Agenda item

To update the Schools Forum on the 2015-16 forecast budget monitoring position for the Schools Budget, to be aware of key issues and management actions being taken and progress to date on the Education Capital Programme.

The Forum was presented with a report on the 2015-16 forecast budget monitoring position for the Schools Budget, the Education capital programme and other financial matters.

In respect of the revenue and capital budgets, updates were provided in respect of the current budget amounts, including recent changes to reflect adjustments to grant funding and the use of reserves together with explanations to the significant budget variances currently being forecast. Overall, the revenue budget was forecast to under spend by £0.223m, which significantly contributes to ensuring the minimum prudential level of balances that needs to be available at 1 April 2016 to manage potential cost risks of £.51m is achieved. For the capital programme, no variances are being reported as under or over spendings are generally re-cycled within the multi-year programme.

For the Scheme for Financing Schools, two relatively minor changes are required of all LAs by the DfE, in respect of school permission to borrow money, and the register of business interests. Proposed amendments to the BF Scheme were included on the report.

A further update was also provided to the Forum on progress towards the required funding policy for new and expanding schools. Whilst a model was now in place to assess the cost of operating different sized schools and which can accurately determine likely financial implications, suitably robust pupil forecasts were still outstanding as these depend on the pace of housing construction which is continually updated by the developers. The delay in finalising the model, together with the complexities involved, made it unrealistic to complete a consultation with all schools on the proposed model, meaning the Forum would be asked to approve the policy without a contribution from individual schools. 

Forum members commented on:

• the viability and practicability of the LA appointing Executive Headships from existing BF schools to plan the start-up for new schools to avoid the cost pressure of recruiting a full time head teacher before a new school opened.  It was agreed that Executive Headships would result in a saving until new schools moved towards capacity but questions remained over whether the role would be too large in practice and whether external providers would agree to having a nominated interim head teacher.
• the LAs financial responsibility for new Academies. It was confirmed that the LA is required to fund Academy and Community schools for start-up and diseconomy costs in the same way, hence the need for the policy which will be brought to the next meeting on 10 December
• The potential adverse impact on existing schools as a result of pupils having the choice to go to schools with newer facilities. Does the LA have a strategy to manage this? Can the LA improve all existing schools rather than build new ones?
• The need for the pupil forecasting model to include housing developments planned in neighbouring LAs.
• Whilst the complexities of the required policy and the fact that the proposal may not be ready for circulation until mid November make it unrealistic to expect to receive and evaluate responses in time for the next meeting from all schools, head teacher representatives do need to speak to their colleagues about the options before a decision is made by the Forum. It was agreed that officers would circulate available information to head teachers only for review at their respective groups. Whilst a decision on the Funding Policy is planned for December, there is an opportunity for a final decision to be made at the January 2016 meeting, but there is no scope to extend beyond this date as LAs must inform the DfE of their funding arrangements for 2016-17 by the end of January 2016.

An update on the issues raised by members would be provided at the next meeting of the forum.

The forum NOTED:

1. The level of funding from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) of £78.052m.

2. Other grant income of £9.767m from the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and £0.031m of general income meant a total of £87.759m was available to fund expenditure within the Schools Budget.

3. Points 5.2 – 5.3 of the report confirmed the level of funding and detailed the previously agreed draw down of Earmarked Reserves and other adjustments to increase available budgets.  These included £0.117m draw down from the Job Evaluation Reserve to part finance the cost of implementing the Bracknell Forest Supplement for non-teaching staff in schools and £0.208m draw down from the SEN Unit Reserve to support the start-up costs for Rise@GHC.  Further adjustments by the EFA to the Early Years Block DSG allocation were that funding for 2 year olds had now been confirmed at £0.673m and funding for 3 and 4 year olds had been verified resulting in a £0.047m deduction.

4. Overall, these changes resulted in a current level of DSG of £78.678m and a total income of £88.476m.

5. A £0.020m draw down from the SEN Unit Reserve for Rise@GHC as a result of on-going checks to the budget requirement.  The Forum agreed this change needed to be made to the medium term budget plan due to the change in the cash flow profile but would not affect the overall cost of the 5 year project.

6. Provisional budget monitoring indicated that the Schools Budget would under spend by an aggregate £0.223m.  Added to this was an opening surplus amount of £0.208m in the unallocated Schools Budget General Reserve, meaning a potential £0.451m surplus balance at year end.  However, this would be £0.079m below the surplus minimum level of £0.510m which may mean a top up from the new year DSG income may be required.  It was noted that if this was the case it would become a budget pressure.

The Forum AGREED:

1. That the Schools Forum would make a decision on the Funding Policy at the next meeting of the Forum on 10 December.  

The Forum discussed circulating the policy proposal to all other schools to canvass their views by way of consultation.  However, due to the complexities of the required policy and the fact that the proposal may not be ready for circulation until mid November it was considered unrealistic to expect to receive and evaluate responses in time for the next meeting.  However,  Paul Clark agreed to explore the feasibility of circulating the paper to other school head teachers only by way of consultation.