Agenda item

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mr K Abbott Director, School Resources and ELS Finance Business Partner was present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited the Corporate Director, Mr Leeson to introduce the report.  He advised that there were significant changes proposed for school funding that had important implications for the future potential for a wider variation in the levels of funding available to Kent schools.  The effect of the government’s proposals and create significant challenges to KCC on how it funds these pupil places, mainly pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and those that attend Pupil Referral Units (PRUs).

2.               Mr Abbott advised that the changes were the most significant since Local Management was introduced for schools over 20 years ago.  The changes being introduced would remove a lot of local discretion and was a concern for KCC, Kent schools and academies.  The concerns were included in the responses to three separate consultations that took place last year and this year regarding the changes that had to be implemented from April 2013. 

3.               Mr Abbott explained the that there were three parts to the changes as follows:

(1) Simplification of the Primary and Secondary Schools Formula.  Nationally, local authorities would be restricted to no more that 12 factors, KCC currently used 21 factors.  Among the key changes were premises factors.  KCC currently distributed £44 million to schools and to academies by looking at floor area and using a condition survey.  This would no longer be allowed.  Some specific parts of KCC formula came through a local need and the funding was targeting specifically; supporting traveller children and those schools that were specifically supporting services families.  This was not sustained in the new model formula as from April 2013. The Deprivation Funding, which was put out though KCC funding using Mosaic would no longer be allowed.  KCC would have the choice of using either Free School Meals data, or Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI), which was considered better than the Free School Meals data but did not target the deprivation of funding as well as MOSAIC, which would create turbulence.

(2) Further delegation of the dedicated schools grant budgets as specified by the Secretary of State.  This was welcomed as it would bring to an end the vex issue of the academy top up.  Discussions had taken place with the Funding Forum and there was an agreed way forward.  There were a number of budgets that the Secretary of State had decided to freeze at the current budget levels.  This meant that there would be issues on the way that the budgets were managed. 

(3) The reform of the funding for SEN [pupils in special schools, mainstream schools SEN Units, PRUs and other settings].  This area caused most concern.  This would be a completely different approach and the funding for the high needs pupils would comprise 3 elements; (1) and (2) a core and support element, which gives the school a guaranteed £10k; and (3) the top up which could range from £80,000 for a place in a residential special school or £100 to £200 in a mainstream school.  There was still work to be carried on this.  Other changes that come with this included; SEN recoupment, KCC was still recovering funding from other authorities’ whose children were placed in Kent’s Special Schools.  This would be removed and it would be up to the individual schools to recoup the money from the placing local authority. Another concern was the core and support funding at £10,000 per annum.  The top up funding had to be moved in real time.  This built in instability, especially for schools with built up funds.  The movement of one or two pupils and the funding then being taken away the following month would have a big impact because the school would not be able to reduce its cost in terms of staffing in that time scale.  This would have an impact on all schools.  Cash flows would be impacted with money going in and out of the school on a monthly basis and trying to recoup money from other local authorities.  The impact for KCC would be dealing with individual schools rather than a local authority.

4.               Mr Abbott advised that KCC Officers had been working with a Working Group of Headteachers looking at transitional arrangements, as these changes would take place mid term, to get schools through next year.

5.               Throughout the formula changes whilst the minimum funding remained in place at minus 1.5% per pupil next year and the year after, there were no guarantees beyond that on what may happen with the funding guarantee.   The schools had been asked to look at the long term consequences of these changes.  Models had been given to the schools in September 2012 to aid their projections for their budgets in the medium term as all of the changes unwind.

6.               Mr Abbott advised that a decision would be submitted to Cabinet on 3 December 2012 seeking formal approval on whether KCC used Free School Meals data, or Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI), accompanied by the work from the Working Group of Headteachers on High Needs Funding.

7.               Members made comments and asked questions that included the following:

a)    In reply to a question, Mr Leeson agreed to advise Members outside the meeting on whether the School Admissions Code would be changed to give priority to children in service families.

b)    In response to a question, Mr Abbott advised that formally the 3 consultations had finished.  The last consultation closed in September and Kent responded to those robustly.  There was a letter to be sent to the DfE with the significant concerns Kent had on the consequences of the changes to the school formula for Kent schools’ budgets.  The report highlights the directed changes made by the DfE and there was little scope to do anything different.   The only areas where there was a choice of using either IDACI or Free schools Meals data for deprivation funding and how we deal with pupil growth, all of which had to be implemented in April 2013.

c)     Mr Christie suggested that the Cabinet be recommended to endorse the decision to lobby the government on Kent’s concerns on the changes to the school formula.

8.               RESOLVED that:-

a)         the responses to the comments and questions made by Members be noted;

b)         the Education Cabinet Committee recommends that the Cabinet endorses the decision of the Education, Learning and Skills Directorate to lobby the government on Kent’s concerns on the changes to the school formula; and

c)          the Education Cabinet Committee endorses the decision to be taken by the Cabinet to change the school formula as set out in the report.