Agenda item

To provide an update in respect of information currently available in respect of the 2021-22 Schools Budget for mainstream schools together with other relevant finance related matters.

The Forum considered a report which updated in respect of information currently available regarding the 2021-22 Schools Budget for mainstream schools together with other relevant finance related matters.  This would assist the finalisation of the budget by the statutory deadline of 21 January 2021.

The key aim of the report was for the Forum to agree the approach to be taken in setting the 2021/22 budget for schools in order for effective work to continue over the autumn term as more budget information emerged.

Paul Clark explained that the DfE had only made a small number of changes to the national process to allocate funds to local authorities.  Firstly, the DfE had made some changes in their data, mainstreaming the pay and pensions grant.  Secondly, the data around deprivation measures had been updated and they have changed the way this money is targeted so that more money would go to the highest deprived areas.  Thirdly, the 2019 pupil test scores would be used to allocate funds to schools for low prior attainment as there were no assessments in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The DfE had inflated most of their funding units by 3%.  The primary rate for minimum per pupil funding levels (MPPFL) had gone up to £4,000 per pupil (an increase of 6.7% from the previous year) and the secondary school rate had gone up to £5,150 per pupil (an increase of 3%). 

Table 3 of the report summarised the initial budget proposals for 2021-22 based on provisional budgetary data.  In accordance with the agreed budget strategy, this attempted to replicate the DfE formula.  It was expected that there would be changes to the data from the October census which Paul Clark would update at the next meeting of the Forum.

Action: Paul Clark

In terms of school financial responsibilities, the Secretary of State had placed 2 further conditions on schools which were detailed in the report.  Paul Clark highlighted that, from the next financial year, schools were required to submit to the LA a 3-year budget forecast each year.  BFC was looking to produce guidance as to what schools needed to provide by the end of the year. 

Action: Paul Clark

Another change was that schools had to submit a recovery plan to the LA when their revenue deficit rose above 5%.  Paul Clark did not envisage that this would have a significant impact in Bracknell Forest as this was already in place where required; it just made it a more formal process.

Regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, Paul Clark ran a workshop with schools which helped to ensure that the final data returns which had been settled were accurate.  For schools which had not made exceptional cost claims, the DfE had completed payments and the average receipt was 31% of the maximum amount available compared to the 23% expected before the workshop.  It was unfortunate that schools could not claim any more than that, which was due to the very narrow conditions set on claims by the DfE.  Therefore, there was a large gap between what could be claimed and what schools were spending.  Paul Clark would continue to collect data and planned to send out information to schools confirming the data for the summer term.  This would provide certainty around the financial impact of Covid-19.

Action: Paul Clark

The Forum commented that in order to produce 3 year budget plans, schools would benefit from receiving updated pupil forecasts.  Paul Clark advised that an update would be provided based on the template that was circulated in February.

Action: Chris Taylor / Paul Clark

The Forum expressed that the planned monthly data collections would help and asked whether the data would be used to any effect before the end of financial year.  Paul Clark explained that the intention was to present clear figures to the DfE re the financial burden linked to Covid-19.  How effective it would be was not something Paul Clark could answer but the data was needed so a strong case could be presented.  The Forum asked whether schools would be advised to present their budgets as conservatively as possible.  Schools may have had surpluses which could weaken our position, but the Forum felt strongly that schools should not be trying to cover the deficits.  Paul Clark advised that next year’s budget would be looked at in the context of Covid-19 and felt that the Forum had made a good point.  Councillor Barnard agreed that schools were in an unsustainable position and needed to be clear that they had spent money wisely.  Councillor Barnard was committed to doing everything he could to present as much information to Central Government.

RESOLVED

1.    to AGREE that subject to consideration of school responses to the annual financial consultation and general affordability, the approach to setting the 2021-22 budget should be as set out in the report, and in particular:

i.        that there should be no change to the current budget strategy of:

a.      replicating the NFF at individual BF school level;

b.      setting minimum per pupil increases between financial years at the highest amount permitted by the DfE; and

c.       meeting the diseconomy costs at new and expanding schools in a measured way from a combination of council reserves, Schools Budget reserves, and funding allocated for the relevant year from the DfE;

ii.       that a centrally managed Growth Fund should be maintained for in-year allocation to qualifying schools (Table 2 of the report); and

iii.      on-going central retention by the Council of the existing Central School Services Block items (Annex 1 of the report); and

2.    to NOTE:

i.        the latest update on the School and Education Spending review and the impact anticipated for BF at this time;

ii.       the areas where schools are being asked to comment on through the annual financial consultation, to inform later decision making;

iii.      the 3.7% average increase in per pupil funding that would be received by BF schools if the NFF is 100% implemented compared to the national average of 3.1%;

iv.      the new financial requirements of schools;

v.       the current estimated funding gaps at Table 3 of the report of:

a.      £0.429m on school budgets, meaning 99.5% of NNF rates can be financed; and

b.      £0.080m for the CSSB where options are being considered by the council; and

vi.     that an update on the estimated financial impact from the coronavirus pandemic will be presented to the Forum when sufficient new information is available.