Agenda item

Report by the Director of Education and Skills.

The report provides initial information relating to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budget for 2020/21.

The Committee is asked to consider the information as set out in the report and consider the implications of the National Funding Formulae on the local funding formula for mainstream schools as well as the impact of funding on spending pressures for schools and on high needs expenditure and make comment to the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills.

40.1   The Committee considered a report by the Executive Director People Services and Director of Education and Skills. The newly appointed Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, Nigel Jupp, introduced himself and advised that he looked forward to working in partnership with the Committee. The School Funding report was introduced by Andy Thorne, Strategic Finance Business Partner, who took the Committee through a presentation (copy appended to the signed minutes). The following key points were highlighted:

• Nationally, school funding is set to rise by £2.6bn in 2020/21 which includes £700m for high needs and £66m for early years.
• According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, spending per pupil has fallen by 8% over the last ten years. The recent three-year funding announcement represents a 7.4% increase in spending per pupil, which means in real terms per pupil spending levels in 2022/23 will be at about the same level as 2009/10.
• Minimum per pupil funding levels are set to rise from £3,500 to £3,750 for Primary pupils, and from £4,800 to £5,000 for Secondary pupils in 2020/21. The primary rate will increase further to £4,000 per pupil in 2021/22.
• For the first time since the National Funding Formula (NFF) was introduced in 2018/19, West Sussex will receive its full allocation next year as the government has removed the funding cap.
• Excluding pupil growth, which will be announced in December, West Sussex will receive an increase of £24.5m on its Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) schools block next year. However despite this increase the county’s unit of funding rates still remain in the bottom 10 in the country.
• 80, mostly secondary and larger primary, schools in the county will benefit from the uplift in the per pupil funding rates, however very few primary schools with less than 250 pupils will attract any of this additional funding.
• Schools have yet to move to the ‘hard’ NFF when they will receive their budget allocations directly from the Department for Education. In the meantime, local authorities will still have some discretion over their local schools funding formula.
• One area of the local formula which needs to be consulted on is the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG), which can be set at a rate of between 0.5% and 1.84%. This funding will help protect the smaller primary schools but will require a transfer of funds from the larger schools, who are gaining more through the formula changes, to support them.
• The local authority is able to transfer up to 0.5% of their Schools block funding into other DSG blocks with the agreement of the Schools Forum. If there is a desire to transfer over the 0.5%, or Schools Forum do not agree to any proposed transfer up to 0.5%, West Sussex are able to make a disapplication request to the Secretary of State.
• For the DSG high needs block, West Sussex will receive an increase of £7.5m (9.34%) in 2020/21. This additional funding will cover existing funding pressures, however, a request to transfer funds from the DSG schools block to the high needs block will still be required in 2020/21 in order to pay for the expected continued growth in Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) numbers next year. 
• The Schools Funding consultation would run from 23 October to 13 November, with the outcome being discussed at Schools Forum on 28^th November.

40.2   The Committee welcomed two witnesses, Jules White, Head at Tanbridge House Secondary School, and Thomas Moore, Head at Bury Primary School. The witnesses provided the Committee with information on their funding pressures in the context of a small rural school, and a larger secondary school. The Committee heard the following:

·       There was disparity for a small school against a larger school with the funding increase, which was a concern for those with small pupil numbers.

·       Staff at Bury school were not seeking incremental pay rises in view of the funding pressures.

·       The Head at Tanbridge House advised the funding announcement was no great step for West Sussex schools and was predicated on no additional or unexpected costs. He added that salaries equated to 85% of school budgets. High needs and special education areas were under duress.

·       The Head at Tanbridge House provided some comparative funding figures for different counties against West Sussex which highlighted the disparity in funding levels.

·       The Director of Education and Skills advised the Committee that small schools were encouraged to consider new ways of working to ease financial pressures.

·       The Committee heard that some schools relied heavily on grants and parental contributions.

40.3   The Committee were grateful to the witnesses for sharing their experiences, the following points were raised in discussion:

·       Members of the Committee asked if it was possible to add into the school funding survey whether and how teachers were funding their own classroom resources to further highlight the issue of the funding gap. The Director of Education and Skills advised this could be built into the annual survey. 

·       The Committee asked the Head teacher witnesses and Director of Education and Skills how they planned to make savings in order to reach teaching salaries, and what would need to be cut to enable this.

·       The Head at Tanbridge House advised that IT, books, equipment and, most profoundly, staffing were the key areas, with higher numbers of children in classes and fewer Teaching Assistants (TAs) to balance the books.

·       The Head at Bury school advised there wasn’t anything to cut but staff, and that schools needed pupils to cover costs. The Director of Education and Skills advised TAs were often first to go and that the service was seeing a move to mix-age classes, fewer administration staff, Heads teaching and schools often unable to accept EHCP children due to limited budgets.

40.4   The Chairman thanked the witnesses for their contributions, and considered in agreement with the Vice-Chairman and wider membership what the Committee could do to give support to the issue of school funding.

40.5   Resolved – that the Committee:

1.   Notes the information as set out in the report and consider the implications of the NFF on the local funding formula for mainstream schools as well as the impact of funding on spending pressures for schools and on high needs expenditure.

2.   In broad terms, welcomes the funding increase however asks the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills to write to the Secretary of State for Education and local MPs to make representations on school funding, and the need for transformation.

3.   Requests the BPG consider when next to look at school funding when planning future work programmes.