Agenda item

Attendees were reminded that there had been a replacement issued for appendix D of the report.

Tony Madden highlighted that the outturn for the previous year would normally be presented at this time of the year: the information had been made available but there was now a new way of reporting recoupment from April – August annually for academy schools.

9.20am: Coral Snowden was admitted to the meeting

Tony Madden took members through the appendices:

Appendix A: outturn from 2019/20, showing April – August 2020 recoupment for academies with a Growth Fund of £168,000.

Appendix B: outturn for 2020/21 gave final numbers. For two schools from April – August there was a recoupment sum. One primary school and three secondaries were going through expansion, with Marish now in their second bulge year as an academy.

Grove Academy had previously been discussed by Schools Forum and the funding model could not change for their fifth class which Forum had agreed to fund. The LA had charged April – August 2020 funding from the previous year which fell into the financial year 2020/21.  £284,000 had been carried forward, £200,000 had been top sliced with the difference deducted April – August. Previously, the sum had been reported but it was now proposed to add this to the DSG. The recoupment had not been reported but the monies would still go out.

Appendix C: showed an estimate for the current year 2020/21 with one school with 2 more years of expansion and another with 2 and 3 years. The £750,000 top slice had been left which it was hoped would not be required in full.  It was hoped schools would be flexible enough to take £194,000 recoupment for April – August 2022.

Appendix D: the 2022/23 layout had been changed to show a recoupment sum of £194,000 which would be paid out in 2021/22 and would be a credit. The sum of £194,000 matched 2023. The top slice had been increased to £1m which was due to the sum being recouped.

Tony Madden stressed that amounts of money had not changed but were being shown in a different way, with all in the Growth Fund.  The year 2022/23 appeared to have a top slice but this was now all in the DSG.  The DSG was refunded a year in arrears; nothing had been lost to the DSG overall and over time but there would be a transition year into the new reporting arrangements.  The DSG would always match, it would balance out but not in the year.  It was confirmed that growth was stable and figures would be clearer in the following year.

9.30am: Michael Jarrett was admitted to the meeting

It was confirmed that the LA had to look ahead; this included the Place Planning Committee, as there had to be an assurance that funding was allocated to the appropriate place.  The next report to Schools Forum would include reference to school place planning. There were surplus places at infant level which were now filtering through to Junior.  There was no certainty of a shortfall in Year 7 but there would be a growth with Year 6 being slightly larger.

The Growth Fund supported schools with falling rolls, but it could only support where there was a temporary reduction. Slough was going through a rolling peak so when large reductions affected a secondary school it was medium to long term. This was cyclical and it is felt too early to consider the establishment of a falling rolls fund at this time.

It was suggested Schools Forum review numbers in more detail and it was agreed this would be helpful information.