The Business Advisor (Schools) will present a report, Document IC, which asks Members to consider the outcomes of the consultation, which was agreed at the last meeting. The report also includes further information on the options for the Schools Block headroom. Please note that an appendix to Document IC will be tabled at the meeting as it contains the outcome of a consultation period, which concludes on 4 December.

Recommended –

The Forum is asked to consider the outcomes of the consultation and whether any of the proposals should be changed in the light of responses. Schools Members will be asked to make final recommendations on the structure of the formulae, and the criteria for the allocation of Schools Block funds, on 10 January 2018. As such, Members are asked to consider whether sufficient information has now been provided to enable these final recommendations to be made.

(Andrew Redding – 01274 432678)

The Business Advisor (Schools) presented a report, Document IC, which asked members to consider the outcomes of the consultation, which was agreed at the last meeting, for primary and secondary mainstream formula funding arrangements for 2018/19. Additional analysis of responses was tabled at the meeting. The report also included further information, for the Forum’s consideration, on the options for the allocation of Schools Block headroom – the options either to a) enhance the value of the Minimum Funding Guarantee, from 0% to 0.5%, for the primary phase, with a knock on consequence for the secondary phase or b) to enhance the value of the SEN Funding Floor factor for the primary phase only.

The Business Advisor asked members for their feedback on these 2 options as well as whether the proposals for the Schools Block for 2018/19 should be amended in the light of any of the feedback received. He explained the responses to the consultation evidence that the structural proposals for primary & secondary formula funding are supported. A main area of concern is the impact of national funding formula on the notional SEN calculation. The Business Advisor stated that this would be investigated.

The focus of the Forum’s discussion in response to the Business Advisor’s presentation was the implications of uplifting the MFG to 0.5%, for the secondary sector, where headroom would need to be found in order to finance this. The Business Advisor explained that discussions on this matter could not be finalised until the cost of formula funding in 2018/19 is known based on the October 2017 Census dataset. This will be presented on 10 January. He stated that there may a number of options for the Forum to consider in managing this, including the use of one off monies if necessary. He also emphasised that phase ring-fencing within the Schools Block will come into play here. However, this is a ‘hypothetical’ discussion at the moment, which cannot be concluded until we have the October 2017 Census dataset. Members expressed their appreciation that the decision is complicated as a decision to enhance the MFG using primary headroom potentially knocks on to the secondary sector.

A member asked about the longer term implications of setting a higher MFG in 2018/19. The Business Advisor stated that a higher MFG would ‘lock in’ to the protected baselines of schools going forward. Responding to a question asked by the Director of Corporate Services, he clarified that it would be possible to ‘reverse’ this in 2019/20 effectively by setting a negative MFG.

A member asked for clarification about the Authority’s policy for DSG reserves. The Business Advisor clarified that the policy is agreed annually as part of the Forum’s DSG allocation process. As such, Appendix 2 to Document IA sets out this year’s proposed policy. Generally, the Authority has sought to advise the Forum to minimise the extent to which DSG ‘on-going’ spending in any one year is financed by reserves. The Business Advisor explained that the current position of reserves is well within the thresholds set by the ESFA (10% surplus; 3% deficit).

As this was an item for information and initial consideration, Forum members did not give any particular steer on which of the 2 options would be preferred (this is a matter to return to on 10 January).

Resolution –

That the analysis of the consultation responses be noted. No further resolution was passed on this item.