Apologies were received from Mr P Box, Mrs L Brazewell, Mr P Burbidge, Mrs S Catlow-Hawkins, Mr T Edwards, Mr M Farmer, Mr J Godfrey, Mr G House, Ms T Kneale, Mrs R Lloyd, and Mrs C Woods.

(The Forum noted that Mrs J Cecil had recently resigned from the Forum.  The Chairman thanked Mrs Cecil for her contribution to the Forum’s work.)

Mr S Grist substituted for Mrs Brazewell.

Agenda item 5 – Report of the Budget Working Group

Mrs D Strutt declared an interest as Head Teacher of Whitecross High School and Specialist Sports College in relation to the information report on the Whitecross PFI Scheme.

Mr R Leece and Mr C Lewandowski declared interests as Trade Union Representatives in respect of recommendation (b) relating to de-delegation.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2014 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider the report of the Budget Working Group on the following matters: Dedicated Schools Grant and final Schools Budget 2015/16; school balances, dedelegation,and an update on the Whitecross PFI.

The Forum considered the report of the Budget Working Group (BWG) on the following matters:  Dedicated Schools Grant and final Schools Budget 2015/16; de-delegation, Pupil Referral Unit (PRU funding), school balances and an update on the Whitecross PFI contract.

The Chairman of the BWG introduced the report and thanked officers for the support provided to the BWG.  He commented on the complexity of the BWG’s task and emphasised the BWG was mindful of the pressures and differing challenges faced by schools across the sectors.

He offered an invitation to members of the Forum not on the BWG to attend as observers if they would like to do so.

The School Finance Manager (SFM) presented the report. He highlighted the following issues:

The BWG had supported the submission to the Education Funding Agency of a final budget that was same as the interim budget already consulted on with schools and submitted in October 2014.  This necessitated the following variations:

·         An extra £53k to meet national licence costs.

·         A number of changes to meet unfunded expected high needs cost pressures amounting to £277k.  The SFM highlighted the significant pressure on the high needs block and the considerable degree of uncertainty about this area.

·         The Authority had made a robust case to the Education Funding Agency for extra funding for high needs.  However, there was insufficient funding available nationally and the DfE was consulting authorities on systemic improvements for the funding of high needs.  The DfE consultant had been made aware of the Authority’s concerns.

·         An allocation to meet increased pension costs which had a disproportionate impact on special schools because of the number of support staff employed.  Given the other pressures on the high needs block it was considered that this was unaffordable for all schools.

He circulated the response received to the supplementary consultation on de-delegation for Herefordshire Schools.

He outlined the balances held by schools as a percentage of the annual budget in bands of 5% up to 50% noting that the average balance percentage was 10% with the highest being 52%. 

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         It was proposed that the Education Funding Agency should be informed of the Forum’s concern about the funding of High Needs Places.

·         A decision not to de-delegate funding would place an administrative burden on the local authority.  The cost and how this would be met had not been quantified.  The SFM commented that the cost would have to be met within existing budgets and would have to be undertaken at the expense of other duties.  Clearly the local authority wanted the administration to be as efficient as possible.

·         The maintained secondary school representative commented that whilst her school had benefitted from trade union facilities she was aware that most maintained high schools did not wish de-delegation of this service to continue.

School Balances

The SFM explained that if, following consultation, the Forum decided at its meeting in March 2015 to reintroduce a balance clawback scheme the scheme would apply to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 191.

To consider the Forum’s work programme.

The Forum noted its work programme with the following amendments:

March 2015

The addition of items on School balances, terms of reference for a review of high needs tariffs and an update on the Whitecross PFI scheme.

June 2015/July 2015

Transfer of the business scheduled for July 2015 to that scheduled for June 2015 except for the review of high needs tariff implementation which would move to October or possibly December 2015,

October 2015

The addition of the review of high needs tariff implementation.

The following meeting dates have been scheduled:

13 March 2015 – 9.30 am

5 June 2015 – 9.30 am

10 July 2015 – 9.30 am

23 October 2015– 9.30 am

4 December 2015 – 9.30 am

15 January 2016 – 9.30 am

11 March 2016 – 9.30 am

Noted.

The Chairman commented that notwithstanding the discussion on the work programme, the subject of the previous item on the agenda, it was proposed to retain the scheduled date of 10 July 2015 in diaries for the time being in case any urgent business arose.