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.