we make it an equitable transfer. The responses were mixed but this could have been because there was some confusion around the question as there were a number of ‘not sures’. The Chair noted that if respondents had not been at Forum meetings or been part of the working group it would have been difficult to understand the question. It was further noted by a Forum Member that feedback from colleagues in Christchurch was that it had been challenging to understand the questions in the survey. Nicola Webb commented they had worked through all the slides at the three consultation events and had responded to any queries on how the formula works.

·         Confirmation sought of whether there were any responses to suggest that schools are not happy with the principles to achieve a transfer. There had been discussion at the Formula sub group meetings about which formula factor to adjust in lever 5 and the Basic Entitlement had been seen as the most equitable. Nicola Webb noted that in Poole they had approached the DfE regarding taking a straight proportion of all budgets but the Government were not in agreement with this.

·         On Question 4 around scaling back the Basic Entitlement for affordability when final data has been received it was noted from some of the responses they may not have understood the technicalities of this question. Jack Cutler commented that there are a lot of nuances and intricacies to this making it difficult to tease out the impact on specific schools, with changing numbers on roll having the greatest impact on budgets.

·         The Chair noted that it was worth pointing out that a lot of the spend of the HNB is now on young people between the ages of 19 – 25 which is new spend.

·         The general view was that there is insufficient funding in the DSG. Active lobbying of Central Government is taking place about this issue.

·         Some views were that any funds transferring into the HNB could mask the pressures there. Channelling extra monies into mainstream could also be risky as there is no evidence that strategy would work.

Shadow Schools Forum will be asked to consider the recommendations within the report after all reports have been presented.

Final queries were raised as follows:

·         In respect of question 3a (should all schools make a contribution to the transfer), where 9 respondents said no – were there any other suggestions put forward – it was confirmed that there were no other suggestions.

·         Is there differing spend on HNB in different phases? Vicky Wales responded that it is not that there is no difference more that there is an increase in numbers of those with EHCPs as they move though the different phases. The most significant impact is as a result of the introduction of the new Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities with the inclusion of 19 to 25 year olds. A Forum Member noted that she did not think it was equitable in regard to alternative provision as there were more pupils excluded from secondary schools.

·         What is the profile of BCP spend compared to others with a similar context? Vicky Wales responded that ISOS included that in their reviews last year and concluded that there is a need for us to reduce Independent Specialist placements as we have higher numbers of these. We also have fewer pupils with EHCPs within our mainstream schools when national comparisons are made so we have less pupils with SEND who access mainstream provision.

·         Where the spend increases as the young person gets older, how does that compare nationally? Vicky Wales noted that it is thought we are similar in this respect.

a)        Are Forum happy with the recommendations included in the School Funding Consultation Paper in full (reminder this would include the split site factor being included within the minimum per pupil funding level – lever 1)?

Votes: Against – 20

b)        Should a final proposal be drawn up based on the general principles included within the Consultation?

Votes: For – 19, Abstention – 1

Discussion took place around inclusion or not of 66k Split Site funding (relating to 1 primary school).

c)         Do Forum accept the consultation method with the exception lever 1 is not used and other levers are adjusted appropriately with the split site funding included in the budget of the eligible school in addition to the minimum per pupil funding level?

Votes: For – 13, Against – 3, Abstentions – 4

AGREED BY MAJORITY