Agenda item

Changes to the Local Formula Budget for Schools in Kent - 12/01963

Minutes:

(Item 7 – report by Mr Mike Whiting, Cabinet Member for Education learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director of Education, Learning and Skills)

 

Cabinet received a report of the above named member and officer the purpose of which was to provide an overview of the latest DfE School Funding Reformsand the challenges inherent in their implementation for the Local Authority and for schools.  In addition to the reporting of statutory changes directed by the DfE the report sought agreement to the practical approaches to be taken to the implementation in Kent.

 

Mr Whiting introduced the report and in particular referred to the following information contained within it:

 

  • That many of the changes that would occur were the result of Government direction and not of local choice
  • That the number of indices had been reduced.  Concern had been expressed to Government that this approach would not allow the highly sensitive deprivation targeting, which had occurred under the previous system, to continue.
  • That the School Funding Forum had been consulted on the local choice elements within the report and had not objected to the approaches set out.

 

Following comments and questions from the Leader of the County Council, the Corporate Director of Education, learning and Skills, Mr Leeson clarified some of the potential consequences of the changes, he advised:

 

·         That the change from the mosaic method of identifying deprivation and need to the new method represented a significant change and could result in significant funding changes for Schools

·         That the message from Government was that the Minimum Funding Guarantee would continue beyond the next election.

 

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Development, Mr Mark Dance, voiced his concerns that changing from the Mosaic system would lead to a loss of sensitivity within the data collected and that in particular the old system would differentiate between where a child lived and where it went to school which would no longer be the case.  Mr Whiting concurred and reported that KCC and other local authorities had lobbied the Government on hearing of the changes but that concerns had not been addressed.

                             
The Leader of the County Council also reiterated the concerns expressed.

Mr Leeson commended the recommendations contained within the report to Cabinet, which he claimed constituted a radical approach to accommodating changes imposed by Government with as little disruption to services as possible.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

CABINET

Changes to the Local Formula Budget for Schools in Kent

3 December 2012

1.

That the report and the impact that the changes will have for Kent schools and academies be noted;

 

2.

That the use of the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) as the replacement for MOSAIC within the funding formula as detailed in Paragraphs 2.4 – 2.7 be agreed;

 

3.

That the new proposals for managing the pupil growth funding (previously known as rising rolls) as agreed by the Schools’ Funding Forum on 12 October 2012 and detailed in Appendix 8, be agreed;

 

4.

That the approach to the setting of special school budgets summarised in Paragraph 4.6 be agreed.  This has been previously agreed with the Schools’ Funding Forum and Kent Association of Special Schools in order to minimise budget turbulence as far as is possible;

 

5.

That the approach supported by the Schools’ Funding Forum for the transitional funding arrangements for Resourced Provision set out in Paragraph 4.9 of the report;

 

6.

That the approach supported by the Schools’ Funding Forum for the transitional funding arrangements for High Needs SEN pupils in mainstream schools without a Resourced Provision, as set out in Paragraph 4.18 of the report, be agreed.

 

REASON

 

1.

In order that the Cabinet be fully aware of potential impacts on schools and academies

 

2.

In order that monitoring of deprivation in childhood can continue as effectively as possible without the MOSAIC

 

3,4, 5 & 6

In order that funding changes are managed as effectively as possible

 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

None.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None.

DISPENSATIONS GRANTED

None.

 

Supporting documents: