Agenda item

To consider proposals for the Schools Block and Central Schools Services Block to ensure that final 2022-23 budget decisions can be made at the meeting on 13 January 2022 in order to meet the 21 January 2022 statutory deadline.  

The Forum considered a report which sought to ensure that final 2022-23 budget decisions could be made at the 13 January Forum meeting in order to meet the 21 January 2022 statutory deadline.  Therefore, updated proposals for the Schools Block (SB) and Central Schools Services Block (CSSB) elements of the Schools Budget were presented.

The report presentation reflected the specific membership voting requirements of the required decisions.

Regarding the proposed de-delegation of School Improvement Services, Paul Clark reminded the Forum that they had wanted to hear views from the Headteachers before making a decision.  Primary Headteachers were asked to respond to Liz Cole if they did not support the proposal, and 2 replies were received.  By default, the vast majority of primary headteachers were content with the proposal.  The feedback from secondary Headteachers had not been received in time for sharing in the published report.  Therefore, Debbie Smith provided a verbal update that two Headteachers had agreed with the proposal whereas one was not in agreement.

Items for Maintained Primary School representatives only

RESOLVED to AGREE

1.    that the per pupil deduction amounts for existing de-delegated services be increased by 2.6%, the average increase in per pupil funding expected to be received by schools (paragraph 6.25 of the report); and

2.    the de-delegation of School Improvement Service, to be funded by the remaining School Improvement Monitoring and Brokerage Grant with no deduction from schools (paragraph 6.26 of the report). 

Items for Maintained Secondary representatives only

RESOLVED to AGREE

1.    that the per pupil deduction amounts for existing de-delegated services be increased by 2.6%, the average increase in per pupil funding expected to be received by schools (paragraph 6.25 of the report); and

2.    the de-delegation of School Improvement Service, to be funded by the remaining School Improvement Monitoring and Brokerage Grant with no deduction from schools (paragraph 6.26 of the report).

Paul Clark updated on the rest of the budget and highlighted the executive summary of the report.  The DfE had released provisional data from the October 2021 school census update, but this needed to be verified by the DfE.  From the data available, pupil numbers had increased by 0.8%.  Therefore, there was an increase in funding from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and an increase in the growth fund.  Paul Clark reminded the Forum about the extra costs of the Warfield split site and the request for an additional £0.050m funding allocation; the DfE had given their consent for that, and a proposal to agree this was included in the report. 

Regarding the £0.050m funding cut on the Central School Services Block, Paul Clark explained that the budget proposals which the Council had published confirmed the intention for the Council to finance the shortfall. 

Taking account of the new data, it was expected that there would be a funding gap of £0.346m.  The report set out three options to manage the shortfall, which were the same three options that the Council considered every year.  The Forum were asked for their views. 

The Forum asked whether the issue of the falling numbers of children on roll was included in this report.  Paul Clark explained that schools received funding based on actual numbers of children on roll.  If those numbers were falling, then funding would be based on a lower number than the previous year, and the Council would ordinarily try to manage that by working with the school.  Falling rolls and the financial difficulty this may cause in some schools was highlighted as a Strategic Risk in paragraph 7.4 of the report.  The Forum noted that this would be an increased burden on Paul Clark and his team.  Paul Clark added that he was grateful for the way that schools promptly highlighted issues of this nature. 

RESOLVED to AGREE

1.    that subject to any late changes proposed to the Forum in January, the 2022-23 budget is set in accordance with the supporting information, as summarised in Table 1, and in particular:

i.        that no changes are made to the Start-up and diseconomy funding policy for new and expanding schools (paragraph 6.17 of the report);

ii.       that the Growth Fund, including appropriate elements is set at the amount reported in Annex 1 of the report;

iii.     that the split site funding allocation to Warfield Primary school is increased by £0.050m to £0.125m (paragraph 6.23 of the report); and

iv.     that the elements of the CSSB and relevant budget amounts are as detailed in Annex 2 of the report; and

the preferred approach to be taken in balancing any remaining shortfall on the SB (paragraph 6.38 of the report).