Agenda item

At the June 2018 Schools Forum, members requested that options for financially supporting schools with falling rolls be presented for discussion and consideration.nd consideration.

Dena Aly introduced the report which outlined options for financially supporting schools with falling rolls as per Schools Forum’s request. She explained that according to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) operational guidance, there were some conditions under which a falling rolls fund could be established. In summary, there had to be a long-term reduction in pupil numbers; the Schools Forum had to agree the value of the fund and the criteria for allocation; the growth fund had to come from the National Funding Formula Schools Block (for details, please see paragraph 3.3 of the report on page 40 of the Agenda pack). Ms Aly pointed out that support would be available only to schools who had been judged to be good or outstanding in their most recent Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspection. She explained that the Department for Education (DfE) had proposed two different methodologies for allocating falling rolls funding – ‘rate per vacant place’ and ‘lump sum payment’. In order to access funding, schools would need to provide evidence that staff would be made redundant, they should not hold any access surplus balances and they should not qualify for rising rolls funding in another year group.   

Ms Aly directed the Forum’s attention to sections five and six of the report (pages 41 and 42 of the Agenda pack) which contained some illustrative suggestions for both methodologies. Under ‘rate per vacant place’, a 15% reduction in pupil numbers would trigger falling rolls funding which would account for 75% of the age-weighted pupil unit (AWPU) rate for the relevant sector and it would be provided as a one-off payment in the year in which the decrease had taken place. As far as the ‘lump sum payment’ methodology was considered, Members heard that officers would need to decide how to calculate it as they had not been able to locate a Local Authority who had used this methodology.

Ms Aly referred to the last section of the paper (page 42 of the Agenda pack) which contained some advantages and the disadvantages of establishing a falling rolls fund. She emphasised that the disadvantages outnumbered the advantages and noted that there was a risk that no schools in Brent would qualify for the funding.

The Schools Forum welcomed the report. Members discussed the need for Head Teachers to plan ahead and it was emphasised that there were criteria which had been designed to prevent schools from using the falling rolls in the long term, which would not lead to significant expenditure. Furthermore, it was noted that there were schools who had not expanded, but experienced falling rolls. Therefore, it was important to support schools not to fall into deficit.

A Primary Head Teacher pointed out that most schools were struggling to recruit and retain good teachers. Therefore, making staff redundant and asking them to come back later in time would cause significant difficulties and could lead to increased use of agency staff which would be against the objective to invest in developing teachers. A similar view was expressed by a Primary Governor who said that introducing a falling rolls fund would have a positive impact on schools which needed to maintain the same number of teachers despite a reduction in the number of pupils. Furthermore, falling rolls funding could be used as a way to maintain standards – for example, if class sizes were increased significantly, the quality of teaching could decline.  

In support of the argument against the introduction of a falling rolls fund, a member of the Forum referred to the reception forecast and capacity table included in the Primary School Place Demand Update report considered earlier at the meeting (page 35 of the Agenda pack) and said that having surplus places would continue to be a trend across the Borough, therefore, primary schools could continue having forms of entry they could not maintain, i.e. the use of a potential falling rolls fund would not be sustainable. Another argument put forward against the proposal was that it was contradicting the principle that funding should follow the pupil. It was also mentioned that schools that had expanded and were in good condition and would be eligible to apply in contrast to schools who had not expanded and were often in bad condition.   

A Head Teacher explained that there was difference between a growth fund and a falling rolls fund as the former related to actual pupils who needed funding. They commended the work of the Schools Finance Team in preparing the report, but pointed out that the paper had not been able to convince them of the need to establish a falling rolls funding. Instead, it gave the impression that, if approved, a falling rolls fund would constitute an emergency source of finance for schools. Andrew Ward explained that there was a budget for schools in difficulty that was part of the Schools Block of the DSG and was focused on maintaining standards. Brian Grady added that this funding could be reviewed on the basis that standards in a school could fall due to falling rolls. 

The introduction of a falling rolls fund in 2019/20 (as set out in paragraph 2.2.1 of the report (page 39 of the Agenda pack)) was then put to the vote by a show of hands and declared LOST.

RESOLVED that:

(i)            The contents of the Options for Financially Supporting Schools with Falling Rolls report, be noted; and

(ii)          A paper examining options and providing specific costs to deploy resources to schools in risk of experiencing a fall in standards due to falling rolls be presented at a future meeting of the Schools Forum.