Agenda item

Kamaljit Kaur presented the paper outlining the proposed CSSB breakdown for 2022-23. There were few changes from 2021-22, only that the copyright license fee has been increased.  The historic misallocation to the High Needs Block still requires Forum to approve a transfer from High Needs back to the CSSB as in previous years. Last year the request was for £220k; for 2022-23 the request is for a balancing figure of £185k.

Johnny Kyriacou pointed out that as part of further due diligence work, some irregularities had been identified within the CSSB, including spending which wasn’t allocated to the right block. Potentially the CSSB may need to increase, depending on what services schools want; for example around the attendance service, where some funding for that function comes via the high needs block. Another example is if schools want funding for fair access in some form that benefits all schools, this would need to come from the CSSB as well.  It was acknowledged that it is too late to make any changes for the 2022-23 financial year;  the intention was to highlight the issues in order that there can be a discussion with schools about what they want, what services the LA can deliver and whether these are appropriately funded. The Chair asked for confirmation that any proposed changes would be for the 2023-24 financial year; this was confirmed by JK.

The chair summarised by confirming that in line with its statutory responsibilities, there were two things for Forum to do; firstly agree the budget allocations within the CSSB, and secondly agree the budget transfer from high needs into the CSSB to correct the historical imbalance.  The Chair reiterated that this is request has been approved for several years in succession, but can only be approve for a year at a time.

Valerie Harffey raised a query about an individual post-holder named in the paper.  The Chair confirmed this should have been picked up at proof reading and that the name would be removed from the online version of the paper.

Maggie Waller raised a concern that some items were effectively being funded from the High Needs block when they shouldn’t be, because the historical error has caused problems in properly allocating costs to the services provided. MW asked whether there should be further lobbying of the DfE to put this right. KK confirmed that in 2017-18 when the CSSB block was created, it was intended to cover historic costs for services provided. In authorities where there is a majority of maintained schools, any gaps or misallocations can be rectified by de-delegation from schools budgets, but this is not an option in Slough because of the majority of academy schools. KK also confirmed that the overall CSSB funding rate is reducing, so that there is a reduction of about £40k in 2022-23 compared to 2021-22.

The Chair asked whether it’s the DfE’s intention to eliminate the CSSB.  KK confirmed that it was, as it covers historic costs which should be absorbed into other areas, but the timescale for this is unknown.

Peter Collins asked whether the sharper focus on the provision of statutory elements only might lead to some things that are currently in place not happening or being done differently in the future. Are we agreeing to the transfer of funds to support anything which may end up being a service that becomes cut at some point over the life of this budget? What would happen in that situation and is there a role for Forum here?  JK confirmed that if a service was reduced or cut then would need to be a discussion as to whether the money is spent on something else, or whether it goes back into the pot.

PC also asked what the role of Forum was in ensuring that there is effectiveness and value for money, so that the public money is being used in in the right way to achieve the ambitions for which it is intended. JK responded that these services should be under scrutiny by Forum and that the local authority should be open to feedback; he would be happy to pick this up through the Slough Education Partnership Board.

The Chair thanked JK for his response and pointed out that the annual DSG report, which is on the agenda for the May meeting, is intended to include comment about the impact of spending. More detailed scrutiny could be picked up through other boards.

Forum members approved the budget transfer of £180,815 from High Needs block to the CSSB for 2022-23 and agreed to allocation within the CSSB as proposed by the local authority.