Agenda item

The Forum considered details of the estimated Dedicated Schools Grant for 2013/14 based on the three funding blocks.  They also noted the initial allocations and estimated expenditure under each of the block using 2012/13 data and the issues/assumptions on which the data was based.

The Head of ECS Finance explained that the first part of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) was based on funding blocks.  His team had undertaken some initial work, on the allocations for each block, but it was very much a “first pass” and he hoped to receive more information in the next few days. Failing this further information was due to be received on 19^th December.  He asked the forum to identify how to use, if any, of the available headroom.  However they needed to be aware that the headroom may disappear as they moved forward.

The Forum then considered the 3 blocks separately:

High Needs

Members asked for the position of the SEN 2012/13 budget. Officers reported that, at present, it was slightly under spent.  They were currently working on the 2013/4 figures but did not envisage a growth.  These figures would be brought back to the Forum in the New Year.  The Assistant Director (Education) added that the SEN team were also working on efficiencies and that High needs was a very difficult area in which to predict expenditure.

Members of the Forum than asked about the 2 areas of prudential borrowing from 2012/13; £570k and £800k.  What would happen in 2013/14? The Head of ECS Finance explained that the £570k was as a result of an earlier invest to save which finished in 2012/13 and this would therefore not appear in the 2013/14 budget. The £800k was an invest to save payback for the Glebe which would continue to appear in the 2013/14 budget.

The 14-19 partnership representative asked if, for 16-19 year olds the figure included the element removed from the Further Education (FE) budget.  The Head of ECS Finance explained that the DfE were still not giving a clear outline of FE funding.  They wanted to know if it would be included in the DSG and were pressing the DfE for an answer.

Early Years

The Vice Chairman raised concerns about Early Years funding showing a funding shortfall of £825,000. He felt that Early Years’ providers could not possibly absorb this but he felt that the report did not reflect the potential position. The Head of ECS Finance explained that they had a contingency of £551k which could be used to free up some of the funding shortfall.  He added that he felt that the EFA had used old figures for their calculations which again might result in a better position.

The Early Years representative asked if the number of early years’ pupils was predicted to rise and The Head of ECS Finance reported that there was likely to be a higher take up. The higher the take up the lower the figure to be recouped by DfE would be which again would help with the shortfall

Schools Block

The Vice Chairman commented that the report made it appear as if there was surplus headroom. However this was created by assuming that every school should bear a cut of 1.5% (to the MFG limit) in addition to not receiving any extra funding to meet inflationary cost increases. The Head of ECS Finance explained it showed the worst case scenario,

Based on the figures presented, there would be £3.6m head room and The Head of ECS Finance wanted an indication from the Forum as to how this would be spent. The report suggested 3 areas; An increase in Early Years funding; Support the MFG impact on schools - this could be done either by reducing the floor by 1.5% or by introducing a ceiling; and funding “bulge classes”.

With regard to Early Years the Vice Chairman had been in discussions with Mandy Russell as he thought there was a special MFG rule relating to Early Years; as yet Mandy had not had the time to see how this would be applied.  He thought that this may mean that Early Years did not have bear more than a 1.5% reduction.  If this was the case then they would be forced to use part of the head room on Early Years.

The Early years Representative reported that she had been in discussions with providers.  The New Early Years Foundation Framework had a lot of hidden costs involved with no added funding to cover the costs.  There were training needs and the greater emphasis on reports for parents meant that staff had to be released to write the report: both had cost implications. Any cuts in funding would impact on providers at a time when they were facing higher costs.

The forum then discussed “bulge classes”. These would also be a priority as they would have to be funded. However the Vice Chairman pointed out that early indications of funding needed for 2013/14 were that these would be very similar to the amount of £970,000 in 2012/13 so there might not need to be much headroom used here.

The Vice Chairman asked why there were only 3 options listed whereas in the past they had considered a longer list.  The Assistant Director explained that, at present, these were the only areas they had identified.

One of the Primary Governor Representatives raised a point that it may not be legal to reduce the floor of the MFG.  Officers would clarify this and report back to the Forum.

Another suggestion was to use all of the schools block headroom on schools..

The Maintained Secondary Schools representative asked if there was a permitted range of options and if it included the possibility of recognising success.  Officer would look at the EFA guidelines as they were limited to the 10 that would drive the formula.

The Schools forum accepted 4 areas for the possible spend of the head room:

(1)    Use of headroom to offset reduction to Early Years funding.

(2)  Use of headroom to support MFG. This could be done either by reducing the floor of 1.5% or by introducing a ceiling. The outcome of this could be either that some schools would not lose any funding or that some schools would receive a small increase. It is proposed that funding scenarios based on this would be produced for the next Schools Forum meeting.

(3)  An estimated figure has been included for bulge classes. This may have to be considered as a priority for allocation of additional funding.

(4)  SEN Funding.

RESOLVED that the report is noted and the Forum suggests funding across the 4 areas outlined above.