Issue - meetings

The Head of CEF Finance introduced the Report and explained that it had come before the Schools’ Forum for comments before being presented to the CEF PDS Committee on 1^st February 2024.

Section 3.2 of the Report showed the funding made available for 2024/25 across the four funding blocks – High Needs, Early Years, Schools and Schools Central, with further details contained in Appendix 2 on page 25 of the Report.

Starting with the Central Schools Block, the Forum were informed that funding had decreased as expected, and a further £50k of  LA funding had been added to underpin this, making an annual contribution of £560k in this block. The expectation was that the grant would continue to decrease over the next few years until a level was reached where DfE felt it was appropriate. LA contributions were also likely to continue until this point was reached.

Funding within the Early Years Block had risen substantially by £14.7m for 2024/25 due to new funding streams being introduced for under twos, new funding streams for two-year-olds with working parents and increased hourly rates. With reference to Section 3.10 of the Report, the Forum noted that some modelling had been carried out, with two scenarios detailed on page 13, one with a central contingency and one without. The LA suggested that scenario 2 (without contingency) was the preferred model as it directed maximum funding to settings. As allowed by DfE, some funding was kept back centrally, with the LA required to have a ‘pass through’ rate of at least 95% (i.e. at least 95% of the grant given by DfE had to go directly to providers). As seen in the tables on page 13, Bromley was currently within the parameters set, at 96%+. It was noted that the Government might increase the rate to 97% in future years but this was still under debate.

The Head of CEF Finance reported that funding within the Schools Block had increased by £11.7m, with the LA following the National Funding Formula (NFF). LAs are being asked to follow the NFF even more closely than in previous years, with the requirement that LAs must be 10% closer than before. This is not an issue for Bromley as the LA had followed the NFF guidelines and rates for a number of years.

Referring to Appendix 3 on page 26 of the Report, the Head of CEF Finance explained to the Forum that there were four different scenarios for distributing the funding. The LA recommended Option 4 as it most closely followed NFF guidelines and gave maximum MFG protection.

As previously agreed by the Schools’ Forum, the Falling Rolls funding had been removed for 2024/25, and this enabled more funding to go directly to schools. The LA’s overall contingency had also been reduced to maximise the amount going to schools.

Finally, within the High Needs Block, the Forum heard that this remained the block impacted by the most pressures. As detailed in Section 3.32, funding had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43