Agenda item

Report ED17013

The Schools’ Forum considered a report which provided an update on the findings of the Schools’ Forum Working Group relating to proposed changes to the LA funding Formula for 2017/18, specifically relating to identifying savings within the Schools Block.

At the last Schools Forum Meeting on 30 June 2016 the Schools’ Forum considered the consultation responses but did not make any final decisions as it felt that the consultation was inconclusive.  Members also hoped that the second consultation on the National Funding Formula (NFF) would be issued before a final decision needed to be made.  However, over the summer there was a number of unexpected changes to the NFF timetable with implementation being delayed until 2018/19 meaning that further details have yet to be published. In addition to this, unlike previous years, the APT which is provided to schools to model the funding formula did not have to be returned to the DfE in October this year.  This meant that the final decision on any changes to the funding formula did not need to be agreed until January 2017.  This issue was discussed with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Schools Forum and it was proposed that at the Working Group meeting on the 7^th September 2016, that the group would look at further modelling data with a view to going out for a further consultation with all schools during the Autumn term.

The Schools’ Forum considered the modelling data as follows:

Model One: Comparison of Attainment/ Lump sum to AWPU across primary schools only.

As part of the original review, only the impact of reductions to the lump sum and attainment factors was shared with schools. A number of schools indicated that they felt that AWPU would be a fairer option to use. This model showed the impact of both methods and provided a comparison between the actual reductions and also provided an indication of the types of schools where the variation between the two methods was greatest.

Model Two: Reduction of AWPU across primary and secondary schools.

In response to the initial consultation, a number of primary schools expressed concern that the savings were only being found from the primary sector. As the Schools’ Forum had not actually been asked to make this a formal recommendation, it was proposed that the Working Group should have the opportunity to see what the impact would be across all schools. The disadvantage of this proposal was that there would be no change to the ratio between primary and secondary schools, however as the NFF consultation had not been released there was no further evidence to support what the correct ratio should be.

The Schools’ Forum was being asked to consider whether there should be further consultation with all schools and on what basis.

Members of the Schools’ Forum acknowledged that a number of Primary Head Teachers did not support the proposals to exclude Secondary Schools from the reductions.  However, it was noted that model one would place schools in the position they were likely to be in once the NFF was implemented.  Members of the Forum expressed disappointment that the Government had delayed implementation of the NFF as this could have mitigated some of the impact of the proposals under consideration on primary schools.

The Head of Schools’ Finance Support reported that it was likely that the NFF would increase funding for the traditionally underfunded Boroughs like Bromley to the average, rather the reducing funding for those Borough that had traditionally been better funded.

The Chairman stressed that the bottom line was that the funding received by the LA had to be distributed in a way which was fair.  For the past two years the primary sector had received additional funding at the expense of the secondary sector in an attempt to rectify historic underfunding of the primary sector.  However, there had clearly been some unforeseen and unintended consequences of the decision to give the primary sector additional funding and the funding ratio had been distorted.

Some Members of the Forum expressed the view that the Working Group had given in depth consideration to the detailed information that was available and had formed its recommendations based on that information.  In light of this it was suggested that the informed recommendations of the Working Group should be respected.  It was important for schools to have financial stability and looking at the available evidence it did not appear that the Government had much choice but to conclude that the ratio would be around 1.23:1.22.  It was important that the Schools’ Forum reached decisions based on the ratio that would be likely to result from the NFF.

The Chairman proposed that secondary schools be excluded from the reductions in funding.  This was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

Immediately prior to the vote being taken the Secondary Academy Head Teacher present at the meeting objected to the vote stressing that it should have been made clear to the Members of the Schools’ Forum that this vote would be taking place at the meeting.  The Head Teacher indicated that she had not received the supplementary paper that had been circulated on Friday 9^th September and which set out the proposals currently under consideration.  Another Member suggested that these points of objection could not prevent the vote from taking place and any concerns surrounding the vote and non-delivery of papers should be dealt with at the next meeting under matters arising.

The Chairman’s proposals that secondary schools be excluded from the reductions in funding was put to the vote:

6 in favour

2 against.

The motion was CARRIED.

Turing to the second issue of the way in which the reductions should be made, the Chairman reported that the conclusion of the Working Group had been that reductions to the lump sum and attainment factors should be made.

The Chairman proposed that reductions to the lump sum and attainment factors should be made and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.  On putting the motion to the vote:

6 in favour

2 abstentions

The motion was CARRIED.

It was therefore

RESOLVED: That secondary schools within the borough should be excluded from the reductions in funding and that reductions to the lump sum and attainment factors should be made.