1
Newcastle Schools Forum
11 September 2012
(1.00 - 3.50 pm)
Meeting held Newcastle Mansion House, Fernwood Road, Jesmond
<AI1>
PRESENT:
SectorRepresentativeChairBarbara Redhead
PrimaryDeborah Ashcroft
David Atkinson
Vicky Lindsay
Nicola Nelson Taylor
Mike Donnelly
Judy Cowgill
SecondaryLynne Ackland
Lorna Anderson
John Foster
AcademiesHugh Robinson
Pat Wager
Phil Marshall
SpecialMargaret Dover
Early Years PVILiz Cook
Sarah Gaish
Trade UnionsJo Chandler-Wood
John Hall
GovernorSheilia Rose
</AI1>
<AI2>
IN ATTENDANCE:
Martin SurteesDirector of Performance, Outcomes and CommissioningLee ThurmanChildren Services
Ian LaneChildren Services
Jan CorlettChildren Services
R SmithsonDemocratic Services
</AI2>
<AI3>
36Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Mike Satchell, Heather Campbell and Gary Wallis-Clarke.
</AI3>
<AI4>
37Minutes of last meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record.
Matters Arising
a) Schools Funding modelling
In the discussions on the ‘ lump sum’ finance model, it was noted the potential sum discussed was £95k.
</AI4>
<AI5>
38Directors Update
Submitted: Report by Director of Performance, Outcomes and Commissioning, Children Services (previously circulated and copy attached to official minutes)
M Surtees outlined the report as attached. Included in the report were updates on;
- Business Rates Retention Consultation/EIG Update
One of the elements proposed to transfer within the Business Rates Retention start-up funding is the local authority funding for services to schools (local authority LACSEG).
The Business Rates Retention consultation updates further on the Early Intervention Grant. It was expected that funding for free education for two year olds will transfer out of Early Intervention Grant and into the Dedicated Schools Grant. It was anticipated there would be further guidance on how this will operate. The consultation also detailed a government top slice of £150m nationally from EIG to fund ‘early intervention and children’s services’. Based on Newcastle’s share of the national EIG quantum it was speculated that our share of this reduction would equate to approximately £0.948m.
- School Balances
At the 11th July meeting of Schools Forum a process was agreed for the review of school balances held as at 31st March 2012. The targeted review of balances is currently in progress and where further information is required the relevant schools have been contacted. Financial Services to Schools have therefore contacted 22 schools and have provided a questionnaire to aid these schools in providing robust explanation for the level of balances held. The deadline for return of this further information from these schools is Friday 21st September. The outcome of this review exercise will be reported to Forum in the October meeting.
RESOLVED: that the report be received for information.
</AI5>
<AI6>
39Consultation on Replacing LACSEG
Submitted: report by Anthony Francis, Finance & Resources (previously circulated and copy attached to official minutes.
M Surtees outlined the report as attached. This report updates Schools Forum on the DfE draft proposals for replacing Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG) in respect of funding Academies and local authorities for functions devolving to academies and delivered to maintained schools.
In response to a Member’s query it was expected that a national rate would be set in terms of the DFE proposals though a local rate would be preferred .Under these proposals the amount to be deducted from each local authority’s business rates retention start-up funding allocation for 2013-14 would equal the amount paid back for all pupils in the local authority area. The funding would be allocated to Academies and to the local authority proportionate to the number of pupils for which they are responsible.
RESOLVED: that the report be noted
</AI6>
<AI7>
40School Funding Reform - General Update
Submitted: Report by Director of Performance, Outcomes and Commissioning, Children Services ( previously circulated and copy attached to official minutes)
The paper summarised developments across the breadth of the schools funding reform agenda since the last Schools Forum meeting.
RESOLVED: that the report be received for information.
</AI7>
<AI8>
41School Funding Reform: Draft Consultation Document on MainstreamSchool Funding Formula Changes
Submitted: Report by Director of Performance, Outcomes and Commissioning, Children’s Services (previously circulated and copy attached to official minutes)
M Surtees outlined the report as attached.
The document set out the proposed change to the Mainstream School Funding arrangements for 2013/14. Appendix 1 provided a specific walk through the proposed funding model, but the covering report went back to first principles to give a fuller explanation of our approach. Within the report it was outlined:
- Why Change?
- Will these significant changes be the end of the changes to School Funding Reform?
- Does it not have wider implications than the mainstream funding formula?
- Does it have implications for when schools will receive schools budget shares?
- Why do the changes lead to significant turbulence?
- Significant losses – any protection/implications
- Significant ‘gainers’ –any key considerations.
- What is the basis of the approach?
- How will I know the impact for my school- are the figures definitive?
- Quantum of ISB
- How will decisions be reached
A member queried paragraph 5.3 and the importance of the timescales for the processing of the October Census count data. Simply put the budget allocations would be based on reception numbers recorded at this point and figures for the previous year. It was noted if the figure turned out to be lower the following year this would have to be rebalanced across all school budgets.
In regard to paragraph 6 of the report a member highlighted their approval for funding being based on pupil numbers rather than building size.
In regard to the Minimum Funding Guarantee from Government,it was expected that there would be significant pressure to extend this beyond 2014/15.
Members noted the serious difficulties some schools could be in after 2 years with a large reduction in their funding. It was not felt 2 years was long enough for schools that would be losing more than 1.5% per pupil. Forum members considered that if there was a push towards a national funding formula the Minimum Funding Guarantee would be expanded.
In terms of the decision making process for this it was explained that it was the decision of the Local Authority in consultation with the schools on how to form the Minimum Funding Guarantee.
The Chair highlighted the thinking behind proposals in relation to operating a “funding cap” was that those who would gain the most financially should support those with the most substantial deficits. This was the preferred DFE model whereby every school receiving extra funding would receive it up to a certain threshold. However any funding above this threshold that a school would be obtaining extra would instead be used to ensure that no school would lose more than -1.5% per pupil. It was not known what the cap would be until this solution had been selected.
Members highlighted that there would be schools gaining from these proposals who may have historically missed out on funding due to criteria used in the past.
A member queried what would be happening in regard to ARC funding. It was explained that there would be a fixed sum of £10k for pupils with high needs with top up funding available. It was expected that the first 6k would be provided from the school. Pupil premium funding was allocated separately.
It was confirmed that the data on how individual schools would be impacted would be shown to them alongside how the other models would impact. M Surtees explained that those schools which would lose the most funding would need to be shown and therefore all schools should be shown their respective data.
It was asked if the 3 models produced radically different results. M Surtees confirmed the lump sum model produced the best ratios in terms of avoiding huge deficits.
Although there were concerns that individual schools may vote for the model that suited their school best rather than the model which was best the city’s schools overall, it was felt that the information had to be provided for all schools. It was recommended by the forum that the question be worded in a way which highlighted to schools the need to take into consideration the wider good. M Surtees agreed that officers would look at the wording of the question and asked for volunteers from the School Forum to look at an initial draft of the question presented.
M Surtees proceeded to run through the consultation questions outlined in appendix 1 of the circulated papers.
Under question A2 a member queried if the different funding levels suggested reflected what the current situation was with targeted grants. This was confirmed to be the situation. Surprised was expressed at members for the low funding for EAL though it was confirmed there was additional funding for EAL mentioned later in the consultation questions
Under proposal A3 a member suggested that schools be informed of the availability of this funding on the new basis proposed.
On B2 members discussed the benefits of the 3 models for the deprivation factor for funding allocation. It was felt further guidance and more detail for the alternative models was required in the consultation questionnaire to be sent out.
In regard to B6 and the use of the Lump sum model it was expected that the option proposed of £110,000 would be average when compared across the country. A member noted a higher lump sum may help smaller schools. M Surtees confirmed that it could be extended up to a maximum of £200,000. There would be more guidance on this included within the questionnaire.
A member queried what was going to happen in regard to pupils who would have to stay on post 16 due to not obtaining a job or a training place or entering the sixth form. M Surtees confirmed the funding position would be discussed with EFA and brought back to a future forum.
M Surtees briefly outlined the alternative models as shown in section C. In light of the discussion which had taken place more detailed information would be provided when the consultation document was circulated to schools.
RESOLVED: That
a)that the report be received for information
b)that the proposed changes to the consultation document be made
</AI8>
<AI9>
42Schools Central Budget
Submitted: Report by Director of Performance, Outcomes and Commissioning, Children’s Services (previously circulated and copy attached to official minutes)
M Surtees outlined the report as attached. This report focused on the resources that are currently provided for within the Central Budget and what treatment will/may be applied to those resources in future years.
The changes following from the School Funding Reform consultation paper require that several budget items which can currently be retained centrally will have to be delegated through the formula from 2013-14 ( with the subsequent potential for de-delegation).
The specific items were covered in paragraph 2.2 of the report with those requiring the Forum to consider delegation proposals.
The Schools Forum agreed to take a vote on those items with M Surtees explaining the voting process. Certain sector representatives couldn’t vote on certain items with votes having to take place by sectors
1) For the Schools in financial difficultyresource.
The Forum agreedthat the resource be delegated on the basis of AWPU
Primary Sector voted to de-delegate the resource
Secondary Sector voted to de-delegate the resource
Special Schools votedto de delegate the resource
In response to a member’s query it was confirmed this resource would total approximately £75,000 for non-academy schools. It was noted Academies which got into financial difficulties would now have to go the DfE for support.
2) Allocations of contingencies
The Forum agreed that the resource be delegated to all schools on the basis of AWPU
3) Administration of Free Schools eligibility
It was noted that further work needed to be undertaken to identify the specific resources which should be assigned to the free school meals eligibility function – and this will be reported to the October meeting of the Forum.
4) Licences/ Subscriptions
The Forum agreed the resource be delegated to all schools on the basis of AWPU
Primary Sector voted to de-delegate the resource
Secondary Sector voted to de-delegate the resource
Special Schools voted to de-delegate the resource
5) Historic Commitments
The Forum agreed the historic commitment previously approvedoutlined in section 3.2 of the report. This was agreed for 2013/14 at this juncture to provide planning activity to the services concerned.
For Historic Commitmentspreviously unapproved which included both School Forum Costs and Historic Retirement Costs theForum agreed to these being centrally retained items.
M Surtees outlined in section 4 of the report the sums of money which would need to be transferred out of the Schools Block into the High Needs Block. It was also confirmed that there were £1.3million of items still outstanding. These would need to be analysed to confirm if they can be treated as historic commitments or whether the funding has to follow the delegate and consideration of de-delegation route.
A member highlighted that the Council owned many buildings across the city and in terms of addressing the major budget cuts had disposing of these assets been considered? M Surtees confirmed the Council was reviewing its assets. However there were many elements to consider before disposing of property including revenue income, market conditions and area policy.
RESOLVED: That
c)that the report be received for information
d)that the above decisions be implemented as agreed.
</AI9>
<TRAILER_SECTION>
</TRAILER_SECTION>
<LAYOUT_SECTION>
43FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</LAYOUT_SECTION>
<TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>
44FIELD_TITLE
</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>
FIELD_TITLE
</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>
FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY</ TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>
FIELD_SUMMARY
</ COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
(a)FIELD_TITLE
FIELD_SUMMARY
</SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
(b)FIELD_TITLE
</TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>