To finalise the budgets following consultation.

To follow

The Forum consideredrecommending to the Cabinet Member for ICT, Education and Achievement the Dedicated Schools Grant budget for 2011/12.

The Schools Finance Manager (SFM) presented the report. 

He commented that the late announcement of the schools budget settlement by the Department for Education (DfE) had inevitably meant that the timescale for preparing budgets had been tight.  This had limited the time available to consult on the budget proposals.  The DfE Spending Review indicated that the same cash freeze per pupil for the DSG would apply in 2012/13 and 2013/14.  He therefore intended that planning for the 2012/13 budget would take place earlier so that consultation could take place in the autumn.

He drew the Forum’s attention to the responses to the consultation exercise on the 2011/12 budget summarised in the report and set out in more detail in appendix 2 to the report.

The Budget Working Group (BWG) had met to consider the responses to the consultation paper and put forward an alternative budget proposal.  This provided for greater reductions in funding for social deprivation and personalised learning in light of the additional £1m pupil premium grant, and a smaller reduction in small schools protection than had been proposed in the consultation paper.  It was proposed that the funds generated from these proposals would be re-distributed to schools through an increased per pupil unit of funding.  This would narrow the funding gap on a per-pupil basis between the highest funded schools and the lowest funded schools.

A revised set of recommendations reflecting the BWG’s proposal was circulated at the meeting.

The Chairman of the Forum thanked the BWG for its efforts in seeking to produce a balanced set of proposals in very difficult financial circumstances.  She welcomed the intention to commence planning for the 2012/13 budget earlier in the year which would allow more time for discussion of proposals than had been possible this year.

Each recommendation was then discussed in turn with reference made to the responses received during the budget consultation exercise. The following principal points were made:

·         In relation to option J in the consultation, a reduction of 2% in Private, Voluntary and Independent Nursery funding, the SFM highlighted that a number of responses from PVI nurseries had suggested that savings in nursery education (per pupil) should be comparable with schools (-1.5%).

The SFM reminded the Forum that it had agreed on 7 December 2009 that PVI funding in Herefordshire should be frozen in cash terms until parity with Worcestershire, Shropshire and Gloucestershire was achieved. The recommendation continued the move towards parity. The BWG had considered the consultation feedback and evidence that PVIs in Herefordshire were funded at a higher rate that surrounding counties and agreed to recommend to the Forum that the full 2% cut be approved.

The Early Years representatives observed that all 47 PVI nurseries and 8 schools had objected to option J and 33 schools had supported it.  They felt greater weight should be placed on this response to the consultation exercise if it were to be considered a meaningful process. 

In addition, funding had now been frozen for three years and the proposed cut would have a significant effect.  Achievement across the Early Years Foundation Stage, which was recognised as being important in contributing to educational attainment in later years, was below the national average and warranted investment in the sector rather than a cut.   The Early Years sector was also having to bear a higher proportion of the savings proportionate to the sector’s share of DSG.

Members of the BWG acknowledged the concerns but said they had concluded that the reduction, the basis for which had been closely scrutinised, struck the right balance in the context of other difficult decisions that had to be made.

The Forum supported a request that there should be an Early Years representative on the Budget Working Group.

·         In relation to option L in the consultation, the Chair of the PRU Management Committee had requested that PRUs be treated as schools and therefore have a parity of budget reductions with schools, rather than being treated as a central DSG service and subject to a 3% cut.   The Principal of the Pupil Referral Unit commented that the proposed 3% reduction in the PRU budget would have a significant effect.  A reduction of 1.5% in line with schools would deliver savings but allow the PRUs some flexibility to develop the service.

RESOLVED:

THAT Schools Forum recommends to the Cabinet Member for ICT, Education and Achievement the basis for the schools budget 2011/12 as set out below:

(a)               that as recommended by the Budget Working Group

(i)           the savings required from Option A in the consultation: small schools protection, be reduced to £200k;

(ii)     additional savings of £500k be sought from Options B & C in the consultation: social deprivation and personalised learning, all prior to the protection offered by the Minimum Funding Guarantee; and

(iii)       the net savings of £241k achieved be added to the age weighted per pupil funding amount at £11.50 per pupil;

(b)       the budget options, before the Minimum Funding Guarantee protection, that were broadly supported in the consultation be approved as follows;

1          Option E: Reduce school grants by 1.5%

2          Option F: Reduce “per pupil funding” by 0.5%

3          Option G: Delegate £376k of SEN Support services

4          Option H: End flexibility grants to PVI nurseries

5          Option I: Charge for early years training  

6          Option K: Reduce contingencies by £100k

7          Option L: Reduce central DSG services by 3%

(c)        Option D in the consultation: Reduced SEN Banded funding levels, which was not well supported by schools, be not approved.

(d)       the following budget options in the consultation also be approved:

1          Option J: Reduce PVI nursery funding by 2% be approved in order to continue the move towards equality of funding when compared with the adjoining English counties; and

2          Option L: Central DSG services - that the 3% savings be confirmed as applying to Pupil Referral Units;

(e)        that the SEN support services are delegated with a minimum funding entitlement of £1,110 for all schools, the balance delegated through the SEN Band 1 & 2 formula factors and that the former Ethnic Minority Grant be delegated on the number of English as an Additional Language pupils recorded on the January pupil census; and

(f)        that if a final budget adjustment is necessary, then the age weighted per pupil funding be adjusted to cover any surplus or deficit when final pupil numbers are known from the January 2011 census.