Agenda item

(To receive a report from Tony Warnock, Operations and Financial Advice Manager, which outlines the Local Authority's (LA) proposals to change the school funding formula for primary and secondary schools from 2015/16, to ensure compliance with the DfE's regulations)  

Consideration was given to a report from the Operations and Financial Advice Manager, which outlined to the Schools Forum the Local Authority's (LA) proposals to change the schools funding for primary and secondary schools from 2015/16, to ensure compliance with the DfE's regulations.

In guiding the Forum through the report, particular reference was made to the steps the LA had taken to arrive at the proposals in the report which were set out at Appendix 1.  Paragraphs 1 to 8 on pages 18/19 of the report summarised the position taken.  It was noted that the LA would have to reduce funding for Band 6 to 8 statements.  The DfE's Regulations assumed that schools already had £6,000 available within their budgets to meet the initial costs of pupils with statements, including those at Bands 6 to 8.  Officers had reviewed the formula and the results had shown that the LA was able to demonstrate that primary and secondary schools had, respectively, only £3,233 and £2,450 of notional SEN within their current budgets.  This was clearly short of the £6,000 that schools were expected to have to meet the initial costs of Band 6 to 8 pupils.  The shortfall equated to £1.136m for primary schools and £1.264m for secondary schools giving a total of £2.400m.  And as a result of the difference, the LA had come up with a 'best fit' remodelling formulaic approach which would minimise the losses to individual schools.

It was reported that from September 2014, government regulations required statements of special educational needs to be replaced by Education, Health and Care Plans where appropriate.  It was noted that Band 6 to 8 statements would disappear and would be replaced by new plans.  That under the new system the funding assigned to each child would be to meet their specific needs.  Schools would need to demonstrate that they had used £6,000 of their budget to meet the initial costs.  It was highlighted that the £6,000 threshold was lower than the LA had been operating since the delegation of funding for Bands 1 to 5 in 2010/11.  It was highlighted further that there was a risk that over time this would increase the demands upon the Higher Needs block, and to safeguard this it was proposed that £2m was set aside within the Higher Needs block from 2015/16 to meet any such potential costs.  This amount equated to approximately one sixth of the current funding for Band 6 to 8 pupils. 

The report also provided information relating to implications for schools where pupils belonged to other LAs, as some LAs had contested the Band 6 to 8 funding rates that Lincolnshire currently applied and had argued that under DfE rules, £6,000 should be deducted because schools were required to meet the first £6,000 from their notional SEN budget, which had led to the non-payment of some schools' invoices.  It was noted that the proposal presented in Appendix 1 should help to resolve the issues.

The next steps were that the views expressed by the Schools Forum would be considered and that the final decisions would be reflected in the Authority Proforma Tool that had to be submitted to the Education Funding Agency by 31 October 2014.  All schools would then be notified of the detail and the proposed changes and the likely impact upon their budgets for 2015/16 and beyond.

In conclusion, the Forum were advised that the LA was required to comply with the DfE's regulations, which included ensuring that Band 6 to 8 statements were correctly funded, and that there will be no impact upon individual pupils with SEN.

During discussion, the following issues were raised:-

·         How the proposed remodelling as detailed on page 19, at 5a and 5b would work.  The Forum were advised that the proposals ensured that the LA complied with the DfE regulations, that schools were funded fairly; and that the proposals minimised the immediate and long term impact upon individual schools budgets;

·         The effect of the gains and losses on primary and secondary schools.  Officers advised that paragraph 5 on page 25 provided figures as to the review of projected gains and losses and that at the bottom of page 25 and, top of page 26 were details of the targeted funding which would reduce both the number of schools that would otherwise suffer significant losses and the value of those losses;

·         If the LA knew who the students were, could it not be done by on a pupil by pupil basis?  Officers advised that it could be done separately, but the LA was trying to make sure that a status quo was maintained; and

·         Concern was expressed as to using the £2m underspend from the DSG and a question was asked as to how long the allocation was going to run for.  The Forum were advised that it would be for a temporary basis of two years and then released back into the system if it was not required.  It was noted further that Headteachers were aware of the proposals and that they were happy with the £6,000.

RESOLVED

1.    That the report presented be noted.

2.    That support be given to the proposals set out in the report including:

a.   The net reduction in funding for Band 6 to 8 pupils;

b.   The redistribution of those funds through the factors described in

      the report;

c.   The provision of targeted support; and

d.   The introduction of transitional protection for one year.