To consider proposals for a falling rolls fund in 2016-17.

The Forum considered the possible introduction of a falling rolls fund for 2016-17 to support schools with a temporary shortfall or dip in pupil numbers, as requested by the Forum meeting in January 2016.

Hugh Boulter left the meeting at 4.09pm.

It was noted that there was one mandatory element as detailed at paragraph 4.2, that only schools judged ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ would be eligible.

Proposals for an RBWM scheme discussed in the working group had focussed on the following principles:

·         Funding would need to be linked to a demonstrable temporary shortfall in total pupil numbers compared to the number of pupils the school would expect to need in up to three years time, with the school committing to maintain the PAN for the next three years of planned admissions.

·         RBWM’s Education team would have a key role in providing information on future need for places in individual schools and areas, in order to assess whether a school was eligible for funding.

·         Eligibility would need to take account of spare capacity in the school, whilst bearing in mind that a school did not need to be at full capacity to be ‘viable’.

·         Funding should be formula-driven as far as possible, to ensure that funding allocations were fair and transparent and not be dictated by the specific approach to teaching or structure used by a given school.

·         Eligibility for funding would need to be reviewed each year on a school by school basis. As circumstances changed, there would be no automatic assumption of ongoing funding

The Head of Schools and Educational Services highlighted that for 2015-16 the scheme would have to be funded from DSG reserves. The Forum agreed that it was in principle supportive of a scheme. The forecast currently was for falling rolls at Churchmead as a result of, in part, new free schools. The birth rate had fallen this year so it was anticipated that there would be an impact on primary schools in five years’ time. However, further new housing development could fill the gap.

The Head of Schools and Educational Services highlighted the starting point was to establish a viability level, which was proposed as 70%. The next decision was then at what level up to viability should funding be provided and a weighting of 50% on the AWPU rate and a cap of 20% of total budget was proposed. It was noted that four schools in the borough were currently at a level of less than 70%: Bisham Primary, Churchmead, Desborough College and Woodlands Park Primary. Alison Penny commented that the PAN figure for Woodlands Park was incorrect; the Head of Schools and Educational Services agreed to ensure this was amended.  The authority needed to check to see if Desborough College meet the ‘temporary dip’ criteria.

Ania Hildrey left the meeting at 4.19pm.

The Forum considered modelled funding levels using different formula criteria.

Mike Wallace left the meeting at 4.24pm.

It was noted that most authorities applied a cap, whether on different types of schools or an overall proportion.

Alison Penny commented that the issue had affected her school. It was known that numbers would increase in future therefore she did not want to merge classes and make a good teacher redundant to later have to split the class again and recruit. Chris Tomes commented that the retention of good staff was very important, particularly as the recruitment market was difficult at the moment. There was currently too much provision in Slough so whereas Churchmead was previously taking children from that area, they were now not coming through. However there was a big spike coming up through years 5 and 6 that would have an impact on Churchmead from 2018 onwards. He was supportive of the proposal to ensure good staff could be retained over this period.

The Chairman stated that he felt option 1 was the most appropriate model. He felt that a cap of £200,000 per school was reasonable. Isabel Cooke suggested a 75% proportion of the Growth Fund was an appropriate level. Chris Tomes suggested 80%. The Head of Schools and Educational Service informed members that the decision was technically up to the local authority but he welcomed Forum comments.

Stuart Muir commented that the proposal may cause difficulties for schools already expanding and those about to do so. The Head of Schools and Educational Services commented that the current scheme did not take funding away. If there was any misunderstanding he expected schools to come forward and comment.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the methodology for a falling rolls fund should be 75% of the growth fund with a cap of £200,000 for any individual school.