Minutes:
TM introduced the item on the 2024-25 Growth Fund, confirming that the paper is shared in January every year to set out the criteria that should be applied for allocation of the growth fund and the top slice that the LA is recommending should be allocated.
TM noted the demographic changes which affected the demand on Growth Fund. Following significant growth in recent years, the birth rate has been dropping in the west area, leading to surplus primary capacity in the west. However, there is significant in-year pressure in the central and east areas, particularly with higher primary year groups. Two bulge classes have been opened this year already at Marish and Godolphin Junior, and Ryvers School have increased class sizes since April 2023. Secondary schools are at the peak of demand for year 7. All Year 7 pupils have got a school place, and there are some pressures in upper year groups. Most of the available capacity is at Grove Academy, with some also at Wexham. Places are sufficient for future demand.
TM noted the current thinking to use bulge classes and increased class sizes rather than proposing full form-of-entry expansions. However, the LA would be seeking expressions of interests from schools that might want to expand by whole or partial forms of entry. TM drew members’ attention to the DfE criteria for the growth fund, and also commented that falling roles funding was not judged to be required at this point. No changes were being proposed to the criteria for accessing growth funding, including the second year of support for academies because of the different financial year and lagged funding mechanism.
Although there is expected to be an underspend on 2023-24, likely to be around £120k, this is absorbed into the DSG because of the overall deficit. TM confirmed that the recommendation was therefore for a top slice from Schools Block of £500k in 2024-25. This included commitments to bulge of around £91,000, and a high contingency sum of £409,000. This is a higher contingency there than we would normally have, and potentially covers 6 in-year primary classes.
The Chair thanked TM for a very detailed and comprehensive presentation and asked for any questions or comments. JoR queried the amount of the contingency and asked for some further comment from TM on why it was thought to be necessary. TM noted that that the overall allocation requested was relatively low compared to previous years, so the percentage looks high, and further commented that given that the funding for a secondary class would be around £150,000-£160,000, the level was felt to be reasonable given the pressure we're under and the number of classes we may need. A number of colleagues have met as part of the place planning working group; the initial recommendation is for 4 additional classes on top of what has already been opened, which use the whole contingency if all opened immediately.
MW asked what happens to the previous year’s underspend being absorbed into the DSG why is doesn’t simply offset next year. SH advised that for the DSG and for all blocks, any overspend goes into a ring-fenced reserve, not accessible to SBC for general purposes. Almost the only element in the schools block which goes into the schools block DSG reserve is growth fund, because everything else is either transferred to another block or paid to schools. SH advised that she wanted to check movement in and out of this reserve, and the Chair agreed that they would pick this issue up outside the meeting.
The Chair proposed that Forum approve the criteria as they are unchanged, and also endorse the £500k top slice for 2024-25. This was agreed by Form members.
Supporting documents: