Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from J Barry, K Berdesha, D Irish and B Patel.

There were no declerations of interest received.

To confirm the minutes of the 14 March as a correct record.

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 14th March 2022 be approved as a correct record.

Matters arising:

The Chair, in referring to Minute No. 17/22, referred to a meeting of the Special Head Teachers Group regarding the figures around students accessing the Primrose Centre, SCS and Albright.  The Group held some concern in relation average occupancy rates, which were inaccurate.  Whilst it was acknowledged that the figures presented were an average taken across the year from data supplied by the establishments (and cross referenced against the data held on SYNERGY), the Chair requested that in future if these figures could be corroborated directly with the Heads of these special schools.

M Tallents advised the info provided had come from these schools directly, but that this request could be accommodated in the future.

The Chair, furthermore, stated that the Special Heads Group were also concerned how this would impact upon budget allocations, in relation to SCS in particular.

M Tallents advised that with SCS, a funding document had been put in place to make it clear which pupils would receive commissioned places with the commission top-up and which would be prevented from going forward.  The draft had been agreed by SCS and it would be put in place from September 2022 onwards.  The same also applied to Primrose.  Albright, however, was slightly different in view of the fact that their funding came from the High Needs Block.

Furthermore, also in relation to Minute No. 17/22, the Chair sought an update in relation to the following: ‘M Tallents agreed to investigate further in relation to all PRUs and feedback to the next meeting on this very matter’.

M Tallents advised that she would bring a report back to the next meeting to address this matter.

A Timmins advised that appointments to vacant positions would come back to the next meeting, as the nomination process had not yet concluded in time for this meeting.

Members to note the attendance report 2021/2022.

The Forum received a report, for information, which provided details of Members’ attendance at Forum meetings for the period 2021/22.

                  Agreed that the report be noted.

Members to note the Forward Plan.

The Forum received a report, for information, which detailed the dates of future meetings during 2022/23, along with the forward plan of items for each meeting.

The Chair referred to High Needs Block Outturn 2022/23 item listed against the 19th June 2023 meeting and enquired if it was possible to also have a report on the High Needs Budget update detailing spend since the end of the financial year.  In the absence of this report, such information would not be presented to the Forum until September when approx. a third of the financial year had already passed.

R Kerr advised that this could prove difficult because of it being during period 2 monitoring but a draft report could be possible, although it would be tight and may need to be tabled.

Agreed that dates of future meetings, as set out below, and the Forward Plan of items be noted.

•        26 September 2022

•        7 November 2022

•        12 December 2022

•        16 January 2023

•        20 March 2023

•        19 June 2023

Members to note the Dedicated Schools Grant Outturn 2021/22.

The Forum received a report for information which detailed the actual expenditure incurred for the Dedicated Schools Grant blocks of funding; Early Year Block Central School Services Block, centrally retained and the de-delegated budgets in financial year 2021/22.

The Early Years Block allocation for 2021/22 was £22.715m.  The actual grant allocation income received was £22.156m because of an early adjustment; the net effect of which was £0.559m.

Table 1 detailed the actual expenditure incurred during 2021/22 regarding the use of the Early Years Block.

Table 1 – Early Years Block

Table 2 detailed the actual expenditure incurred regarding the use of the Central School Services Block.

       Table 2 – Central School Services Block

       Pupil Number Growth Funding

The Pupil number growth allocation agreed by Schools forum was £1.091m.  The DfE made a positive adjustment for pupil number growth funding paid to academies for the period April to August of the previous financial year.  The academies adjustment for 2021/22 was £0.605m giving total in year funding available of £1.696m.

Table 3 – Pupil Number Growth Funding

A surplus balance of £1.117m was brought forward from 2020/21, this with the in-year overspend of £0.781m, the carry forward balance into 2022/23 was £0.336m.

De-delegated Budgets

Table 4 detailed the breakdown of the de-delegated budgets, expenditure, and variance.

Table 4 – De-delegated Budgets

Education Functions

Table 5 provided a breakdown of the Education Functions budgets, expenditure, and variance.

Table 5 – Education Functions

The Chair enquired if, in relation to schools facing financial difficulties, any school had requested additional support.

R Kerr advised that there were certain criteria a school would first have to meet to qualify, including posting a deficit in the close down of their previous years budget and there was only one school in this position in 2021/22.  However, having  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31/22

Members to note the 2021/22 High Needs Block Grant outturn.

The Forum received a report for information in relation to the High Needs Block (HNB) 2021/22 Outturn position.

The Final HNB Grant settlement for 2021/22 was £53.555m after deductions for academies recoupment and direct funding of high needs places by Education Skills and Funding Agency.

The carry forward balance on the HNB as at 31st March 2021 was £0.597m surplus. 

Table 1 provided a breakdown of the HNB budget of £53.555m; the gross expenditure as at 31st March 2022 was £52.075m; with HNB grant and other income of £55.409m, giving an in-year underspend of £3.333m.

Table 1 - HNB 2021/22 Outturn

The main variances were as follows: -

•        Out of Borough Placements – An underspend of £0.253m was due to a delay in pupils being placed in independents educational establishments and pupils leaving during the spring term.

•        Post 16 Colleges – When the budget had been prepared an allowance was made for new students and in year admittances. The underspend of £0.545m related to a reduction in the amount of Element 3 top up claimed by some mainstream colleges and a reduction in the request for funding to attend college.

•        Support for Inclusion – the underspend of £0.561m was due to staff vacancies and part-year vacancies due to staff turnover as well as maternity leave.  Also included monies for Secondary Preventing Exclusions team which would transfer from 1st April 2022 to the Fair Access + Exclusions and Secondary Reintegration Team.

•        Alternative Provision – the underspend of £0.509m was due to the close monitoring and decisions made at the LA Alternative Provision Panel which had been instrumental in reducing expenditure during the year and controlling the number of pupils placed in alternative provision settings.  

•        SEN Developments – was showing an underspend of £0.919m.  This budget head currently covered independent appeals and reports, and any funding agreed that did not clearly fit onto any other budget head.  The variance was predominantly the HNB balancing figure of £440k, which was the difference between the calculated budgets as at 1 April 2021 and the HNB Grant initial settlement 2021/22 and a favourable amendment to the Grant of £315k

•        Other SEN Funding – The underspend of £0.407m was due to resolution not to fund CWD and underspend in non-statutory services.

The cumulative carry forward balances for 2021/22 was £3.930m surplus after accounting for the £0.597m surplus from 2020/21.

M Arnull requested an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32/22

Members to note the balances held by schools at the end of 2021-22 and the RAG ratings of the projected balances for 2022-23.

The Forum received a report for information which detailed the balances held by schools at the end of 2021-22 and the projected balances for 2022-23.

Appendix 1 to the report showed the total school balances by phase as at the end of 2021-22.  This was summarised below and compared to the position at the end of 2020-21.

There was one school closing with a deficit budget share.  There were four schools which had converted to an academy during the financial year 2021/22: Hateley Heath Primary school, Lightwoods Primary, St John Bosco Primary and Perryfields High School.

The conversion of these schools into academies and the transfer of balances to them was reflected in the reduction of balances held by the primary schools as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report. Although one secondary school had converted in year the secondary school balances had increased overall.

Budget Plans 2022-23

Appendix 2 to the report showed the RAG rating of the projected balances for 2022-23, as indicated by the Budget Plans received from schools.  Percentages were highlighted according to the following criteria: -

Thirty two primary schools had projected to hold balances above 10% and three primary schools were projecting to hold balances below 1% at the end of 2022-23.  This was a decrease of 3 schools projecting balances above 10% and a decrease of one school projecting balances below 1% based on their 2021-22 budget plans.

There was one secondary school projecting to hold balances above 8% and no secondary school was projecting holding balances below 1% at the end of 2022-23.  There was no change in the number of schools projecting balances above 8% and a decrease of one school projecting balances below 1% based on their 2021-22 budget plans.

There was one special school projecting to hold a balance above 10% and no special school was projecting to hold a balance below 1%.  There was no change in the number of schools projecting balances above 10% and there was no change in the number of schools projecting balances below 1% based on their 2021-22 budget plans.

There was one school projecting a deficit balance at the end 2022-23.  The authority would be working with this school to review their budget plan and agree a licensed deficit plan where appropriate and it would also put plans in place to regularly review the financial position of the school going forward.

Agreed that the balances held by schools at the end of 2021-22 and the RAG ratings of the projected balances for 2022-23.

Members to receive an update on the Scheme of Financing.

The Forum received a report for information which provided Members with the updates to be made to the Scheme for the Financing of Schools.

Local authorities were required by the Department for Education (DfE) to publish schemes of financing setting out the financial relationship between them and the schools they maintain.

The Fair Funding Scheme provided guidance to all maintained schools on the process to follow when undertaking the outsourcing of services with consequent TUPE transfer of staff.

That Schools Forum members noted the updates and changes to the Scheme for the Financing of Schools outlined in the report and Appendix 1 to the report.

A number of maintained schools had recently outsourced services and transferred staff.  Appendix 2 to the report provided further clarity on the requirements that schools would need to follow to proceed with outsourcing.

Schools Forum Members had raised a question regarding the technicalities in changing provider once an original contract had come to an end.  The LA response had now been added into section 11.12, as outlined in Appendix 2 to the report.

                           Agreed that the contents of the report be noted.

Members to note the reforms to the National Funding Formula – Government Consultation Response.

The Forum received a report for information which provided Members with an outline of the government response to the consultation feedback on “Completing the reforms to the National Funding Formula”.

The government had held a consultation on proposed changes to school funding and moving to a “direct” schools national funding formula (NFF).  The document entitled “Completing the reforms to the National Funding Formula” had been consulted on between 6th July 2021 to 30th September 2021.

The schools NFF was a single, national formula that allocated the core funding for all mainstream primary and secondary schools, both maintained and academies, in England.  Since its introduction, the NFF had been a ‘local authority-level’ formula.

                  The proposals consulted on were:

•        The aim should be that all NFF funding factors – pupil-led and school-led are included in the formula and that all funding distributed by the NFF should be allocated to schools on the basis of that formula, without further adjustments by LAs

•        To amend the premises factors within the NFF in advance of the introduction of the direct formula, so that allocations were based on a consistent, objective assessment of current need

•        To reform the approach to funding schools experiencing significant growth in pupil numbers

•        From 2023-24, to progressively tighten rules governing LAs’ flexibility over schools funding, so that schools’ allocations through local formulae moved closer to the NFF distribution

•        To reform the approach to funding for central school services delivered by LAs, to support LAs to deliver their remaining responsibilities and services and ensuring a greater voice for schools in receipt of these services.

•        An open question on the potential value of moving to a consistent funding year across maintained schools and academies.

The Government had confirmed the following: -

The approach for 2023-24 would be to require all LAs to use each of the NFF factors, and no others, in their local formulae, and moving each LA’s local formula factor values (at least) 10% closer to the NFF values.

         LA’s to use the NFF definition for the English as an Additional Language (EAL) factor.

         The approach to transition in subsequent years would be dependent upon the impact in the first year.

         The Government also seemed to suggest it would set a requirement that LA’s cannot overshoot the NFF value.  Sandwell already had several of its factor values which were above the NFF factor values and two NFF factors which it did not currently use; IDACI Band F and the mobility / pupils starting school outside of normal entry dates (as set out in Appendix 1 /to the report).

         The full details and requirements for LAs would be provided alongside the July 2022 NFF announcement in the schools funding operational guide.  This provision would be included in the relevant School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations.  The government had also stated it would maintain the protections within the funding system; e.g. the minimum funding guarantee to minimise disruption for schools.

         The Government had intended to move  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35/22

Members to note the contents of the report and nominate representatives for a working group to respond to the consultation.

The Forum received a report which informed Members of the Government’s proposal on the detail of the implementation of the direct National Funding Formula (NFF).

In 2021 the government had held their first-stage consultation on the direct NFF for schools.  Fair school funding for all: completing our reforms to the National Funding Formula.

The Government had confirmed that they would begin moving towards the direct NFF from the 2023-24 funding year.

This consultation had been issued on 7th June 2022 and closes on 9th September 2022.  It set out proposals for the continuation of two current elements of funding for special educational needs (SEN), and for alternative provision, but considered how these would need to change in operation as the government moved to the direct NFF: first, continuing to have some flexibility within the funding system to move funding to local authorities’ high needs allocations and second, the determination of notional budgets for mainstream schools’ SEN and disability support, within their direct NFF allocations.

The consultation also set out proposals for how funding for schools experiencing significant growth in pupil numbers, or falling rolls, could operate under a direct NFF.

As the government moves to the direct NFF, it set out how the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) would operate.  The MFG protected schools against excessive year-on-year changes in its per-pupil funding.  In the current system, the "funding floor” in the NFF mirrored the operation of the minimum funding guarantee in the local formulae.  When the direct NFF was introduced, the MFG and the NFF funding floor would merge into one single funding protection mechanism, which would continue to be referred to as the MFG.

Lastly, the government set out proposals on how the funding cycle should operate in the direct NFF; that was, the regular timescales for gathering data to calculate funding allocations, and then confirming these allocations to schools.  The government was considering how it could support schools’ budget planning, by giving them early indication of future funding levels.

The government had stated that whilst this consultation set out a detailed picture of how it proposed that the direct NFF would work in practice.  They “were not setting a definitive final end date at which the direct NFF would be implemented, as it would be important to continue to be guided by the impact of the initial transition towards the direct NFF, before deciding on the further pace of change.”

The government had, however, tried to provide a sense of the likely timescales to inform schools’ and local authorities’ planning, and had also set out that it expected to have moved to the direct NFF within the next five years; which was by the 2027-28 funding year.  The government further went on to say, “We hope that we may be able to move to the direct NFF sooner than this – but not later”.

Further consultations are also planned as follows:

•        The additional reforms required to high needs funding arrangements which would be based on the outcomes and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36/22

Members to note the DSG Allocation update 2022/23.

The Forum received a report for information which detailed the latest Dedicated schools Grant (DSG) allocation for 2022/23.

The table, below, set out the authority’s latest DSG allocations for 2022/23.  Two updates had been issued since December 2021.  The first update was in March 2022 and the second in May 2022.

The 2022/23 initial Indicative DSG allocation which was presented to Schools Forum in March 2022 had changed as follows:

The schools block allocation of £308.463m included £157.827m for academies recoupment which was retained by the ESFA and funding paid direct to academies / Trusts; the remaining amount of £150.636m was for Sandwell maintained schools.

The mainstream schools had been allocated additional funding within the Schools Block of £9.053m via the schools supplementary grant (SSG).

There was also an increase to the High Needs Block (HNB) of £2.301m given as Special supplementary grant.

The December 2022 allocation detailed a HNB recoupment for place deductions amounting to £3.130m.  The May 2022 HNB recoupment was now set at £3.412m, which was an increase of £0.282m for ESFA directly funded places. 

The changes in place deduction were broken down as follows:

•        An increase of 12 Pre-16 Focus provision places funded at £6,000 amounting to £0.042m in Mainstream Academies from September 2022.

•        A decrease of 2 Post 16 SEN places funded at £4,000 amounting to (£0.008m) in Mainstream Academies from September 2022.

•        A decrease of 12 Pre–16 Focus provision places funded at £10,000 amounting to (£0.070m) in Mainstream Academies from September 2022.

•        An increase of 36 places for Pre-16 SEN places in Special free schools amounting to £0.210m.

•        An increase of 27 places from September 2021 in Further Education and Independent Learning Providers £0.108m.

Response to Special Schools and PRU

The Forum received a report which was tabled, for information, in relation to the information regarding a query which had been raised by Special Schools and PRUs with reference to finance.

In March 2022, Special Schools and PRUs had submitted a paper for discussion at Schools Forum around their budgets.  This paper was submitted too late for discussion and it was agreed that it would be forwarded to the meeting in June 2021.

The Special Schools and PRUs felt that the consultation on the HNB held in December 2021 omitted a proposal to increase top up funding to Special schools and PRUs only by 2%.

The Special Schools and PRU had not had an increase in top-up funding for 5 years despite the HNB receiving significant increases. They felt that contextual information around their funding was not presented.

The Special Schools and PRUs would like to be consulted on how the Special School Supplementary Grant would be distributed and receive a 4% increase.

Local Authority Response

The proposals within the SEND and HNB consultation in December 2021 had been formulated through initial steering group meetings with Primary, Secondary and Special School / PRU / FP schools.  These proposals were then further refined and ratified by a steering group from Schools Forum.  The Schools Forum steering group consisted of Head Teachers from a mainstream Secondary School, a mainstream Primary School, a mainstream Secondary School with Focus Provision, a Special School and 2 PRUS.  The steering group considered the inclusion of a proposal whereby the top-up funding for pupils in Special Schools and PRUs only would increase.  This proposal was voted on by the group and had been discounted from the final consultation.

Although the total funding provided by the HNB had risen over the last 5 years, the additional funding had been used on supporting the increasing numbers of C/YP with EHC Plans, increasing specialist places and increasing access to SEN Support.  Surplus monies would be used to further support the increase in Specialist Places going forward and prevent the HNB from going into deficit.

An independent review of HNB funding in May 2022 had used a benchmarking exercise to measure Special School funding in Sandwell against similar special schools nationally.  It found that Sandwell special schools had a comparatively high spend per head compared to national.  This suggested that Special Schools still received adequate funding to provide for their students.

Moving forward the LA would await the results of the DfE SEND and AP Green paper consultation before reviewing the banding structure for Special School top-up funding.  The SEND and AP Green Paper was consulting on introducing a new national framework of banding and price tariffs for funding, matched to levels of need and types of education provision set out in the new national standards.  This would impact on all additional funding received by all Special Schools including academies and independent schools.

Schools supplementary grant was awarded to Special Schools and PRUS through an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38/22