Agenda item

Schools Block 2022/23

a.  Confirmation of NFF funding formula

b.  Request for 0.44% transfer to High Needs Block and 0.06% to CSSB

Minutes:

The Chair advised Forum members that this item concerned the LA’s request for a transfer of funds from the Schools Block and confirmation of the full national funding formula rates for the 2022/2. Forum was required to make a decision on the transfer of funds from the Schools Block in line with the statutory responsibilities of schools’ forums.  The Chair reminded Forum members that previous requests to transfer funds from Schools Block to the High Needs block had been refused on the grounds of there being no evident strategy for bringing the deficit under control.

 

The Chair also asked Forum members to note that the situation was different to that outlined in December 2021. The request was actually for two transfers.  The first was a repeat of last year’s request to move £100k to the CSSB to support the funding of the admissions team;  this had been agreed previously as a one year commitment, but with an indication that it would be supported again in the future.  This amounted to 0.04% so the request for transfer to the High Needs Block was the balance of 0.44%, amounting to £676k. 

 

Kamaljit Kaur presented the paper and confirmed that the modelling of school budgets had been based on the updated data from the October census which gave a net increase of 244 children compared to October 2020.  Two options were presented, one with the 0.5% transfer and one without. With the MFG set at +0.5%, option 1 would mean a +2.5% uplift on the formula factors, and +3.0% in option 2. Although the per pupil rate funding rates increased in both options, some schools’ would see an actual budget decrease due to falling numbers on roll. 

 

Peter Collins shared a brief summary of the discussion at the secondary headteachers’ meeting; there was not an outright view that the transfer should be opposed this at all, but neither was there an overwhelmingly strong view that it should be supported. The two main concerns were the possibility of setting precedent that would be needed every year as part of ongoing management of high needs block spending, and the absence of a credible plan as to what the transferred amount would be used for.  Jamie Rockman commented that Slough is very much an outlier in terms of its deficit level but that there is also significant pressure across the board and across the country for the high needs block to be supported. Kamaljit Kaur responded by confirming that it was common practice in London boroughs for these transfers to be granted, but reassured Forum members that the funding would go directly to supporting high-cost local and out-of-borough SEND placements.

 

Peter Collins asked whether this was a one-off request because of the current circumstances or whether it would become an annual request to support the ongoing management of the high needs block. Kamaljit Kaur agreed that the LA could request every year, but hoped to be in a more secure position next year following implementation of the Management Plan actions and possible inclusion in the Safety Valve programme. The Chair confirmed that framework allowed LAs to make requests and that it was expected by the DfE that they would do so, although the decision was for the Forum.

 

Maggie Waller asked if there had been any discussion amongst primary heads.  Gill Denham confirmed that she was not aware of any such discussion, and that she would favour the transfer subject to subsequent clarity over how the funding would be used.  Other primary representatives agreed it was unfortunate that there had not been wider consultation with primary headteachers. Maggie Waller stated that it was disappointing that there had not been a proper consultation as in previous years, although Forum members understood and were sympathetic to the reasons why this hadn’t happened;  it was very much hoped that there should be a return to full consultation next year. Kamaljit Kaur confirmed the very tight timing caused by the late publication of the APT at the very end of last term.

 

Peter Collins summarised the situation as reluctant support because of the desire to work in partnership with the local authority to address the underlying problem. He requested that a decision to support should be for one year only, not setting a precedent going forward, and that  officers should report back on how the funds transferred were used so that Forum can monitor the effectiveness of the transfer. 

 

The Chair proposed that Forum agree to the transfer with the caveats expressed. Forum members therefore approved the transfer of £100k from Schools Block to the CSSB and approved the transfer of the balancing 0.44% figure (£676k) to the High Needs block transfer.  The caveats were reiterated – this is a decision binding on 2022-23 only with no precedent for future years, and that a report should be brought to the March Forum meeting describing in detail the difference that this funding has made and how the funds transferred are being allocated.  The Chair agreed to work with officers prior to the next meeting to ensure that there would be appropriate clarity.

Supporting documents: