Issue - meetings

The Schools Forum powers and responsibilities stated that the Forum should be consulted on the number of places commissioned by the Local Authority (LA) and the arrangements for paying top up funding.

Funding for Alternative Provision (AP) settings and special schools was paid on the place plus approach, i.e. settings were funded for an agreed number of places, negotiated annually, plus top up funding based round the actual number of pupils.

The top up funding for all special schools and units was reconciled to actual pupil numbers on a termly basis.  As part of the initial contract negotiations with Bromley Trust Academy (BTA) it was agreed that the AP places would not be adjusted in the first year (i.e. September 2014-August 2015) but would be adjusted in subsequent years.

BTA had expressed some concern around the financial viability of managing its budget in this way and the LA had therefore proposed a compromise as follows:

·  BTA funded for 135 places: 45 at Midfield Campus and 90 at Hayes Campus.

·  Hayes Campus places funded at £10,000 plus £8,000 top up

·  Midfield Campus places funded at £10,000 plus top up of £14,000k for statemented pupils and £17,000 for non-statemented pupils (as transport costs were funded form RSG for statemented pupils)

·  LA was proposing that top up funding would be reconciled annually based on May census date, being the point at which pupil numbers were likely to be at their highest.

·  Funding would be adjusted only where pupil numbers fell below 80% of agreed place numbers, at which point funding would be adjusted by 50%.

The Forum queried why it was unacceptable for the funding for BTA to be reconciled on a termly basis when this did not happen for special schools.  In response, the Head of Schools Finance Support reported that it was considered that pupil numbers in special schools were more stable and predictable due to the pressures on special educational needs (SEN).  In addition, the Director of Education highlighted that it appeared that there was going to be a move away from place funding to pupil-led funding on a national scale and as a result this appeared to be the fairest approach.

During discussions the Schools’ Forum identified that there needed to be more discussion and debate surrounding how the vision for the future of alternative provision fitted with funding arrangements.  The Chairman indicated that these discussions needed to progress before the Schools’ Forum would be in a position to make any recommendations.

RESOLVED: That the proposals outlined above be supported for the current year (2015/16) with a further review of usage for the 2016/17 academic year, based on actual numbers of usage, being undertaken in June 2016 and reported back to the Schools’ Forum.