Schools Forum Meeting Minutes - Friday 10th March 2017

Chelmsford Football Club

(subject to forum approval)

In Attendance

Rod Lane (RL) - Chair / Pam Langmead (PL) / Jerry Glazier (JG)
David Lenz (DL) / Harriet Phelps-Knights (HPK) / Sean Moriarty (SM)
Ruth Bird (RB) / John Hunter (JH) / Jane Youdale (JY)
Sharon Freeman (SF) / Philomena Cozens (PC) / Sally Brisley (SB)
Jeff Brindle (JB) / Nigel Hookway (NH) / Debbie Rogan (DR)
Joan Costello (JC) / Nigel Rowe (NR) / Gary Bloom (GB)
Simon Thompson (ST) / Graham Herniman (GH)
LA Officers
Yannick Stupples-Whyley (YSW) / Cllr Gooding (CG) / Jane Rice - Minutes
Clare Kershaw (CK)
1 / Apologies for Absence and substitute notices
RL welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Apologies were received from Gary Smith Stephen Hale, George Constantinides, Richard Green, Miles Bacon, Leanne Hedden, Bruce Tuxford, Jeff Fair, Elizabeth Drake and Dawn Baker.
Substitutes are Gary Bloom for Gary Smith, Sharon Freeman for Stephen Hale, Nigel Rowe for George Constantinides, Pam Langmead for Richard Green, Simon Thompson for Miles Bacon, Graham Herniman for Leanne Hedden, David Lenz for Bruce Tuxford, Jerry Glazier for Jeff Fair and Nigel Hookway for Dawn Baker.
2. / Schools National Funding Formula – Phase 2 Consultation
The purpose of the report is to aid Schools Forum to determine a response to the DfE’s second consultation on a Schools National Funding Formula.
Today’s meeting was to ask Schools Forum if it was happy with the proposed responses or if there were any changes to make.
Q1
JG said that the lack of sufficiency of funding was a very crucial point and the core problem. He felt there ought to be some clarity in the response about whether Schools Forum thinks the basis on which the National Funding Formula (NFF) is constructed is right for education. He felt there were structural problems which would have an impact in the future. He said it was appropriate for this Forum to express reservation about it and not appear to be responding yes or no to a consultation that might not be addressing all the problems for schools in future.
RL said JG’s views could be included in Q17 where there is an opportunity for further comments.
JC pointed out that this was the second meeting on this topic and the view had been expressed before. She said that the Working Group has worked on Forum’s behalf to provide answers and the purpose of this meeting was to ensure the answers are appropriate. JG explained that he meant the response could be extended.
CK said it was important to ensure there was a distinction: that everybody agrees that there is increased pressure but a formal response needs to be made to the NFF consultation as a new way of funding schools. She said it was necessary to have an NFF that works for schools but the point needed to be made that it will be difficult to work.
SM felt that there was nothing wrong with the answer but queried if the first point should be “The basic level of funding in education is insufficient”. He said this is not what the NFF consultation is about and if the first part of the answer is that there is not enough money in education, it leaves the way open to having answers dismissed. He therefore suggested that that first line was put at the end of the answer.
ST said that the point needed to be made that because of the way the Formula was constructed, the lowest funded schools are only being raised by a maximum of 5.5% and the best are dropping by 3.3%. He said that “levelling up” needed to be requested. It was pointed out that the current funding envelope is expected to manage whereas it would be expected that protection would come from somewhere else. ST also commented that the % of GDP spent on education has declined from 5.8% in 2010 to 4.7% now, so the Government argument that there is not enough money is because it has reduced the percentage amount of GDP spent on education.
The point was also made that the Government has disregarded how much it costs per pupil to provide a decent education, which it was suggested should have been the starting point. Then how much extra to allocate for deprivation, low attainment etc could be considered.
DL said that a definition of a good basic education should be included as there seemed to be a mixture of understanding about it.
DR commented that it seemed to be a strategic decision by Government to force schools to work more closely together, which will lead to economies of scale, so she said it would be important to state that a good education per pupil is not lower if there is collaboration. She said it should be pointed out that even if schools collaborate, a drop below the fixed amount impacts on education.
There was a comment that the NFF is cost driven rather than pupil driven, so that should be included in the response.
JH pointed out that the NFF does not take account of inflation or pay rises and all the savings schools are making pay for inflation and pay increases so therefore there is nothing there.
Cllr Gooding commented that the provisions made in the budget were capital provision but this is about the revenue of running schools year on year, whereas it is quite easy for any Government to give cash. He said that the issue is the basic level of funding that everyone needs set against costs to run a school, so that cost needs to be covered before anything else. He therefore said that there should be a template that addresses the basic funding to run a school, with the issue to deal with deprivation etc on top. He said it was very important that the template was correct in the first place.
It was agreed that the first line of the paragraph becomes the start of a third paragraph which would suggest that what the NFF should be based on is the basic cost per pupil which is topped up with various factors. It was requested that figures were included in the response, e.g. basic funding at 4,800 as opposed to 4.300 and for primary 77% would go down to 72.5% under NFF. Most primaries are making cuts now in preparation for it.
Q2
JG commented that there had been a debate for a long time about differentials for secondary schools.
The premise of the reply from Schools Forum is that the national average should be applied to the factors. ST said that the Working Group tried to make a pragmatic response as the questions have to be answered and want everything to be at the current national average.
The ratio in Essex is 1:1.31 and YSW did some modelling, which he will send out.
It was suggested that some of GC’s response to the answer was included, namely around the lack of research into the differential and that there does not seem to be an evidence base to the formula.
DR queried why “Yes” was ticked, in view of the discussion and that she would prefer not to say “Yes”. JH commented that if a question is not answered, the DfE would take it as a “yes”. JC said that it was agreed to go with the national average as the monitor in order to have a figure to work to and to avoid any arguments.
Q3
JG said funding should be based on the real costs of funding for schools.
NR said that GC’s comment in his response summed up the issue.
CK suggested that the point about a basic level was restated and then funding was built up from that.
ST suggested that a comment could be made about the lump sum figure proposed being too low as that will cause significant issues for small schools, particularly small primaries, so the thinking was that the lump sum should be set at a figure commensurate with the national average.
YSW advised that of the 20 primary schools eligible for sparsity funding, 10 are protected by the funding floor, but one would still have a loss of £10K. Essex currently has a lump sum of £150K, but £110K is proposed.
One of the consequences of reducing the lump sum will be that the funding floor becomes more necessary. If there is less of a reduction in the lump sum, there is less of a need to operate the funding floor and the funding floor is undermining the principle of fairness.
It was noted that PFI funded schools are not mentioned in various factors.
Schools Forum agreed with the “No” response that was ticked. Additional comments can be added to the response as discussed.
YSW will circulate models. Funding Essex schools on the national average will bring a lot more funding and whilst there will still be schools losing, there are a lot less.
Q4
SM suggested mentioning that the proposed funding level undermines pupil premium as he said he was very concerned as to what would happen if there is not something in the response about not touching pupil premium.
Q5
NR pointed out that GC made a good point on this issue in his comments and that the suggested response for “Deprivation – pupil based” might be wrong.
RL queried therefore whether the first row should be changed to “higher proportion” but the other responses were correct? YSW said that it would then move away from the national average.
There was a discussion around the removal of pupil premium and it was felt that the response needed to be clearer. The issue is the balance between area based and pupil based deprivation. There are too many variables in this calculation to get the right answer and it is unclear whether the national averages suggested mean this has been taken into account.
The response was agreed on the basis of commenting that it does not reflect our values in Essex and that it is based on pupil premium being retained for the future.
CK said it was important to keep the flow of the message and the form of words in the first question about needing to increase the school-led funding and redress the balance between school led and pupil led, it was important to explain why the response was to allocate a lower proportion. She said it needed to be restated that it should be at the national average and restate what they are and that the response from Schools Forum in Essex is to rebase between school led and pupil led. She said the way the question has been proposed is not the way Essex would propose and should be with the caveat that pupil premium is retained.
The response was agreed on this basis, that it does not reflect our values in Essex and that mention should also be made that it is based on pupil premium being retained for future.
Q6
Currently no suggestions from the Working Group for a response.
JG said that the credibility of the response is important.
There must be parts of Essex where factors are impacting on schools. The impact of benefits/housing etc. Identify what the challenges might be as result of mobility factors - housing, benefits, refugees.
There was a discussion about mobility/travellers. Internal migration is the issue. Traveller numbers are relatively small and the settled nature of the traveller community is more of a concern. Seaside towns have problems of people coming out from London, but it is difficult to build that into a formula.
It was agreed that there was no comment to the response. There is already data available to be used, which is collected twice a year, although it was acknowledged it does not necessarily provide sufficient information. A monthly census was mentioned but this would involve a lot more work.
Q7
The response was agreed.
Q8
It was decided to add in the comment made by GC.
Q9
The response was agreed.
Q10
It was agreed to use the comment made by GC.
If “Yes” response was ticked, then inequalities will be locked into the system. CK said that there is an argument that the protective factor needs to be a different pot of money to make it fairer.
JH said that there is an argument that the NFF should be implemented in full. If it is not, it is not an NFF, but is a controlled NFF, which comes back to the problem of having an adequate amount of money in the system.
Schools Forum should point out why it is not acceptable.
Q11
ST commented that it was very difficult to answer this question without referring back to the overall pot of money and earlier arguments about GDP. He said that he wants schools to be levelled up to those that are well funded and that some of the better funded schools should be protected at the same time as allowing the less well funded to rise up more than the 5.5% set in this. ST commented that Schools Forum should be responding that beyond 2020 more money is found to raise schools up and JC said there should not be a cap, whilst CK said that introducing protection into the formula is a flaw in the formula.
It was felt that this question was designed to divide and rule when it was discussed last time and that the principle of fairness is not there.
It was suggested that it is stated that this is Essex Schools Forum reply. Essex is a gainer and will be greater so therefore this question disadvantages Essex’s position in the NFF as Essex will not gain as quickly as protecting losers.
PC commented that there is evidence that higher funding for schools has shown higher outcomes for pupils.
RL suggested that the response could say something along the lines that based on the fact that there is currently no additional finance for basic school funding, then Schools Forum believes that the cap of 3% should not be there but at a time there is additional funding, it should be given to the gainers and perhaps the floor should then be instituted for the losers.
DL said that therefore Schools Forum is saying that transitional funding should not come out of the formula. SM suggested that the response should be that there is no floor and no cap and if the Government feels that protection is needed for higher funded schools, that should come out of additional funding.
Q12
It was agreed to use GC's response, "No I do not support the funding floor".
Q13
YSW explained that MFG was introduced by Labour. At that time, more funding was going in and schools were guaranteed minimum increase. Spending then needed to be curbed so it was decided schools should be making efficiencies so the MFG was put to -1.5, where it has remained.