Agenda item

2022-23 Budget Preparations for the Schools Block Budget and other Finance Matters

To provide an update on the information currently available in respect of the 2022-23 Schools Budget for mainstream schools together with other relevant finance related matters.

Minutes:

The Forum considered a report which updated on the information currently available in respect of the 2022-23 Schools Budget for mainstream schools together with other relevant finance related matters. 

 

Paul Clark explained that there were three key parts of the report: firstly, to provide an update on the funding framework; secondly, to share information about the budget prospects; and thirdly, to ensure that the development of the 2022-23 budget was in alignment with what the Forum wanted to do.  This all related to the mainstream schools budget only.

 

Regarding the funding framework, with the exception of school business rates, Paul Clark explained that there would be some minor changes around data collection, but little in the way of material impact compared to what was in place for 2021-22.  For School Business Rates, the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) would be paying these directly in future rather than individual schools making payments.  The local authority was still waiting for details on the practical implementation of this but there was expected to be no financial impact on schools from that. 

 

In relation to the budget prospects, based on the data currently available, Paul Clark advised that there was an increase in funding of 2.6% on average, lower than the 3.4% last year and 6.7% the year before.  This reflected the change towards the national funding approach.

 

The annual financial consultation with schools had started, generally seeking views on the usual matters and it was anticipated that responses would be received by October half term.  Responses to the consultation were therefore expected to be reported to the Forum at the next meeting on 18 November.

 

Action: Paul Clark

 

Regarding the Bracknell Forest strategy, the local approach had been to replicate the National Funding Formula (NFF), and the proposal was to continue that approach.  The authority was also proposing to continue the same approaches as before on diseconomy budgets at new schools, aiming to fund any extra costs from the £1m contribution form the council and general school balances, and centrally managing the same budgets as were agreed for 2021-22.

 

At this stage, if all the changes set out in the initial budget report were implemented, there would be a funding gap of around £0.5m, which would be managed using reserves from the Council and from the Schools Budget.  It was normal to have a funding gap at this stage of the budget preparations.

 

Some parts of the budget setting process required agreement from the DfE to deviate from the standard approach, and this had been set out in the recommendations.  One new request to the DfE that the authority was proposing related to additional split site funding for Warfield Primary School.  The Headteacher had indicated that the current funding was around £0.050m below the additional costs.  The school had remained at 2 FE capacity as opposed to expanding to 3 FE.  More work was needed to analyse the costing information provided and there was the option of seeking support from another Headteacher to review the split site working arrangements and consider whether alternative options could be implemented.  Should the DfE agree this request, due to lagged funding there would be a one-year pressure of £0.050m.

 

The Forum asked how many schools were below the NFF and by how much, and how long it was expected to take those schools to reach that formula.  Paul Clark replied that there were 18 schools below the NFF during the current year.  From the provisional data available, that number had gone down to 11.  However, where a NFF delivered a budget below the minimum level, a top up to that amount was always applied, meaning all schools were funded at least to this level.

 

How long it would take to work through the system depended on the measures put in place by the government, including the amount of funds and was therefore outside the authority’s control. 

 

The Forum asked whether the aim was for all schools to achieve the Minimum Per Pupil Funding Level (MPPFL).  Paul Clark explained that the MPPFL was the safety net and the authority had to top-up to that level.  No schools were ever affected by being below the MPPFL as it was always topped up. 

 

The Forum asked whether the amount of money going to new schools as part of the growth fund was in alignment to the authority’s obligations.  Paul Clark confirmed that it was.  It was clarified that the next financial year (2022-23) was to be the final year that KGA Binfield Secondary school would receive significant financial support, and from April 2023, it was due to be moved to the Bracknell Forest Funding Formula. 

 

The Chair asked whether there was any chance that the request to the DfE to support new schools would not be agreed.  Paul Clark replied that, in agreeing the request for 2021-22, the DfE acknowledged that it was part of the authority’s long-term strategy agreed with the Forum and benefited schools.  Therefore, there was only a small chance that it wouldn’t be agreed.  The Chair asked whether there was an alternative mechanism to cover the funding.  Paul Clark confirmed that there was, but it wasn’t expected to be necessary to pursue it. 

 

Regarding the Warfield split site, the Forum agreed that it could rely on Paul Clark doing his due diligence to review the supporting information that had been received, and that the Forum had confidence in his judgement. 

 

RESOLVED

1.     to AGREE that subject to consideration of school responses to the annual financial consultation and general affordability, the approach to setting the 2022-23 budget should remain broadly the same as for 2021-22, and in particular:

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

a.       replicating the NFF at individual Bracknell Forest school level;

b.       setting minimum per pupil funding 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;

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

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

1.4    that the DfE be requested:

a.       to approve that the council continues to disapply the Minimum Funding Guarantee where schools are funded on the Start-up and Diseconomy funding policy for new and expanding schools;

b.       to approve that the council continues to add resources from the General Fund to support the additional cost of new schools; and

c.       subject to the checks proposed in the supporting information, to increase split site funding for Warfield primary school, provisionally by £0.050m; and

2.     to NOTE

2.1    the latest update on the School and Education Spending review and the impact anticipated for Bracknell Forest at this time;

2.2    the areas where schools were being asked to comment on through the annual financial consultation, to inform later decision making;

2.3    the 2.6% average increase in per pupil funding that would be received by Bracknell Forest schools if the NFF was fully implemented; and

2.4    the current estimated funding gaps at Table 3 of the report of:

a.       £0.467m on the Schools Block; and

b.       £0.050m for the Central School Services Block.

Supporting documents:

 

Contact Information

Democratic services

Email: committee@bracknell-forest.gov.uk