Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Anna Bosher, Angela Chapman, Neil Proudfoot, Richard Sammonds, and David Wilcox.

An apology for absence was also received from Cllr. Wells Portfolio Holder for Education.

Beverley Pennekett from the Education Funding Agency had sent her apologies for being late.

The Chairman introduced the meeting by welcoming Don King from the Education Funding Agency and he also acknowledged the presence of representatives from the Borough’s schools.

A declaration of interest was made Alison Regester in that she represented the Early Years and Childcare Sector and she also managed a private nursery.

The Vice-Chairman advised that the third paragraph under “Minutes of the Meeting held on 12^th July 2012” which read “The Vice-Chairman noted that the Schools’ Forum working party would be meeting shortly…” should read “The Vice-Chairman noted that the Schools’ Forum working party had not yet met…..”.

The Vice-Chairman advised that, in relation to the third paragraph of Minute 4, he had met with Mandy Russell and was now satisfied and his misunderstanding had been clarified and he had no further interest in pursuing this matter.

RESOLVED that, subject to the correction set out above, the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th September 2012 be agreed and that matters arising be noted.

Report No. ED12052

As agreed by the Schools’ Forum held on 20^th September 2012, the London Borough of Bromley had released the four funding models to all schools as part of the consultation on the proposed funding formula for 2013/14. The four models were based on the following principles:

Version 6
73 points at EYFSP for Primary Attainment
Lump Sum of £150,000
Allocations for EAL/Attainment/Deprivation based on current funding blocks

Version 8
73 points at EYFSP for Primary Attainment
Lump Sum of £150,000
Allocations for EAL/Attainment/Deprivation based on fixed amount for all pupils

Version 10
73 points at EYFSP for Primary Attainment
Lump Sum of £180,000
Allocations for EAL/Attainment/Deprivation based on current funding blocks

Version 12
73 points at EYFSP for Primary Attainment
Lump Sum of £180,000
Allocations for EAL/Attainment/Deprivation based on fixed amount for all pupils

The schools had also been consulted again on de-delegation for maintained primary schools.

Mandy Russell advised that 38 consultation responses had been received, being 33 from Primary Schools, 1 from a Special School and 4 from Secondary Schools. However, included within the Primary responses were 6 individual responses from 1 school and 3 from another school. In order to ensure that the results were considered on a fair and equitable basis, only two responses had been included from each school. Whilst there had been a slightly higher number of responses from 1fe schools, there was a fair representation of responses from all sizes of schools. Within the responses, a number of schools had not answered particular questions, or ticked both boxes for some questions, or ticked a particular version that did not correlate to their earlier answers. Details of the consultation responses could be seen at appendix 1 of the report.

On relation to question 1 of the consultation, Mandy Russell advised that all models were based on 73 points or below at Early Years Foundation Stage Profile  and the schools had been asked to endorse this detail. A positive response had been received so all models would be based on 73 points. Question 2 asked schools to choose between lump sums of £150,000 or £180,000. Question 3 gave different amounts for funding for attainment, deprivation and EAL. The models endeavored to bring about a formula for schools funding that was clear and transparent. As previously mentioned the answers for question 4 did not always correlate with the answers to the 3 previous questions. The answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 should have led schools to the answer for question 4 but this had not always been the case. Version 10 appeared to be the most popular, but did not relate to the answers indicated in the previous questions and therefore the Assistant Director for Education was recommending Option 12 which did relate back to the previous options..

A question was raised about limiting the gains some schools might receive from the funding formulas and had the working group considered capping these gains. In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Karen Raven advised that her Business Manager had attended a conference where it had been learned PFI would come within the lines of additional factors that schools could use. However, Harris (previously Kelsey Park) was due to be demolished and completely rebuilt using PFI. Was the Local Authority aware of this and would it have any impact on Local Authority funding? David Bradshaw confirmed the news about Harris and the fact that the new build would be PFI funded. He had spoken to the PFA on how any funding gap in the PFI would be dealt with in the funding formula and he agreed that the effect of funding to other schools with PFI needed to be clarified. He continued that when the build was completed and operational that was when the funding mechanism would start and that any gap would be caused by revenue costs.

Karen Raven requested her outrage be recorded.

The Vice-Chairman suggested that that issue be discussed at a future meeting of the Forum. He also advised that the Forum had previously approved a formula that did not include PFI He further noted that schools should have made arrangements for PFI that would not affect other schools.

Don King from the Education Funding Agency advised that one of the crucial things was that when PFI started the Priority Building Programme there was no commitment as to when the building would start and a rolling programme could be spread over a number of years. He undertook to investigate how gaps in the PFI would be funded and would find out the building programme for Harris Academy. He would send this information to the Forum as soon as possible.

On another subject the proportionality of representation for secondary schools head teachers and governors on the Schools’ Forum was raised. The proportionality was calculated using the number of pupils in each sector.  The Vice-Chairman advised that the proposed schools membership was 13 members represented by 52% of primary school pupils and 48% of secondary school pupils this proportionally equated to 6 places for primary schools and 5 places for secondary schools. The 13 members also had to include a representative of the Grant Maintained sector and a PRU representative.

All meetings are at the EDC unless otherwise stated. The next meeting of the Schools’ Forum will be held on Thursday, 22^nd November 2012 at 4.30pm.

All meetings would be held at the Education Development Centre and would commence at 4.30pm:

Thursday, 22^nd November 2012
Thursday, 13^th December 2012
Thursday, 10^th January 2013
Thursday, 7^th February 2013
Thursday, 14^th March 2013