To consider and agree changes to the growth fund 2016-17.

The Forum considered proposed changes to the growth fund for 2016/17.

The Chairman commented that he had received a number of representations on this report, in particular the clawback options in paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5. Due to the complexity of the existing scheme, a new scheme was proposed.

The Head of Schools and Educational Services explained that the proposal set out a logical approach to school place planning taking into account Schools Forum comments from the meeting in January 2016 and other comments received since. He then commented on the proposed eligibility criteria, which applied to all types of schools including academies and free schools as detailed in section 4.1:

·         1 & 2 – no changes were proposed

·         3 – the change would ensure that places would be reliably available.

·         4 – this was the biggest change. Funding through the growth fund would only be allocated when an additional teacher was required. This would mean schools could employ staff earlier.

·         5 – the change recognised that additional funding would be required for every year an extra class was needed. A typographical error was noted that the section should read ‘5 years in a  secondary etc.’

·         6 – no change in the assumption that schools receiving growth funding would still be expected to operate mixed age classes where their PAN warranted it.

·         7 – this was not yet applicable in the borough but if a  new free school was set up in response to ‘basic need’, start up costs would fall to the local authority. The Head of Schools and Educational Services provided an example from his previous authority where a new two-form entry primary was established. The local authority had provided £75,000 of start up costs.

It was commented that schools had previously been funded for four years. The Finance Partner explained that the growth fund had only been around for two or three years. The rules had been changed for 2015/16 following consultation to limit funding to three years for all schools.

The Chairman highlighted the difference between primary and secondary in terms of the funding rates linked to AWPU. Questions had been raised about the actual costs of putting an extra 30 children into a school and the resulting cost of a member of staff. In addition queries had been raised about the differing figures of 0.4 and 1 FTE for a teaching assistant. The Head of Schools and Educational Services explained that the formula had been worked out backwards using the existing pay scales and the amount that would have been spent on the Growth Fund. Comments from the Forum were welcomed on whether this was a reasonable approach.

Stuart Muir commented that if schools were growing fairly quickly there would be more schools that triggered funding but the amount of money would be kept the same. He questioned this given expansion was on its way. The Head of Schools and Educational Services confirmed that for the current year there were no unfunded expansions. The Forum considered table 3 which illustrated that slightly more would be spent under the proposed formula than under the current one in 2015/16 but more schools would receive funding under the new formula. Over time to 2021, with all commitments already made, the proposed scheme would cost £1.4m rather than £1.7m. in the old scheme.  Under the old scheme schools faced uncertainty about their funding as a result of the clawback mechanism. Under the new scheme, this uncertainty was being traded for certainty and a smaller amount of overall funding.

Nick Stevens questioned why the authority was trying to make opportunities for schools to expand if less children were anticipated. He cited the example that primary numbers were expected to be down by 113 in 2018 compared to 2013. The Head of Schools and Educational Services explained that primary expansion was already planned to deal with extra children that were anticipated. It was also know that by 2018/19 the year group would be smaller, but the increase needed to be managed going through the cycle. The growth fund was important to ensure capacity for those moving into the borough, which had a very mobile population.

Hugh Boulter commented that schools such as Furze Platt Senior had already agreed with the local authority the number of extra places, with planning based on the current financial parameters. The new formula would mean significantly lower finances than planning had been based upon. The Chairman commented that there was clear need for the formula to change but suggested the decision be delayed until full implications were known. The Head of Schools and Educational Services commented that the current scheme could continue to operate but some schools would no longer receive the funding that they would have received under the new formula, and a number of other schools would lose money as detailed in paragraph 5.3. In the past the funding formula agreed by the Forum allocated full funding. Feedback was that this was unaffordable and unfair, therefore the current proposal had been made.

The Chairman proposed that the decision be delayed by one year given that schools had planned agreed expansion based on the current formula.

The Head of Schools and Educational Services commented that in January the Forum had made it clear that for a class of 30 pupils in primary and secondary schools,  £54,000-£73,000 was too much for seven months; now it was being suggested that £23,000-£30,000 was not enough. The right balance needed to be established. The Finance Partner highlighted that under the current formula costs were met for three year only. Under the proposed formula additional costs would be met after this time.

RESOLVED: That:

i)             The current formula be retained for a further year

ii)            The item be added to the agenda for the next meeting to consider changes for the following financial year

(Heather Clapp, Chris Tomes, Ania Hildrey, Gina Kendall, Hugh Boulter, Stuart Muir, Isabel Cooke, Alison Penny, Nick Stevens, Amanda Hough and Richard Pilgrim voted in favour of the motion. Mike Wallace voted against the motion)