Agenda item

(To receive a report from Mark Popplewell, Head of Finance, Children's Services, which advises the Schools' Forum of the funding arrangements for 2016/17; and seeks support for the Local Authority's proposals relating to a number of centrally held budgets)

The Forum gave consideration to a report from Mark Popplewell (Head of Finance, Children's Services), which advised the Schools' Forum of the funding arrangements for 2016/17, and sought support from the Forum for the Local Authority's (LA) proposals to a number of centrally held budgets (details of which were show in Table 3 of the report presented).

It was reported that the Government was not planning to make any changes to the school funding arrangements for mainstream schools for 2016/17.  The operation of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) would therefore remain largely unchanged. 

It was highlighted that schools block per pupil unit values for 2016/17 would be the same starting position as in 2015/16, subject to non-recoupment of academy adjustments.  The Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) would continue to apply, and would be set again at 1.5% per pupil for 2016/17.  It was noted that the MFG excluded sixth-form funding and academies Education Support Grant funding. That the schools block would continue to be based primarily on the proceeding October census.  And, that the Government had announced an additional £92.5m increase nationally in DSG high needs funding for 2016/17, which would mean that Lincolnshire would receive just over £1m.

It was reported that the Chancellor had announced in the autumn spending review that around £600m savings would be made from the Education Support Grant (ESG) including the phasing out of the additional funding academy schools receive through the ESG.  The general funding rate for ESG would fall from £87 to £77 per pupil in 2016/17.  Also, the rates for alternative provision and special academies would fall to £288.75 and £327.25 per place respectively.  The Forum noted that the retained duties rate the LA received for all pupils would remain unchanged at £15 per pupil.

It was highlighted the DfE still intended to converge the academies ESG rates with those used for LA's i.e. £77 per pupil.  Officers highlighted that this amount was expected to reduce significantly in future years.

The Forum were advised that funding for the pupil premium in 2016/17 would be protected at the 2015/16 current rates, details of which were contained within the report presented.

With regard to 2016/17 DSG allocations, overall, Lincolnshire's DSG would increase by 1.05% in 2016/17.  It was however noted that the LA's main change to the 2016/17 mainstream schools funding formula related to the planned 0.5% reduction in AWPU funding to fund the new behavioural outreach support service and to provide a range of early intervention activities, preventions and support for Schools, families and to the pupils experiencing social, emotional and behavioural difficulties.

The report set out that it was important for the LA to take a prudent approach to the setting of central budgets within the DSG, on page 33 of the report, Table 2 detailed the main changes proposed to DSG central budgets in 2016/17, and it also included the provisions in relation to the setting of central budgets within the DSG.

The Forum was invited to consider Table 3 within the report presented, which detailed budgets requiring the Schools' Forum support.  During consideration of Table 3, the following issues were raised:-

·         Funding for significant pre-16 growth – The budget proposed for 2016/17 was the same as that set for 2015/16.  The figure proposed was £2.000m.  The Forum made no comments;

·         Places in independent schools for non-SEN pupils (Stamford Endowed Schools) – The Forum were advised that there was sufficient supply of good educational places available in the area;

·         Broadband – It was highlighted that the budget allowed the funding of an aggregated broadband provision to all schools (including academies) and that the budget for the year was the same as the previous year.  Some concern was expressed that if schools withdrew from provision, it would put pressure on those left.  Officers acknowledged the issue.  Some members advised that their current broadband provision did not meet their current needs.  The Forum were advised if that was the case, there was a route that could be followed and effected members were encouraged to speak to the Head of Finance, Children's Services outside of the meeting.  It was also agreed that all schools needed to be aware of the options available to them, and that better communication was required with regard to Broadband.  The Forum noted that there was a need to communicate early with schools to understand the collective requirements of schools in the future, so that plans were in place provide a sustainable offer to schools at the end of the contract;

·         Admissions – The Forum were advised that the budget proposed was the same as the one set for 2015/16.  The figure proposed was £0.449m.  The Forum made no comments;

·         Servicing of the Schools Forum – Some members enquired whether the figure represented good value for money.  The Forum was advised that the amount was used mainly for training for Forum members and funding formula consultations, but this budget typically remained underspent at the end of the year;

·         Central expenditure from revenue (CERA) – One member enquired as to the length of the contract.  The Forum was advised that the contract ran until August 2032, and at the end of that time the Council had the asset of the seven schools.  Some discussion was had as to whether if one of the schools was extended would the PFI costs increase, but officers advised that in the specific case raised, LCC land had been used so there was no extension to the contract; and

·         Schools centrally funded termination of employment costs – A question was asked as to whether this provision represented good value for money.  Officers felt that the service represented good value for money.  The Forum was advised that there had been fewer redundancies, and that there had been less demand on the post.  Officers agreed to provide the Forum with a report, or to circulate a report on this matter to a future meeting.

·          

RESOLVED

1.    That the report be noted.

2.    That the Lincolnshire Schools' Forum supports the Local Authority's proposals for the setting of the central budgets as shown in Table 3 of the report.

3.    That a report on the Re-Deployment Officer be circulated to the Forum.