Agenda item

Following a report to Schools Forum in October 2017, the Forum agreed to review the Pupil Growth Funding criteria. This paper provides a summary of the policy discussion of the Pupil Demand Task and Finish Group.

Shirley Parks reminded Members that following a report to the Schools Forum in October 2017, it was agreed to review the Pupil Growth Funding criteria. She said that the paper provided a summary of the policy discussion of the Pupil Demand Task and Finish Group and recommended a Pupil Growth Fund budget of £2 million for 2018/19 and a rising rolls contingency of £1.13 million. The Group had considered four policy questions as set out below (for details, please see pages 16-19 to the Agenda pack).

Policy question 1: should criteria be developed for additional support beyond current guaranteed funding for primary schools that have been asked by the Local Authority to permanently expand?

The recommendation of the Group was that no adjustment policy would be taken forward to support these schools. The Group had noted that all schools were expected to manage budgets in response to changing patterns of demand. 

Policy Question 2: should funding be used to support secondary schools that expand by 30 pleases or more at the request of the Local Authority?

The recommendation of the Group was that secondary schools that had expanded would be funded to address the issues of lagged funding and to ensure that they could fund the required resources. Ms Parks said that the Group had discussed the differences between primary and secondary schools as well as the impact of expansion of the number of staff employed by schools. Two models for funding growth had been considered – payment of a lump sum in the year in which the growth occurred which would require schools to manage their cash flow in subsequent years  or funding to be calculated through a manual variation in the funding formula. 

Policy Question 3: how should rising rolls funding operate in the future and for what time period should support to schools be provided?

The recommendation of the Group was to retain the rising rolls contingency for primary schools at 1.75%, with the expectation that the requirement for access to this funding would reduce over time. Ms Parks noted that the preferred course of action in relation to secondary schools would depend on which option under the second policy question was selected. For example, if it was decided to calculate funding through a manual variation in the funding formula, there would not be a need for rising rolls funding as there would not be a lagged funding issue. However, it was noted that in relation to secondary schools, 1.75% equated to a larger number of pupils in secondary schools than primary. Therefore, the Local Authority had been asked to consider allocating a different percentage to each sector or to use an absolute value instead.

Policy Question 4: Schools Forum to consider if a one-off payment should apply to secondary schools

The recommendation of the Group was that a lump sum of £25,000 was not to be awarded to secondary schools that had been asked to expand. However, where the expansion of schools required a capital project, all appropriate costs would be capitalised, with all remaining expenses being covered within the schools’ budgets.

Discussion

The Chair opened the floor for comments and Members of the Forum discussed that it was easier to forecast the demand for secondary places as children had already been born and were part of the system, which increased the level of confidence in predictions. Ms Parks noted that demand for primary places had dipped but were expected to recover. Primary provision representatives commented that the reduction in demand for primary places had been significant and highlighted that there were vacancies in a number of primary schools. It was noted that social mobility could have an impact on secondary numbers as children could move away from the Borough prior to entering secondary education. Brian Grady confirmed that the Local Authority deemed there was sufficient primary provision and that the refreshed Brent school places sufficiency strategy agreed by Cabinet in June 2017 reflected this position. In relation to top-slicing the Dedicated Schools Grant to create a fund to support good schools with falling rolls, Ms Parks referenced the Group’s recommendation that this was not required for schools in Brent. Andrew Ward clarified that, according to the Department for Education regulations, a potential fund could be used only for good and outstanding schools and the need for spaces had to be clearly demonstrated which could be challenging in the current conditions. 

A headteacher commented that funding, including for provision of education to children with special needs, should follow the children and be available to those who needed place in the year the funding came in. This view was widely supported by the Forum and it was noted that it was difficult to manage constantly changing budgets and this had had a negative impact on the recruitment and retention of teachers. A Member pointed out that some schools rented out space to generate income and suggested that this option could be explored further.

A Member of the Schools Forum challenged the amount of communication with headteachers prior to the preparation of the report, stating that headteachers could have been informed of the proposed recommendations before the publication of the paper. In response, Ms Parks confirmed that the Group’s membership had been based on volunteers from Schools Forum and included headteachers. In relation to social mobility, Mr Ward explained that although the Group had recognised it as an issue, it had not been reflected in the national funding formula.  

RESOLVED that:

(i)            The contents of the Dedicated Schools Grant Pupil Growth Task Group Report be noted;

(ii)          The current growth model for primary expansion would not be changed. Support for individual schools that expand would continue;

(iii)         No additional funding be provided to schools experiencing lower demand and a falling rolls contingency would not be required to be top-sliced from the DSG;

(iv)         A growth model for secondary schools be agreed, with a final methodology recommendations presented to the Schools Forum;

(v)          Rising rolls funding be retained for primary schools and be considered in conjunction with the growth funding models for secondary schools; and

(vi)         The Growth Fund budget be reduced by £500,000, with underspends accumulated in reserves used to mitigate risks of future volatility.