Agenda item

DM referred to report A3 circulated with the agenda. The first part of the report sets out the national position. The government has made certain decisions having reflected on responses to the recent consultation. As a result, rather than having cuts across the board in LBHF schools, there will now be a minimum increase of 0.5%, however, DM emphasised that other spending pressures would impact on this increase.

DM thanked LBHF schools, teachers, parents and pupils who contributed around 10% of the total responses to the government consultation on school funding, which was extremely impressive for such a small London borough.

DM advised that although the Government has confirmed an additional £1.3b for schools and high needs, only £100m is going into the HNB, which is set against deficits across the country. He also advised that in obtaining this funding, the DfE has managed to retain control of the funding, which has been allocated into the schools’ grant to benefit education. There will be no separate funding for local authorities to provide support for schools. In the meantime, funding to local authorities has been cut. Academies have also seen their ESG cut.

DM referred to the four blocks of funding:

·         Early Years

·         Schools

·         High Needs

·         Central Services

The government has closed down the ability of LAs/Schools Forum to recommend changes between these blocks, although Schools Forum can agree to transfer up to 0.5% from the schools block to another block. Transfer above this rate would be subject to a disapplication request to the Secretary of State.

DM referred to the local formula that has operated in LBHF, which has always reflected the collegiate working where decisions are made collectively between the LA and schools. However, the way this operates will change under the NFF, which will remove the ability for local decisions on schools’ finance. The Schools Forum needs to consider the best way to move towards implementing the NFF in two years’ time.

DM referred to other issues affecting the management of schools:

·         Forced academisation is no longer on the government’s agenda but there is still pressure for schools to become academies.

·         The role of the LA is diminishing and the only areas the LA is likely to have control over are pupil placement, management of the HNB and admissions.

·         If there is a General Election, this could bring more changes.

·         Schools may need to buy in services as cuts to central services occur.

DM discussed the possibility of funds being transferred from one block to another to provide support for schools from the central block or to increase the HNB.

DM discussed the possibility of funds being transferred from one block to another to provide support for schools from the central block or to increase the HNB.

Referring to Appendix 1 in report A3, SR asked for clarification on the primary and secondary funding. DM explained that Schools Forum has historically put relatively more money into primary than secondary schools compared with other LAs. DM also referred to the lump sum, which is the same for primary and secondary. Previously Schools Forum set this at £100k, unlike other authorities who set a lump sum of up to £175k. DM believes the government will eventually reduce the lump sum down and therefore recommends this remain at £100k. This is another issue for Schools Forum to consider.

It was agreed that a workshop should be arranged, open to all members of Schools Forum, to consider the funding formula for the next two years, ahead of the implementation of the NFF. Recommended models will then be brought back to the next Forum for a decision to be made. It would be helpful if the workshop could understand the characteristics of those schools most affected by the NFF.

DM advised that there is a significant difference across LAs due to local funding formulas, eg, in Westminster 50% of schools will benefit and 50% will not. LBHF will see all schools affected in the same way, which is a reflection of the fairness of the local formula.

Other discussion included:

·         The effect the increase in rates will have on LA funding and therefore on schools, eg, although schools will get a 0.5% increase per pupil, the increase in rates may negate this. Consideration needs to be given as to whether the LA continues to use the actual rateable value.

·         TS referred to page 5 and asked why the figure is lower following the ACA adjustment. DM will check the accuracy of the ACA figures.

·         DM referred to the EFSA website, which provides information on funding. TS advised that the EFSA encourages schools to look at COLLECT for information.

·         PH feels that schools should see a 0.5% increase in their funding if this has been stated as happening. DM advised that the only way to do this is by increasing AWPU.

·         A spreadsheet with all schools’ information should be provided at the workshop plus a breakdown of what is included in the new formula. TS also suggested the meeting look at the information on COLLECT.

·         RO advised that the APWU figures in the schedule on page 5 are based on last year’s figures. COLLECT is also based on previous census data. This is not a problem if the assumption is that schools’ situations are the same this year.

·         DM raised the issue of falling rolls and highlighted those schools on page 4. Most of these schools have contact DM, who will be working with them, including looking into why their rolls have dropped. Once the LA understand why rolls are dropping and whether this is likely to continue, a strategic decision can be taken. In the meantime, these schools will require support. LAs are only required to put support in place if the schools with falling rolls are good or outstanding. The LA is not able to apply the LA Support Fund for RI schools but would have to ask for disapplication to enable an RI schools to be supported. PH pointed out that the LA should also look at the percentage of reductions in individual schools, rather than the pupil numbers, as a reduction of say seven pupils in a small school would have a high impact on its funding but would not be included in the list of schools on page 4.

·         Not all schools are included in the schedule on page 6 as the LA does not have access to academy data until it is published. The LA has asked academies for this information but not all provided it.

·         MB suggested that the LA look at demographic areas to see if there is a trend. DM confirmed that they are analysing the leavers and starters data provided to the LA to see if this gives an informed picture of mobility.

·         DA suggested the LA also look at other boroughs and also take a long term view on mobility. DM confirmed that this is being done and stressed the importance of the LA working with schools. LBHF is one of the highest developing boroughs in London and it is important that the LA understand how that affects the number of families moving in/out.

·          DM advised that when developing the School Organisation Strategy for this year, the LA will be considering all of these issues.

RESOLVED:

i) Workshop to consider formula for 2018/19 and 2019/20 to meet on Tuesday, 21st November at 2pm, to which all members of Schools Forum will be invited. LF to provide financial information for the meeting, including last year’s figures. A briefing on the purpose of the workshop to be circulated with the date of the meeting.

ii) DM to check accuracy of the ACA figures.