Agenda item

1. Mrs Fordham, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, introduced the item, explaining the reasoning behind the decision.

2. Mr Adams, Assistant Director Education (South Kent), introduced the report, highlighting the potential saving to the Council of circa £2.6 million. The purpose of the decision was to ensure that there was parity between the funding that went to the academy and maintained school sectors.

3. In response to comments and questions it was said:
   1. In terms of listening to feedback from schools and the potential risk of increased costs if issues arose, Mr Adams explained that top-slicing was not a decision that KCC could make as they needed the support of the Schools Funding Forum or the decision of the Secretary of State. The service thought the safest, lowest risk option was for KCC to continue to provide the service in the way that they had previously. Mr Adams acknowledged that if the questions within the survey had been altered slightly, there may have been more clarity with the responses.  The decision would be debated through Schools Funding Forum and Mr Adams was to relay the feedback made by the Committee to the Forum.
   2. Mr Adams explained that the Government had changed some grant funding that KCC had received, for example if a grant had ceased then equivalent funding would have gone into school budgets. Kent had been slow in telling schools to pay for services with their funding and consequently they had continued to fund services out of the general fund. Mr Adams highlighted that in some cases this would have been a conscious choice and historically, Kent’s maintained schools were amongst some of the lowest funded in the country. As the funding was now with schools, Members would have to make policy choices as to whether KCC continued to fund these services out of the general fund or whether schools should fund services out of their own budgets and what mechanisms would be used to do that. Mr Adams recognised the importance of the challenge to keep a balance between risk to the Council, the cost to schools and the autonomy for people to make their own decisions.
   3. The grant funding previously received by the Local Authority would have detailed its purpose of use. When the equivalent funding went into school's budgets, the expectation was that either schools purchase those themselves or buy them from the Local Authority.
   4. Mr Adams had spoken to colleagues in Infrastructure to investigate how to have conversations with the Forum about meetings of a school's group to have a look at matters such as the FM Contract. The service were aware they needed to be better at engaging with schools around what they were buying on their behalf and how to assure quality. There was a focus on how to work collectively for all schools.
   5. The survey response rate was lower than anticipated, which prompted efforts to encourage greater participation. Whilst proposals had already been shared and it was acknowledged that schools were under significant time pressures, the service was to continue working with the Forum to explore further ways to improve engagement.
   6. In terms of discharging liability, the Local Authority had different responsibilities for different maintained schools. Mr Adams explained that trying to unpick liability can become confusing as health and safety legislation does not allow duties to be delegated, only responsibilities. The service was to investigate with the School’s Forum to see how this was to look in a year or so time.

4. In accordance with paragraph 16.31 of the Constitution, Mr Brady wished for it to be recorded in the minutes that he voted against endorsing the proposed decision 25/00071 - Funding of Services to Schools 2026-27.

RESOLVED that the Committee considered and endorsed the proposed decision.