Forum to consider the report.

Tracey-Anne Nevitt, Business Finance Partner for Schools and Early Years (AfC), introduced the report which was to update the Forum on the latest changes to the operational guidance, the current Pupil Growth fund budget and schools in receipt of this, and to consult on proposed changes for the pupil growth funding going forward. She then summarised the contents of the report which concentrated on the basic need element for permanent growth and bulge classes.

There were some options for the Forum to consider:

·       Three model options for both permanent growth and the first year of bulge class funding for 2024-25. The Local Authority (RBWM) recommended the AWPU (Age Weighted Pupil Unit) option (model 2).

·       Three options for Bulge Class Protection from Year 2 onwards, ranging from one to four years of protection.

·       Proposal for a new allocation funding numbers in excess of PAN (planned admissions number). This would allow growth funding to be allocated to schools to admit pupils in excess of the PAN when the places were made available at the request of the LA. This would be made available in 2024.

While understanding the issues which RBWM were experiencing, Isabel Cooke (White Waltham) commented that some secondary schools were not full, and that applying bulge classes to those school would lead to them from never becoming full.

After being requested by the Chair to go through the proposals, Tracey-Anne Nevitt elaborated the proposals for the Forum to decide on, starting with Proposal A – Permanent Expansion Growth Funding 2024-25 Options:

·       Model 1: ESFA minimum funding.

·       Model 2: AWPU (Primary rate 2023-24).

·       Model 3: Lump sum and Main scale 6 teacher.

When asked by the Chair for confirmation that the Borough had reviewed the options and that Model 2 was the preferred option, Tracey Anne Nevitt stated that it was based on the funding which was currently received per child in the AWPU rate in the schools funding 2023-24.

The Chair asked the Forum if they would choose Model 2.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: To choose Model 2 (AWPU) for Permanent Expansion Growth Funding 2024-25.

Tracey Anne Nevitt then moved onto Proposal B – Bulge Class Protection Funding for Year 2 onwards:

·       Option A – Gave a proportion of funding to the missing pupils for Year 2 to Year 5 (for four years).

·       Option B – Gave three years’ worth of funding from Year 2 onwards.

·       Option C – Gave funding only to the 95% of the missing pupils in Year 2 only.

The Chair commented that Option A gave more protection overtime in contrast to Option C. He then asked if there had been any thought around what the implications against each of the three options were. Tracey-Anne Nevitt responded by directing attention to Table 6 which conveyed an example for a junior school if it had 12 missing pupils in terms of what they generated in funding for each of the years.

Sarah Cottle (Maidenhead Nursery Federation) opined that Option B was preferable for all schools as they acquired more funding. Jools Scarlett (Manor Green) wondered whether it would be better to have a longer-term guarantee. Based on this, the Vice-Chair proclaimed that Option B was proposed.

Isabel Cooke asked how much space was available throughout the Borough for primary and secondary schools, mindful that some schools were not full and that the decision was based on the cost of a bulge class and transport. Tracey Anne Nevitt responded that Table 2 (page 23) in the report included details of spare places in Maidenhead but added that she did not have the full details.

Referring to Table 2, Isabel Cooke then commented that there were minimal spaces in Maidenhead Town with six spaces in Year 4, one in Year 5 and one in Year 6. She expressed concern that Maidenhead Village schools would never get full if bulge classes were opened in Maidenhead Town. She stated that this could create a longer-term issue where it could no longer be viable to keep a village school running.

Following up from this, the Chair asked how this could be moved forward. Tracey-Anne Nevitt stated that Ben Wright, School Places Leader (AfC), had proposed Option C which were the numbers in excess of PAN as an alternative to a bulge class which he would consider in certain circumstances. This would fund a number of schools rather than one school and share the places amongst them; therefore, this would have less of an impact than a bulge class choosing one class that one school would have.

Joolz Scarlett asked for clarification on whether any of the schools which potentially had spaces for bulge classes were not keen on this. From this, she opined that the only viable option was Option C of increasing the PAN and funding.

Following up from Isabel Cooke’s point, Sarah Cottle wondered whether it was better to not have bulge classes if it was preferable to ensure that spaces were distributed fairly and accordingly across the Borough, adding that it would incentivise headteachers to take on the bulge class if they were allocated more money.

Clive Haines, Deputy Director for Education (AfC), informed that Option C was more of a protection, and that the bulge classes had been approached and had been hard to do.

The Chair asked if Option C was the decided proposal.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: To choose Option C for Bulge Class Protection Funding Year 2 onwards.

Moving onto Proposal C, where schools would be allocated pupil growth funding if they admitted more pupils in excess of their PAN, Tracey-Anne Nevitt explained that the Forum had to decide whether they supported the option going forward as this had not been in place previously. She informed the Slough Borough and other LAs had followed this model where it appeared to be working well, having a smaller impact and required less protection going forward. RBWM would agree with individual schools on the additional places they would add to their PAN as well as the period of time. She informed that Ben Wright suggested to have all three proposals in place but preferred to have Option C and Model A in most cases.

Perceiving this as sensible, the Chair asked if this was agreed.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: To support Proposal C – Numbers in excess of PAN.

The Chair asked if the funding had all been calculated within the projected funding for 2023-24, to which Tracey-Anne Nevitt confirmed.