The
Committee considered a report on the proposed funding formulae for early years
and mainstream schools for 2019/20, presented by the Assistant Chief Financial
Officer (CFO), B&P.
The
Assistant CFO explained that the DSG was a ring-fenced grant, which was highly
regulated by the Department for Education (DfE). The
two recommendations for setting the formulae, shown at a) and b) in the report,
were supported by the Shadow Schools Forum, following consultation with all
schools and providers. It was noted that the recommendations at c) and d)
related to DfE decisions, the timing of which was
outside of the Council’s control. The
Assistant CFO advised that the new BCP Council was required to have one early
years single funding formula (EYSFF). The process for bringing together the
three current formulae into one single formula was explained in Section 5 of
the report. Table 4 set out the final proposal. The development of the
mainstream schools formula was explained in Section 6 of the report. Paragraphs
39 – 46 made particular reference to the work of the Shadow Schools Forum in
adopting a sensible and equitable approach to a particularly challenging issue.
Table 8 set out the final proposal which allowed for a 1.1% transfer of Schools
Block funding to High Needs.
Officers
in attendance responded to questions and comments from Members on the report,
including the following main points:
- A
Member expressed concern at the potential impact of the proposals on
school budgets. The Committee was advised that there had been an overall
increase in funding for 2019/20. Members were referred to Table 6 which
set out the impact of the proposed mainstream schools formula compared
with school budgets for 2018/19 and the national funding formula for
2019/20. Developing a single formula for BCP Council had resulted in a
mixed picture for schools and this was acknowledged. However it was noted
that the biggest financial factor affecting schools was numbers on roll.
- The
proposed transition from local formulae to a national formula by 2021/22
would still result in differences between schools depending on their
individual characteristics.
- There
was a separate budget agreed by the Schools Forum which provided for in
year pupil growth. The take up of free childcare had been higher than
expected since the introduction of the extended entitlement in 2017. A
Member asked if there were sufficient places locally to meet demand. The
Committee was assured that childcare sufficiency duties were being met and
a ‘steady state’ was in place. The situation was being monitored closely by a working group of
providers, which held regular meetings and business planning sessions.
- Pressure
on the High Needs Block was a growing national issue. The Shadow Schools
Forum had set up a working group of headteachers
across the BCP area to consider in more detail the demands on the high
needs budget. The Forum had agreed the transfer of £2.2 million from the
Schools Block to the High Needs Block in January 2019 in order to protect
services.
- A
Member asked what was being done to address the increasing number of
permanent exclusions from mainstream schools. The Committee was advised that the
Shadow Schools Forum had found that schools were working together positively
and sharing good practice in dealing with pupils with challenging
behaviours. Provision for excluded children across the BCP area was rated
as good to outstanding. Providers were working with mainstream schools to
see how the number of permanent exclusions could be reduced. It was noted
that new Ofsted guidelines were being developed which may have a positive
impact.
- Membership
of the Schools Forum was highly regulated. It was confirmed that the new
BCP Schools Forum would include a maintained school governor
representative.