Public Document Pack
GATESHEAD SCHOOLS FORUM AGENDA
Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 10.00 am in the Blaydon Room - Civic Centre
From the Chief Executive, Sheena Ramsey Item Business
1 Apologies
2 Minutes (Pages 3 - 6)
The Forum is asked to approve as a correct record the minutes of the last meeting held on 18 July 2019
3 New Growth Fund (Pages 7 - 16)
Carole Smith, Corporate Resources
4 Schools Block Funding Formula Comparisons (Pages 17 - 22)
Carole Smith, Corporate Resources
5 Dedicated Schools Grant - Quarter 1 (Pages 23 - 24)
Claire Reid, Corporate Resources
6 Schools Consultations (Pages 25 - 42)
Carole Smith, Corporate Resources
7 Trade Union Facilities Time (Pages 43 - 46)
Carole Smith, Corporate Resources
8 School Funding Announcements (Pages 47 - 50)
Carole Smith, Corporate Resources
9 Date and Time of Next Meeting
Thursday 7 November at 2pm at Gateshead Civic Centre
Contact: Rosalyn Patterson - email: [email protected] Tel: 0191 433 2088, Date: Thursday 10 October 2019 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2
GATESHEAD METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
GATESHEAD SCHOOLS FORUM MEETING
Thursday, 18 July 2019
PRESENT: Ken Childs (Chair) Special Schools Governor Denise Kilner Nursery Sector Representative Sarah Diggle Primary Governors Steve Haigh Secondary Academy Headteachers Peter Largue Trade Union Representative Mustafaa Malik Primary Headteachers Ethel Mills PVI Sector Representative Andrew Ramanandi Primary Headteachers Michelle Richards Special School Headteachers Domenic Volpe Maintained Secondary Headteachers Christina Jones Pupil Referral Unit Councillor Sheila Gallagher Elected Member Chris Richardson GASH
IN ATTENDANCE: Carole Smith, Claire Reid, Rosalyn Patterson and Cllr Gary Haley
APOLOGIES: Chris Toon, Julie Goodfellow and Allan Symons
1 APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Allan Symons and Chris Toon.
2 MINUTES
Following the last meeting it was agreed that further information would be brought back to September’s meeting around centrally retained duties.
RESOLVED - The minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2019 were agreed as a correct record.
3 USE OF DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT RESERVES
Schools Forum received a report seeking approval for the use of DSG reserves to fund deficit budgets in relation to the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) and Heworth Grange School. It was noted that the deficit budget was from before the schools transferred to academy status.
Forum was concerned that the DSG is for the benefit of all schools and all pupils and therefore should not be used to fund deficit budgets. The point was also made that
Page 3 this does not appear allowable under current guidance (paragraph 6.2 - The treatment of surplus and deficit balances when maintained schools become Academies Guidance March 2018).
It was acknowledged that previously deficit budgets have been funded from reserves, for example for Thomas Hepburn School, however it was suggested that this was under previous guidance.
Forum agreed that any deficit should be picked up by either the Multi Academy Trust of the Local Authority.
The Forum voted on whether to approve the use of DSG reserves.
RESOLVED - Forum unanimously voted to reject the proposal to write off the two deficit balances to contingency.
4 SCHOOLS BALANCES
Forum received a report on the school balances for 2018/19. It was reported that at the end of the financial year the maintained schools balances increased by £1m, this was due to receiving £800,000 capital and FSM funding (£440 per pupil) from 2017/18 as a result of increased FSM numbers.
It was noted that overall the number of schools in deficit has increased and the value of the deficits has slightly decreased.
It was questioned whether the figures reflect that those struggling schools are the schools which do not receive Pupil Premium. It was noted that it seems to be those schools where something has happened, for example senior leadership sickness and paying for replacements, which seems to be an increasing scenario in Gateshead. The point was made that those schools not in receipt of Pupil Premium have increasing pressure on management due to not having the budget for Teaching Assistants.
RESOLVED - (i) Schools Forum noted the value of maintained school balances and the in-year increase of balances by £1m to the year-end value of £6.527m
(ii) Schools Forum noted the number of schools with a deficit balance at the end of 2018/19
(iii) Schools Forum noted the decrease in the value of deficit balances at the end of 2018/19.
5 USE OF GROWTH FUND
A report was presented informing the Forum of the successful application for Growth Funding by Ravensworth Terrace Primary School for the sum of £35,000.
Page 4
It was noted that this application will happen year on year until the school is full as the new build school increases to a two form entry.
RESOLVED - That the Schools Forum noted that funding has been awarded to Ravensworth Terrace Primary School for growth in pupil numbers.
6 DSG OUTTURN
Schools Forum received a report on the outturn position of DSG for 2018/19. The outturn position was £100.405m against the budget of £99.421m, resulting in an overspend of £984,000.
The budget increased during the year following the additional £0.420m High Needs Block grant. The overspend was adjusted in year by £644,000 Early Years settlement update for 2017/18 following updated census information. This resulted in a call on reserves of £340,000.
It was reported that there is a carry forward of £816,000.
RESOLVED - That Schools Forum noted the contents of the report.
7 EARLY YEARS INCLUSION FUND
Forum received a report on the Early Years Funding modelling for 2019/20. It was noted that the formula has not changed, however supplement rates have changed for quality and deprivation.
The point was made that not all Headteachers will be fully aware that two-year-old funding will not be paid until the term after they turn three. It was agreed that an email will be sent to Headteachers to confirm.
RESOLVED - That the Schools Forum noted the updated EYSFF factor values and note the two-year-old funding rate.
8 DIRECTED REVISIONS TO THE SCHEME FOR FINANCING SCHOOLS
A report was presented to Forum on the changes to the Schools and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2018 (no. 2). The updated regulations bring in line alternative provision pupils to claw back funding on the same basis as permanently excluded pupils.
RESOLVED - That Schools Forum noted the changes to the Schools and Early Years Finance (England) 2018 (No. 2) Regulations, and that mainstream schools will have funding recouped for all children leaving a mainstream school and then attending
Page 5 alternative provision which is paid for by the local authority from April 2019.
9 NEW GROWTH FUND
A report was presented on the draft updated Growth Fund Procedure for those pupils leaving Thomas Hepburn if current secondary schools take on all additional pupils.
A number of concerns around the proposed procedure were raised prior to the meeting, it was agreed that a copy of this would be circulated to the Forum. This included issues around those schools which have admitted over their PANs historically, and also whether Gateshead is a net importer or exporter of pupils.
RESOLVED - That Schools Forum agreed to defer this report and receive a revised paper for September’s meeting which would take into account the suggestions made.
10 DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
26 September 2019, 10am, Gateshead Civic Centre.
Page 6 Agenda Item 3
REPORT TO SCHOOLS FORUM
26 September 2019
Item 3
TITLE OF REPORT: New Growth Funding Procedure
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to bring to Schools Forum a further draft of the updated Growth Fund Procedure. This report builds on a report brought to Schools Forum in July 2019.
Background
The Growth Fund is a portion of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Schools Block which enables local authorities (LAs) to support schools with significant in-year pupil growth which is not otherwise immediately recognised by the lagged funding system. Maintained schools have a seven month lag and academies a full year.
Prior to the National Funding Formula (NFF) the Department for Education (DfE) did not provide discrete growth fund allocations to LA’s; Gateshead set aside a portion of the overall Schools Block funding to meet the calculated requirement for growth. This has meant that the Growth Fund was able to increase/decrease to meet the required demand - subject to the overall affordability of the Schools Block. Since the NFF (17/18 and 18/19) the DfE have provided growth allocations equal to LA’s spend in the previous year.
For 2019/20 the DfE has provided Growth Fund allocations on a formulaic basis for the first time. This means that the level of growth funding Gateshead receives is directly linked to the increased number of pupils one year to the next on a middle super output area. Only increases in pupil numbers are counted.
Following the closure of Thomas Hepburn and the holding of funding removed from Thomas Hepburn’s budget for the displaced pupils in the Growth Fund, the fund is much increased for 2019/20. Due to this change in circumstance the criteria and process needed to allocate the fund require updating to reflect this situation.
The following table shows the destination of Thomas Hepburn previous year 8 and year 9 pupils.
Page 7
Destination of Thomas Hepburn Students as at 12/08/2019
Year 8 Year 9
56 on roll 83 on roll Total Hebburn Comprehensive School 11 8 19 Emmanuel College 16 20 36 Lord Lawson 3 14 17 Cardinal Hume 1 Nil 1 Heworth Grange 2 4 6 Joseph Swan 11 15 26
Thorp 1 Nil 1
Whickham 1 Nil 1 Kingsmeadow 1 9 10 Futures Plus UTC Nil 6 6 Out of area 5 4 9 EHCP/special school 1 2 3 Permanent exclusion 2 1 3
Total 55 83 138
There will be additional demands on the Growth fund as most secondary schools in Gateshead may admit additional year 7 pupils.
Additional information on pupil numbers including children in Gateshead schools not living in the borough
The table below shows historic admissions for Gateshead secondary schools
Historic Secondary School Admissions numbers for Year 7. Offer day 1st Oct School PAN March census Cardinal Hume 225 2016 235 10 over 248 23 over after appeals 2017 244 19 over 260 35 over after appeals 2018 250 25 over 257 32 over after appeals 2019 256 31 over 261 36 over after appeals Heworth Grange 210 2016 210 211 1 over 2017 210 209 2018 210 214 4 over 2019 210 206 Jul-19 Joseph Swan 210 2016 203 203 2017 224 218 8 over no appeals heard 2018 223 13 over 240 30 over no appeals heard Grace Academy 2019 230 20 over 240 30 over after appeals Kingsmeadow 180 2016 130 130 2017 160 167 Page 8
2018 177 179 2019 181 1 over 190 10 over no appeals heard Lord Lawson 254 2016 261 7 over 260 6 over after appeals 2017 274 20 over 279 25 over after appeals 2018 255 1 over 247 2019 254 250 Jul-19 St Thomas More 235 2016 250 15 over 254 19 over after appeals 2017 250 15 over 249 14 over after appeals 2018 242 7 over 252 17 over after appeals 2019 250 15 over 251 16 over after appeals Thomas Hepburn 150 2016 116 89 2017 88 56 2018 58 Nil 2019 Nil Nil Thorp 240 2016 151 146 2017 170 166 2018 228 222 2019 212 221 Jul-19 Whickham 266 2016 308 42 over 285 19 over no appeals heard 2017 288 22 over 268 2 over no appeals heard 2018 294 28 over 266 2019 288 22 over 284 18 over no appeals heard
Below is a table of number of pupils’ secondary schools have agreed to take in comparison to their agreed pupil admission number, and the number of children May 19 census that come from out of borough (OOB). A full breakdown shown in appendix 2.
Agreed Pupil School Number PAN OOB for Emmanuel College 240 240 20/20 Cardinal Hume 260 225 106 Heworth Grange 240 210 36 Grace Academy (Joseph Swan) 240 210 19 Lord Lawson 260 254 394 St Thomas More 250 235 274 Whickham 288 266 177 Thorp 240 240 46 Kingsmeadow 190 180 33
Comments from the previous report on the wording of the Growth Fund have been reviewed and some wording amended.
Page 9
Proposal
It is proposed that Schools Forum members review and agree the updated draft Growth Fund procedure (appendix 1 - areas that are updated are highlighted in yellow) and the information in appendix 2. If agreed the Growth Fund procedure will be submitted to the DfE for approval.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Schools Forum Reviews the attached updated draft Growth Fund procedure Notes the information in appendix 2 If agreed the Growth Fund procedure will be submitted to the DfE for approval.
For the following reasons:
To comply with Schools and Early Years (England) Regulations 2018 (No.2) To ensure the updated procedure is fit for purpose
Contact: Carole Smith Ext. 2747
Page 10
Appendix 1
GROWTH FUND PROCEDURE
INTRODUCTION
GROWTH FUND INTRODUCTION
From 2019/20 the Dedicated Schools Grant contains a formula for growth funding in schools by comparing October 2017 pupil numbers and October 2018 pupil numbers at middle supper output level to calculate the growth in pupil numbers. Local authorities are able to either use some or all of this growth funding or add additional funding from the schools block to create a Growth Fund to support schools which are required to provide extra places in order to meet basic need within the authority. This can include pre-opening and reorganisation costs. The growth fund may not be used to support schools in financial difficulty. As the growth fund is within the schools block it is only available for pupils aged 5-15 in mainstream schools. It cannot be used to support growth for under- 5 or post-16 pupils.
The growth fund will be ring-fenced so that it is only used for the purposes of supporting growth in pupil numbers to meet basic need for the benefit of both mainstream maintained schools and Academies. Any funds remaining at the end of the financial year can be rolled forward into the following year’s growth fund.
Any growth or expansion due to parental preference will not be eligible to be funded from the growth fund, i.e. if pupils could be accommodated in another primary school within a 2 mile radius of the growing primary school, secondary schools to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
GATESHEAD CRITERIA FOR ACCESSING GROWTH FUNDING
A growing school is defined as:-
A school where there is a planned increase in Planned Admission Number (PAN), and which has not had the full set of admission in-take. For example, an increase in PAN in September 2019 may still be having an impact in 2025/26.
A school where the capacity has been increased, with planned expenditure on buildings, which has been agreed by the Local Authority.
A school where an increase in pupil numbers has been agreed with, and specified by, the Local Authority as a consequence of a delay in the opening of a new school or implementation of a capital programme that would have increased the size of a neighbouring school.
A school/academy carries out a formal consultation at either the request of or supported by the Local Authority
A school that admits pupils above their PAN to accommodate pupil numbers within the Local Authority at the request or supported by the Local Authority
Schools that admit pupils in year groups other than reception or year 7 because of a closing school at the request of or supported by the Local Authority Page 11
PREDICTED OR ACTUAL GROWTH
Where the predicted numbers for a Primary School (excluding nursery classes) for the following September show an increase of more than 16 pupils or 10% of their total roll, due to basic need, that requires the running of an additional class, schools may be able to access additional funding.
Where the predicted numbers for a Secondary School for the following September show an increase of more than 40 pupils or 8% of their total roll (excluding Post-16), due to basic need, that may require the running of an additional class or higher than anticipated staffing levels, they may be able to access additional funding.
Where a school takes pupils not in reception or year 7 due to a closing school at the request of or supported by the Local Authority there will be no lower limit on this number.
Where a school takes over their PAN in reception or year 7, historic patterns of year 7 intake will be taken into account as well as children from other LA’s.
Children moving as a result in parental preference or moving into the area will not be funded. If these children start school on a non standard date, (Start of the autumn term for all schools and start of spring term for reception age children), as these children will be captured in a schools mobility data.
FUNDING FOR GROWTH
When applying for growth funding, schools will be required to provide evidence that an additional class or tutor group would be required to meet increasing numbers. (Views will also be sought from appropriate Education Gateshead officers).
Allocations will be calculated per additional pupil using the applicable AWPU rates for Primary, Secondary KS3 and Secondary KS4 pupils.
Amounts payable to maintained schools will be pro-rata for the 7/12th period September to March. Amounts payable to academies will be for the full academic year as academy budgets run from September to August.
An upper threshold will also be applied so no primary school can receive more than £35,000 and no Secondary schools more than £70,000 for the 7/12th period September to March and no Primary academy can receive more than £60,000 and no Secondary academy more than £120,000 for the full academic year.
For school receiving funding for taking pupils from closing schools not in reception or year 7 funding will be based on the average per pupil funding of that school. Maintained schools will receive 7/12th funding and academies for the full academic year.
Initial growth funding allocations would be based on admissions data and demographic forecasts to aid schools with budget setting (May/June). Where there is uncertainty or disagreement around the predicted pupil numbers, funding will not be allocated until receipt of the actual October census data.
The LA will undertake a mid-year review, based on the October Census, but no additional funding would be allocated to schools where funding had already been agreed unless actual growth was at such a level that significant additional costs had been incurred. In instances where schools had not qualified for additional funding based on the original estimates, additional funding would only be Page 12
allocated if the school could demonstrate additional costs had been incurred to support the additional pupils.
In instances where actual growth was at lower levels than original estimates schools will not be subject to claw-back on any funding already allocated.
ADDITIONAL CLASSES AND/OR FORMS OF ENTRY
In instances where the LA has specifically requested a school to expand to take an additional class to create capacity, but the numbers do not meet the thresholds above, schools may be able to claim additional funding. The funding will only be payable if the school is unable to reorganise its class teaching structure to meet this request. In Primary schools this may result in mixed year teaching, where numbers dictate and this is seen as the most prudent option for the organisation of the school as a whole.
These instances will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and funding for additional classes or forms of entry will be funded at the following rates:
Primary £48,000 Secondary £85,000
Amounts payable to maintained schools will be pro-rata for the 7/12th period September to March (£28,000 and £49,583 respectively). Amounts payable to academies will be for the full academic year, as academy budgets run from September to August. Once agreed these amounts are guaranteed irrespective of actual pupil numbers to allow schools to staff appropriately.
AMENDMENTS
It is possible to amend the criteria for allocating growth funding during the year where this becomes necessary, however the revised criteria must be submitted to the EFA for compliance checking and must also be approved by Schools Forum before the revised criteria can be implemented. Appendix A – Examples
Primary School A - Growth Funding Example
October Census 2018 195 pupils Predicted September 2019 Numbers (Based on Admissions data and Demographic Forecasts) 216 pupils Increase 21 pupils Increase % 10.8% Growth Funding Allocation per Pupil £2,817.22 Estimated Additional Funding (7/12ths- Sept 19 to Mar 20) £34,5101.95, therefore would be funded at £35,000
Primary Academy B - Growth Funding Example
October Census 2018 225 pupils September 2019 Numbers (Based on Admissions data and Demographic Forecasts) 251 pupils Increase 26 pupils Increase % 11.5% Growth Funding Allocation per Pupil Page 13
£2,817.22 Additional Funding (Full academic year) £73,247.72, therefore will fund at £70,000.
Primary School C - Growth Funding Example – Additional Reception Class
School is requested to operate an additional Reception class from September 2019. School would be guaranteed funding of £48,000 for a full academic year, for 7/12ths September 19 to March 20 = £28,000* Maintained Schools funding from April 20 would be based on October 19 census so no additional growth funding will be allocated for this period. *An academy in the same situation would be guaranteed funding for the full academic year = £48,000.
Secondary Academy D - Growth Funding Example October Census 2014 1,374 pupils
October 2018 Numbers (Based on Admissions data and Demographer’s Forecasts) 1,415 pupils Increase 41 pupils Increase % 3% Increase in KS3 31 Increase in KS 4 10 Growth Funding Allocation per KS3 Pupil £3,841.81 = £119,096.11 Growth Funding Allocation per KS4 Pupil £4,385.81 = £43,858.10 Additional Funding (Full academic year) £162,954.21 Capped to overall limit £120,000
Secondary Academy E - Growth Funding Example – Additional FE
School is requested to operate an additional Year 7 FE from September 2019. School would be guaranteed funding of £85,000 for the academic year September 2019 to August 2020.
Page 14
Appendix 2 OOB Placements in Secondary Schools
Pupils and Post Codes taken from May 2019 School Census
AREA North Northumb South Protected School Name NC Year Gateshead Durham Newcastle Sunderland Total Grand Total Tyneside erland Tyneside Address
7 233 12 2 2 7 23 1 257
8 240 11 2 13 2 255 Cardinal Hume Catholic 9 221 10 1 1 5 17 238 School 10 234 8 2 1 1 2 14 1 249 11 192 11 1 1 1 7 21 213 12 115 9 1 3 13 128 13 94 1 1 1 2 5 99 Cardinal Hume Catholic 1329 62 8 1 1 9 25 106 4 1439 School Total 7 208 1 4 1 6 214 8 211 0 211 9 200 1 4 5 205 Heworth Grange School 10 197 1 6 3 10 207 11 182 1 1 3 1 6 188 12 42 1 2 3 45 13 45 1 1 4 6 51 Heworth Grange School 1085 5 5 21 5 36 1121 Total 7 233 1 1 2 1 236 8 216 1 1 217 9 212 1 1 2 214 Joseph Swan Academy 10 209 1 1 3 5 214 11 127 1 3 4 2 133 12 53 2 1 3 56 13 44 1 1 2 46 Joseph Swan Academy 1094 3 5 1 6 4 19 3 1116 Total 7 166 2 3 3 1 3 12 178 8 170 3 5 3 11 181 Kingsmeadow School 9 143 1 1 1 2 5 148 10 128 1 1 2 130 11 117 2 1 3 120 Kingsmeadow School 724 9 9 4 2 1 8 33 757 Total
7 206 15 27 42 248
8 186 52 38 90 276 9 195 35 1 1 25 62 257 Lord Lawson of Beamish 10 172 31 1 29 61 233 Academy 11 165 37 1 39 77 242 12 62 14 1 1 18 34 96 13 62 11 15 26 88 14 7 2 2 9 Lord Lawson of Beamish 1055 195 3 3 193 394 1449 Academy Total 7 210 10 5 1 28 44 254 8 210 11 23 34 244 9 206 9 3 34 1 47 253 St Thomas More School 10 193 14 2 33 49 242 11 188 12 27 1 1 41 229 12 117 8 1 21 30 147 13 114 10 19 29 143 St Thomas More School 1238 74 11 1 185 1 2 274 1512 Total
8 22 0 22 Thomas Hepburn 9 7 0 7 Community Academy 10 1 0 1 11 69 1 1 70 Thomas Hepburn Community Academy 99 1 1 100 Total 7 213 2 3 1 6 219 8 156 6 3 9 165 9 143 1 1 3 5 148 Thorp Academy 10 142 5 3 1 9 1 152 11 140 7 1 4 12 152 12 61 1 2 3 64 13 71 1 1 2 73 Thorp Academy Total 926 23 9 14 46 1 973
7 239 32 32 271
WHICKHAM 8 235 31 1 32 267 COMPREHENSIVE 9 238 29 2 31 269 SCHOOL 10 238 31 1 1 1 34 272 11 206 24 1 1 26 232 12 104 14 14 118 13 104 8 8 112 WHICKHAM COMPREHENSIVE 1364 169 5 1 1 1 177 1541 SCHOOL Total Grand Total 8914 541 55 6 204 42 238 1086 8 10008 Page 15
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4 REPORT TO SCHOOLS FORUM
26 September 2019
Item 4
TITLE OF REPORT: Analysis of Local Authorities Schools Block Funding Formula
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to bring to Schools Forum information produced by the Department for Education (DfE) on the values and funding factors used by all other local authorities (LAs) in England, and a summary of work carried out on benchmarking Gateshead’s mainstream school’s formula against national data and regional and statistical neighbours for 2019/20 and the national funding formula (NFF).
Background
In July 2019 the DfE published a report which provided an overview of the 2019/20 funding factors and values used by all LAs to fund mainstream schools. They also published the factor values and percentages of total funding for all LAs.
Below is the link to the documents.
Benchmarking of funding factors
There are 152 Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in England, and therefore 152 different mainstream funding formulas. For regional neighbours there are a total of 13 LAs and there are 11 LAs in the statistical neighbour group.
Not all factors are mandatory and not all LAs have used all factors. Where this differs to the above LAs the number in the group will be stated.
The data shows that many LA’s are moving their local formula towards the nation funding formula (NFF).
Basic per pupil entitlement
The primary basic entitlement for Gateshead is £2,817. This is in the most commonly used bracket of £2,750 to £3,000 and ranked 60 nationally, 5 against our regional neighbours and 4 against our statistical neighbours. Gateshead’s current rate is higher than the current rate of the NFF of £2,747.
The Key Stage 3 (KS3) basic entitlement for Gateshead is £3,830. This again is in the most commonly used bracket of £3,750 to £4,000 and ranked 136 nationally, joint 6 against of our regional neighbours and 10 against our statistical neighbours. Gateshead’s current rate is lower than the current rate of the NFF of £3,863.
Page 17
The KS4 basic entitlement for Gateshead is £4,386. This again this is in the most commonly used bracket of £4,250 to £4,500 and ranked 131 nationally, joint 6 against our regional neighbours and 7 against our statistical neighbours. Gateshead’s current rate is at the current NFF rate.
Gateshead allocated 71.9% of the total funding to the basic entitlement. Most LAs were in the bracket of 75% to 80% with the average being 74.9%. The amount allocated under the NFF was 73.1%.
Summary
The primary basic entitlement is mid-table nationally; however when compared against regional and statistical neighbours it is higher than both averages, and higher than the current NFF factor value.
KS3 basic entitlement is in the lower quartile of all three comparison groups and is lower than the average amount for regional and statistical neighbours, and lower than that proposed in the NFF.
KS4 basic entitlement is in the lower half of national funding values and is lower than the average amount for regional and statistical neighbour values, but it is than the same as the current NFF factor value.
Deprivation
Current Free School Meals
Most regional and statistical neighbours use the NFF factor value of £440 with only 2 higher than this.
Most regional and statistical neighbours use the NFF factor value of £440 with only 3 higher than this.
Ever6FSM
Gateshead has a factor value of £678, which is above the NFF of £540. This is the highest factor value compared to regional neighbours and second highest against statistical neighbours.
Gateshead’s factor value of £1,058 which is above the NFF of £785 is the highest factor value compared to regional neighbours and second highest against statistical neighbours.
Income Deprivation Affecting Children Indices (IDACI)
147 LA’s used IDACI as a deprivation measure and all regional and statistical neighbours used IDACI to allocate deprivation funding. However not all LA’s used all funding brackets.
Page 18
Summary
IDACI is too complex to fully analyse easily. The overall deprivation funding percentage that Gateshead allocates is higher than the national average and lower than average for regional neighbours and slightly higher than statistical neighbours.
Looked After Children (LAC)
Only 15 LAs out of 152 chose to use this factor. The most commonly used funding bracket is £1,000 to £1,250 with Gateshead’s factor value is £500. The NFF does not use a LAC factor.
None of Gateshead’s regional and statistical neighbours retained the LAC factor.
Prior Attainment
151 LAs used the primary low prior attainment factor. The most commonly used funding bracket is £1,000 to £1,250. Gateshead’s value is £716. The NFF value is £1,022.
For secondary low prior attainment 150 LAs used this factor. The most commonly used bracket is £1,500 to £1,750. Gateshead’s value is £1,069. The NFF value is £1,550.
72% of LA’s allocated between 5% and 10% of funding. The average was 6.7% regional was 8% with Gateshead allocating 5.2%.
Compared to regional and statistical neighbours, Gateshead’s low prior attainment factors are below average, however there has been significant movement towards the NFF factor nationally, by comparators and by Gateshead.
Summary
Prior attainment funding is relatively low compared to all groups, with primary sector being particularly low, however amounts have increased towards the values set in the NFF.
English as an additional language (EAL)
148 LA’s used the EAL factor. For primary the most commonly used funding bracket for primary EAL is £500 to £750 Gateshead allocates the NFF value of £515.
For secondary schools the most commonly used bracket is £1,500 to £1,750. There has been significant movement towards the NNF with Gateshead increasing the allocation to the NFF rate of £1,385.
Summary
Gateshead funding for EAL children is now at the NFF level for primary and secondary schools.
Page 19
Mobility
Only 64 out of 152 LAs use the mobility factor. For primary the funding range was from £0 to £2,981. For secondary the range was £14 to £18,826. The most commonly used bracket for primary was £500 to £750 and secondary mobility funding £750 to £1,000. In Gateshead the allocation is £2,000.
Summary
Gateshead has a high mobility factor compared to all groups. Less than half of all LAs in all groups used this factor, and the DfE will fund the amount allocated via the 2019/20 planned spend.
Overall Pupil-Led Factors
It is the requirement of all LAs to channel at least 80% of mainstream school funding via pupil-led factors. The average for all LAs IS 90.52% the highest % of LAs are in the bracket 90% to 92%. Gateshead allocated 87.99% of funding to pupil-led factors.
Lump Sum
All LAs chose to have a Primary lump sum in their formula, 2 LA’s did not have a secondary lump sum. The range for both primary and secondary schools was £75,000 to the maximum amount of £175,000.
The most commonly used range for primary lump sum is £110,000 to £120,000 in line with the NFF value.
Gateshead has differentiated lump sums for 2019/20 of £112,222 for primary schools and £123,333 for secondary schools and is moving towards the NNF value of £110,000.
Gateshead allocated 7.87% of funding to the lump sum compared to the national average of £7%.
Minimum Funding Levels
The minimum funding levels were set at £3,500 for primary and £4,800 for secondary schools. 121 LA’s choose to use the minimum funding levels and 92 LA’s that used this factor used the NNF rates including Gateshead.
Primary: Secondary Ratio
The national primary: secondary ratio for 2019/20 was 1:1.297 Gateshead’s ratio is 1:1.26 for 2019/20. The calculation is undertaken before the application of the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) calculation all schools can gain 0.5 % of funding on a per pupil basis before capping and scaling. Gateshead’s MFG was 0.21%
The average for regional and statistical neighbours ration is 1:1.29.
Page 20
Funding
The national average Primary Unit of Funding (PUF) is £4,099 Gateshead’s is £4,074 and was the fourth lowest against regional neighbours and fifth against statistical neighbours. Gateshead’s PUF is lower than the regional averages and slightly higher than the statistical neighbours.
Gateshead’s Secondary Unit of Funding (SUF) is second lowest against regional and statistical neighbours. Gateshead’s SUF is lower than both regional averages and statistical neighbours.
Proposal
It is proposed that Schools Forum notes the contents of the report and the comparisons of Gateshead’s funding against the national, regional and statistical neighbours and NFF.
Recommendations
It is recommended that School Forum notes the contents of the report.
For the following reasons:
To provide information to Schools Forum on the comparison of Gateshead’s mainstream Schools Fair Funding Formula, regional and statistical neighbours and the NFF.
CONTACT: Carole Smith ext. 2747
Page 21
This page is intentionally left blank
Agenda Item 5
REPORT TO SCHOOLS FORUM
26 September 2019
TITLE OF REPORT: Dedicated Schools Grant Revenue Outturn 2019/20
Purpose of the Report
To inform Schools Forum of the quarter 1 projected outturn position of Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for 2019/20.
Background
The DSG is made up of four funding blocks: 1. The Early Years block for 2 and 3 & 4-year-old funding; 2. Mainstream Schools block which includes some centrally held and de-delegated funding; 3. High Needs block (HNB) which includes special schools, alternative provision and top- ups to maintained schools and academies; and 4. Central Services Schools block which includes central functions carried out on behalf of schools, for example, licences, schools’ admissions, pension costs.
Schools Forum receives details of DSG revenue monitoring throughout the financial year, with the format presented based on the expenditure headings of the Section 251 statement.
The quarter 1 report for 2019/20 is included at Appendix 1, which shows a projected outturn of £103.097m against the budget of £102.020m; an over spend of £1.077m. The review of HNB spending is ongoing in an attempt to reduce it as much as possible to year end, however it is expected that the DSG reserve will be required to be meet the final overspend. This requires approval from Schools Forum.
As reported at the meeting of Schools Forum on 18 July 2019, the balance of the DSG reserve at 31 March 2019 was £0.816m. Agreeing to use the reserve to fund the overspend will result in the reserve being in a deficit position of £0.261m at 31 March 2020.
During quarter 2 the Council was notified of the July DSG adjustments in relation to: Early Years funding based on updated census information; the import / export adjustment relating to the cross-border movement of children with SEN; and the recoupment in relation to an academy conversion. The impact of these will be reported as part of the quarter 2 revenue monitoring report.
Proposal
That Schools Forum notes the content of the report and, in principle, approves the projected overspend be met from DSG reserves in 2019/20, subject to the final outturn.
Recommendations
That Schools Forum: - notes the contents of the report; and approves, in principle, the use of DSG reserves to fund the projected overspend in 2019/20.
CONTACT: Claire Reid ext 3613 Page 23
Appendix 1 2019/20 DSG Revenue Monitoring Quarter 1
Total DSG Area Approved Outturn Variance Comments/Notes Budget £'000 £'000 £'000 Maintained Schools Budget Share 73,408 73,408 0 DEDELEGATION Contingencies 0 1 1 Funded from DSG Reserves Behaviour support services 270 270 0
Support to UPEG and bilingual learners 235 235 0
Staff costs 180 101 -79 Maternity Credits & TU facilitator costs HIGH NEEDS BUDGET Special schools, maintained schools & High Needs Budget (including Special academies top-ups +£0.63m, Schools, PRU and Additional Support 16,182 17,772 1,590 independent sector +£0.56m, Top-ups) alternative provision +£0.27m, staffing & other provision +£0.1m EARLY YEARS BUDGET -£0.163m 3/4-year olds, £0.035m 2 2,3 and 4-year-old funding to PVI's 9,237 9,027 -210 year-olds, -£0.116m other: staffing, DAF, IF CENTRAL PROVISION WITHIN SCHOOLS BUDGET Contribution to combined budgets 421 416 -5 School admissions 142 142 0 Servicing of schools forums 116 111 -5 Termination of employment costs 528 313 -215 Premature Retirement costs Pupil growth/ Infant class sizes 780 780 0 CLA/ MPA Licences top sliced from Other Items 165 165 0 DSG for all school licences Statutory/ Regulatory duties 356 356 0 ESG topslice agreed by Schools Forum TOTAL DSG 102,020 103,097 1,077 Appropriated from DSG reserve
£'000 Comments/Notes Reserves balance at 31 March 2019 -816 Appropriation from reserve: in-year deficit 1,077 Projected reserve balance at 31 March 2020 (surplus)/ deficit 261
Page 24
Agenda Item 6
REPORT TO SCHOOLS FORUM
26 September 2019
Item 6
TITLE OF REPORT: School Consultations
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to make Schools Forum aware of several Department for Education (DfE) Consultations that are currently open and interested parties are able to respond to them.
Local Authority Transparency Consultation
The consultation timeframe is 17 July 2019 to 30 September 2019.
The purpose of the consultation is to outline the current financial transparency arrangements for maintained schools, and to consider possible changes. In doing so, this consultation also outlines the current arrangements for academy trusts. While both academy trusts and maintained schools are now funded through DfE specific grants – the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for maintained schools and General Annual Grant (GAG) for academy trusts – current financial transparency arrangements are different and provide different levels of assurance. Current arrangements for academy trusts therefore provide a useful comparison against which to consider maintained schools. The DfE believe that the current transparency measures used in academies are generally stronger than those in the maintained school sector, which is why this consultation will focus on using or adapting existing academy measures to help change and improve maintained schools’ financial transparency and financial health.
Below is a link to the consultation documents and appendix 1 is a Financial Transparency Comparison Table
Appendix 2 contains Gateshead response to the consultation.
https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/financial-transparency-of-local-authority- mainta/
Extending the Academies Risk Protection Arrangement (RPA) to Local Authority Maintained Schools (LAMS)
The consultation timeframe is 9 September 2019 to 4 November 2019.
The Department is considering extending the risk protection arrangement (RPA) currently operational for academy trusts (ATs) to the local authority maintained school (LAMS) sector, so that sector can benefit from financial savings such as ATs have attained through membership of the RPA. This could have implications for the LA’s insurance service that are currently being considered.
Page 25
https://consult.education.gov.uk/risk-protection-arrangement-team/extending-the-academies- risk-protection-arrangemen/
Implementing mandatory minimum per pupil funding levels
The consultation timeframe is 10 September 2019 to 22 October 2019
The Department for Education is consulting on how to implement the minimum per pupil funding levels in the National Funding Formula (NFF) on a mandatory basis in 5 to 16 school funding. This means that every local authority will have to use the factor in their local funding formulae from 2020-21, which we intend to reflect in the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations following this consultation.
The government recently announced that funding for schools and high needs will rise to over £52bn by 2022-23. This investment will benefit every school. It will ensure that per pupil funding for all schools can rise at least in line with inflation next year; and faster than inflation for most. The majority of schools – those attracting their core NFF allocations – will benefit from a 4% increase to the basic per pupil factors and the funding the formula provides for additional needs. The DfE will remove the cap on gains for schools not yet attracting their full gains under the NFF, so that funding flows through in full. The investment the pledge to ensure every secondary school receives at least £5,000 per pupil, and every primary school will be allocated at least £3,750 – for 2021/22 this will rise to £4,000.
The government has also confirmed that it plans to implement a ‘hard’ NFF as soon as possible, whereby schools receive what they attract through the national formula, rather than through different local authority funding formulae. The DfE will work closely with local authorities and other stakeholders in making this transition, including to carefully consider the issues they would need to resolve under a hard formula, such as where funding relies on local intelligence or is tied to local duties. Further detail will be announced in due course, but the DfE will be mindful not to introduce any significant change without adequate lead-in times.
https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/mandatory-minimum-per-pupil-funding- levels-in-5-16/
The LA will be making responses to all three consultations. If Schools Forum would like to respond to any of these consultations, there are 3 options
Agree to use the LA response Agree for the LA response to be e-mailed to Schools Forum for their input Hold a short special Schools Forum meeting to discuss and agree the consultation responses
Proposal
Schools Forum considers the information in this report and decide if a response to any these consultations is to be made on behalf of Schools Forum.
Page 26
Recommendations
It is recommended that Schools Forum consider the information in this report and decide if Schools Forum would like a response to be made in their name and how this will be facilitated.
For the following reasons:
To ensure that Schools Forum has the option to respond to the three consultations To provide Schools Forum with the opportunity to express their opinions
Contact: Carole Smith Ext. 2747
Page 27
Appendix 1
Financial Transparency Comparison Table
Local Authority Maintained Schools Academies
ESFA = ACCOUNTABLE BODY
Academies Financial Handbook (AFH) and conditions of individual LOCAL AUTHORITY = ACCOUNTABLE BODY funding agreements apply.
The prime responsibility sits with the board of trustees, but the Departmental frameworks, guidance and conditions of Secretary of State (SoS) acts as charitable regulator and this regulation Accountable body funding agreements apply at LA level. LAs are then is communicated through the ESFA’s Academies Financial Handbook responsible for setting local frameworks for their schools. and conditions of individual funding agreements apply. Required to maintain schemes for financing schools
(School Standards and Framework Act 1998). Page 28 Page The funding agreements set out the overall relationship with the SoS and provide for the AFH to detail financial management and governance the requirements. The AFH is effectively an appendix to the FA.
All academy trusts must produce an annual report and accounts in a LA submits annual accounts at LA level. These do not format prescribed by the ESFA in its annual Accounts Direction and contain any details relating to individual schools. based on accounting standards which reflect their status as companies and charitable trusts. Annual Accounts Maintained schools, or LAs on their behalf, make annual Consistent Financial Reporting returns to DfE giving details Academy trusts are also required to submit an annual accounts return, of their income, expenditure and balances. which the ESFA will consolidate into an annual Sector Annual Report and Accounts (SARA).
LA Chief Financial Officers submit signed annual The accounting officer must complete and sign a statement on assurance statement and notes to accounts. They gain Annual assurance regularity, propriety and compliance each year and submit this to ESFA assurance from schools via the schools financial value returns to with the audited accounts. The accounting officer must also standard (SFVS) described below. Department demonstrate how the trust has secured value for money via the governance statement in the audited accounts
The ESFA requires all LAs to return a signed CFO statement to confirm the number of schools that have complied with the SFVS.
For the 2017/18 cycle LAs had until 31/5/2018 to return Academy trusts are required to submit Financial Management and their SFVS assurance statements to the ESFA. Government Self-assessment (FMGS) in their first year followed by annual Accounting Officer value for money statements from there on. From 2019 to 2020 the SFVS is being updated to match the academy school resource management self- Tailored version of the revised self-assessment was developed this assessment tool. year for academies. Self-assessment The new version of the SFVS is split into two sections:
A checklist, which asks questions in six areas of The academy version of the school resource management self- resource management to provide assurance that assessment tool went live in September 2018 and is available here the school is managing its resources effectively. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-resource- A dashboard, which shows how a school's data management-self-assessment-tool compares to thresholds on a range of statistics Page 29 Page that have been identified as indicators for good resource management and outcomes.
Our guidance states that the scheme of finance “should contain a provision requiring each school to submit a plan to the authority by a stipulated date showing its intentions for expenditure in the current financial year and the assumptions underpinning the budget plan. The provision
may require the submission of revised plans throughout
the year.”
Academies must set a balanced budget and must produce monthly Budget Setting and It also says the school’s formal annual budget plan must management accounts which must be shared with the chair of trustees Monitoring be approved by the governing body or a committee of the each month and other trustees at least six times a year governing body.
LAs may insert in their schemes a requirement that provisional budget plans be submitted by a certain date; but these should be differentiated from the formal budget plan which should not be required before 1 May. Page 30 Page
LAs submit annual forecasts of their planned spend on children’s services including schools. These are published in a statistical release. It is a requirement for academy trusts to submit three-year financial Our guidance for local authority schemes for financing forecasts. The ESFA, using financial data supplied by trusts, is also schools states the LA “may require schools to submit a generating wider improvements and delivering value for money for the Forecasts financial forecast covering each year of a multi-year taxpayer by working with trusts to support effective school resource period.” We ask LAs to consider and explain how forecasts management, three-year financial forecasting and developing buying will be used and to ensure requirements are “proportionate hubs and national deals for all schools. to need.”
We don’t specify the timelines for forecasts or collect information on what is requested.
Our guidance states that the scheme of finance “should contain a provision requiring each school to submit a plan to the authority by a stipulated date showing its intentions for expenditure in the current financial year and the assumptions underpinning the budget plan. The provision
may require the submission of revised plans throughout
the year.”
Academies must set a balanced budget and must produce monthly Budget Setting and It also says the school’s formal annual budget plan must management accounts which must be shared with the chair of trustees Monitoring be approved by the governing body or a committee of the each month and other trustees at least six times a year governing body.
LAs may insert in their schemes a requirement that provisional budget plans be submitted by a certain date; but these should be differentiated from the formal budget plan which should not be required before 1 May. Page 31 Page LAs submit annual forecasts of their planned spend on children’s services including schools. These are published in a statistical release. It is a requirement for academy trusts to submit three-year financial Our guidance for local authority schemes for financing forecasts. The ESFA, using financial data supplied by trusts, is also schools states the LA “may require schools to submit a generating wider improvements and delivering value for money for the Forecasts financial forecast covering each year of a multi-year taxpayer by working with trusts to support effective school resource period.” We ask LAs to consider and explain how forecasts management, three-year financial forecasting and developing buying will be used and to ensure requirements are “proportionate hubs and national deals for all schools. to need.”
We don’t specify the timelines for forecasts or collect information on what is requested.
Internal Audit
The LA will determine an annual risk-based audit programme by reviewing the SFVS. Therefore, not all Audit maintained schools will be subject to internal audit each year. The period within which all schools would be audited All academy trusts must have an audit committee or equivalent. at least once will vary between LAs.
Academies are required to have an annual independent external audit External Audit of their annual report and accounts.
Maintained schools are allowed but not required to procure independent external audits. Maintained schools are included in the remit of the LA statutory external audit but will not be individually audited. Page 32 Page
Both academies and maintained schools have a duty to prevent and detect fraud
Both academies and maintained schools are required to have whistleblowing policies and procedures in place
The trust must notify ESFA, as soon as possible, of any instances of The LA are required to report instances of fraud (no fraud, theft and/or irregularity exceeding £5,000 individually, or £5,000 minimum threshold) to the ESFA on an annual basis via cumulatively in any academy financial year. They are required to Fraud prevention and the assurance statement. They provide value and provide full details of the event(s) with dates, the financial value of the reporting description of fraud and action taken to address the issue: loss, measures taken by the trust to prevent recurrence, whether the they do not report amounts recovered Amounts reported matter was referred to the police (and if not why), whether insurance or in the last 5 years are: the RPA have offset any loss. Amounts reported in the last 5 years are:
ESFA may conduct or commission its own investigation into actual or Fraud definition – included in footnote in the CFO potential fraud, theft or irregularity in any academy trust, and involve assurance statement. other authorities, including the police. ESFA will publish reports about its investigations and about financial management and governance “We define fraud as an intentional false representation, reviews at academy trusts.
Page 33 Page including failure to declare information or abuse of position ESFA also publishes guidance on reducing fraud in academy trusts. that is carried out to make gain, cause loss or expose Trusts are required to refer to this and to the findings from ESFA’s another to the risk of loss. We include cases where investigation reports, as part of its risk management approach. management authorised action has been taken, including, but not limited to, disciplinary action, civil action or criminal Proven fraud since 2012 totals £4.9m. This involved theft of money by a prosecution. Further information about fraud can be found member of staff over a substantial period. in Cabinet Office guidance” Last year the value of reported fraud committed against academy trusts was £778,894 and the amount recovered by academy trusts was £429,681
Trusts must report all RPTs to ESFA in advance of the transaction taking place, using ESFA’s on-line form. This requirement applies to The 2019-20 version of SFVS contains specific questions transactions made on or after 1 April 2019. relating to RPTs: Reporting of Related Question 4: “Are business interests of governing body From April 2019, all academy trusts have to seek approval from the Party Transactions members and staff properly registered and taken into ESFA for RPT payments of more than £20,000 and all transactions account so as to avoid conflicts of interest?” (RPTs) below £20,000 will be declared. These changes will focus on high-risk Question 24: “Are there adequate arrangements in place to transactions, but will avoid unnecessary administrative burden to the manage conflicts of interest or any related party sector whilst strengthening accountability and transparency. transactions?” Any transactions with related parties, over a de minimis level, must be “at cost” (i.e. must not involve any element of profit).
Page 34 Page Academy trusts are required to make an anonymised disclosure of any staff earning over £60,000 in their annual report and accounts. It should be noted that this is a charity accounting requirement rather than LAs are required to list the salaries of all senior officer something the ESFA has imposed. posts by job title in their statutory accounts. They are also Effective from the 2018/19 Accounts Return, academy trusts will be Reporting on high required to list the total number of salaries in pay bands required to report the total salary expenditure, broken down into pay from £50k. teachers, leadership, and administration and support. For individuals Maintained schools are not required to publish salary whose full-time equivalent emoluments exceed £100,000, the job title levels and role description should be disclosed per £10,000 bands; and whether the role is predominantly curriculum and education leadership, (e.g. improving pupil attainment and examination performance), or school business management leadership, (e.g. HR and facilities management functions).
Academies differ in three key ways: 1. trustees have additional duties under the Companies Act, which reflect their parallel status as company directors, including acting in the In all types of maintained school the governing body is public interest, exercising independent judgement and avoiding responsible for selecting, appointing and holding the head conflicts of interest. teacher to account, and for overseeing the financial
performance of the school and making sure its money is 2. trusts must appoint a senior executive as accounting officer who is well spent. personally responsible for the proper stewardship of public funds,
including the securing of propriety, regularity and value for money. This Individual maintained schools have autonomy over the use is personal responsibility which cannot be delegated. These of their budgets and their governing bodies are responsible arrangements ensure that there is a chain of accountability for public Governance and and accountable in law and in practice for all of their money. This chain runs from parliament to the Permanent Secretary as personal liability schools’ major decisions. Principal Accounting Officer, through the Chief Executive and Accounting Officer of the Education and Skills Funding Agency to each It is the overall governing body that in all cases remains individual accounting officer of an academy trust. accountable in law and to Ofsted for the exercise of its functions. 3. Academies have a greater degree of flexibility in determining the make-up of boards (governed by their Articles of Association) and the
Page 35 Page prime responsibility for determining the suitability of individuals joining academy trusts rests with trusts themselves.
The Department’s Governor’s Handbook applies to both academies and maintained schools and sets out in detail the responsibilities and required high standards, behaviours and skills for all members of governing bodies.
Where an academy breaches its terms and conditions the ESFA may Local authorities can: issue a Financial Notice to Improve (FNtI).
The ESFA can require a trust to dismiss an individual. Intervention and If the trust refuses to act on such requirements the ESFA ultimately - Issue a notice of concern which may place restrictions, powers to remove reserves the right to withdraw the academy’s funding agreement. limitations and prohibitions on the governing body. governing bodies Because academy trusts are a charity, they are subject to intervention
by the Charity Commission in certain circumstances - Require the governing body to appoint additional
governors. Number of FNtIs issued (Total): 79 Number of live FNtIs (Total): 42
- Suspend the delegated budget of a school. Number of FNtIs issued (since October 2013 – last 5 years): 76 Number of live FNtIs (since October 2013 – last 5 years): 42 - Suspend a governing body and appoint an Interim Executive Board
The DfE does not collect data on how often LAs use these powers.
Both academies and LA schools operate within the public sector and are required to follow public sector procurement rules Procurement concerning free and full competition.
Page 36 Page
Appendix 2
Submitted to Financial Transparency of local authority maintained schools and academy trusts
Submitted on 2019-09-16 11:42:15
Introduction
1 What is your name?
Name:
Carole Smith
2 What is your email address?
Email: [email protected]
3 Response Type
Are you responding as an individual or as part of an organisation?:
Part of an organisation
What is your role?:
Local authority finance officer
What is the name of your organisation?:
Gateshead Council
What type of organisation is this?:
Local Authority
4 Which local authority are you responding from?
Which local authority are you responding from?:
Gateshead
5 Are you happy to be contacted directly about your response?
Yes
Confidentiality
6 Do you wish for your response to remain confidential?
No
Proposal 1: Making public where local authorities are failing to comply with deadlines for completing assurance returns and financial collections
7 We propose to publish the names of local authorities on GOV.UK who fail to comply in any financial year with more than two deadlines from the following collections:1. School Financial Value Standard (SFVS)2. Dedicated Schools Grant CFO assurance statement3.
Consistent Financial Reporting4. Section 251 Budget5. Section 251 Outturn
Neither agree or disagree Page 37
Further comments:
Disagree if the timescales remain the same, agree if the is longer to compile the information, as sometimes additional time is required due to limited resource in LA's.
Proposal 2a: Strengthening DSG annual assurance returns: Collecting the number of schools with suspended budgets and notices of financial concern through existing DSG assurance statement
8 We propose to collect the number of schools with suspended budgets and notices of financial concern through the existing DSG assurance statement signed by the local authority CFO at the end of the financial year.
Agree
Further comments:
Proposal 2b: Strengthening DSG annual assurance returns: Adding a new section to the DSG assurance statement that captures the amounts that LAs have recovered from investigating fraud
9 We propose to add a new section to the DSG assurance statement that captures the amounts that LAs have recovered from investigating fraud.
Agree
Further comments:
Proposal 3: Requiring maintained schools to provide local authorities with 3 year budget forecasts
10 We propose a directed revision of the schemes for financing schools to make it a requirement for maintained schools to provide local authorities with three year budget forecasts
Agree
Further comments:
All Gateshead schools apart from Special schools have 3 year budget plans. The issue for special schools is that their funding is very volatile and difficult to project.
The other issue is that 3 year budgets are not kept on our Finance system. Currently the information is in an Excel workbook and it would take considerable time to set up look ups and reports to either populate a DfE workbook or an online return. We would also need to have look ups written in our finance system to ensure that data and be downloaded in the required format for the current year.
This will be an additional burden for both our special schools and the LA
Proposals 4 (a,b,c): Strengthening Related Party Transaction arrangements in maintained schools:
Proposal 4a: : Making schools append a list of RPTs to their response to the new question in the Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) about their arrangements for managing RPTs, so that the information goes to the local authority and can be passed on to the department
11 We propose to make schools append a list of RPTs to their response to the new question in the SFVS about their arrangements for managing RPTs. In addition, we would insert additional columns into the CFO Assurance Statement, to request the number of RPTs and value for each to be disclosed.
Agree
Further comments:
Schools will require additional training to provide this information. Will the data need to be collected in a standard format, and will LA's be expected to check the accuracy of the data. This would be an additional burden for schools to Page 38
collect the data and populate the SFVS, and an additional burden on the LA if this was to be part of an annual check, or added to the audit plan.
Proposal 4b: Making a directed revision to the statutory Scheme for Financing Schools to require schools to report all RPTs, or RPTs above a certain threshold, directly to the local authority
12 We propose to amend the scheme for financing schools to require schools to report all RPTs, or RPTs above a certain threshold, directly to the local authority.
Agree
Further comments:
Any additional reporting requirements will be an additional burden on both schools and the LA. Will schools be required to provide a list of related parties to the LA so that it can be checked against transactions? How often would RPT need to be reviewed/checked? If this is part of the year end procedures then this is a particularly busy time of year and will add to the workload of both the LA and schools
Proposal 4c: Making a directed revision to the statutory Scheme for Financing Schools to require schools to seek permission from the local authority to enter into RPTs above a certain amount.
13 We propose to amend schemes to require schools to seek permission from the authority to enter RPTs above a threshold.
Agree
Further comments:
We agree with this additional requirement, however this will be an additional burden for both schools and the LA. How will the LA know if schools have not complied? What action will LA's be required to take for non-compliance. If this is via audit then this will be an additional burden for Audit also.
Proposal 5: Requiring maintained schools to be subject to internal autdit at least every 3 years
14 We propose to make a directed revision to the scheme guidance to require that every maintained school be subject to internal audit at least every 3 years.
Agree
Further comments:
This will require additional audit hours to be funded to bring in a 3-year audit programme and will be an additional burden for both the LA and schools
Proposals 6 (a,b,c): Strengthening arrangements to help schools that are in financial difficulty:
Proposal 6a: Requiring schools to submit a recovery plan to their maintaining authority when their deficit rises above 5%
15 We propose to make a directed revision to the scheme for financing schools requiring schools to submit a recovery plan to their maintaining authority when their deficit rises above 5%.
Agree
Further comments:
This will be an additional burden and will require additional data collection and reporting for both schools and LA. Recovery plans for some schools will be over a longer period of time due to the nature of the schools and the need to maintain minimum standards and staffing levels for teaching and learning and safeguarding. Page 39
Proposal 6b: Collecting information on the number of recovery plans in each LA through DSG annual assurance returns from the CFO
16 We propose to collect information on the number of recovery plans in each LA through the DSG annual assurance return from the CFO.
Agree
Further comments:
Agree with this proposal as long as it is done in conjunction with the LA and does not require additional information from the LA.
Proposal 6c: Writing to local authorities each year when the end-year data is published, specifying the threshold of deficit that would trigger contact with the Department
17 We propose to formalise the approach to working with LAs and include a request for high level action plans from some LAs. This will be achieved by: a) sharing published data on the school balances in each LA, b) using this data and evidence-based reuests from LAs to ensure support is focused where its needed and c) requesting high level action plans from LAs in which the number or proportion of school revenue deficits over 5% is above a certain level
Agree
Further comments:
It would be useful to have an idea of the information that will be required and the format so that we can work with our schools before the implementation to ensure the correct data is collected in the correct format.
Proposal 7: Increasing transparency in the reporting of high pay for school staff
18 We propose that all LA maintained schools should be required to publish annually on their websites the number of individuals (if any) earning over £100K in £10K bandings.
Agree
Further comments:
Agree, however the DfE should provide a standard format and give plenty of notice of when where and the format of the data will need to be published in.
Proposal 8: Increasing transparency in reporting maintained school income and expenditure
19 We propose that all LA maintained schools should be required to publish annually on their websites their latest Consistent Financial Reporting statement of income, expenditure and balances.
Disagree
Further comments:
This will be an additional burden on schools and LA. It could also lead to parents inappropriately challenging schools and governors on items of spend. This information is already available to the public on the DfE website for any interested party - would a link to the DfE's website be sufficient? If not then this would again be an additional burden and careful thought would need to be given to ensure that no individual employee data was published e.g. the salaries of easily identifiable individuals e.g. head teacher or caretaker.
New financial burdens on local authorities
20 Please select all proposals that you believe will place a new financial burden on local authorities from the list below: Proposal 2a, Proposal 3, Proposal 4a, Proposal 4b, ProposalPage 4c, 40 Proposal 5, Proposal 6a, Proposal 6b, Proposal 6c
Please specify the details and quantification of costs for all proposals you believe will place a new financial burden on local authorities :
2a - additional data collection and verification. The cost is based on2 hours of additional finance time at grade K qualified accountant plus on costs (£44.37 *2 = £88.74)
3 - This will require more resource from the school budget support team, which will result in schools that currently do not buy a three year plan. This will also impact on the team in terms of resource requirement.
4a - Schools currently have to provide and declare on their websites on a yearly basis an up to date declaration of pecuniary interests. The current format would have to be altered to include a value column. It is difficult to quantify the costs to the LA as it would depend on how many, if any transactions there are.
4b - Additional resource would be needed in 2 areas - revision of the scheme and consultation all schools and Schools Forum, and publishing on our website. An estimate of the additional requirement 12 hours grade M with on costs and overheads (12 * £50.99 = £611.88)
4c - 70 maintained schools - estimate of 37 hours per year per school at grade I plus grade J/K and M to review.
Grade I = 37*70= 2590hours * £37.56 = £97,280.04
Grade J/K = 70 hours * £44.39 = £3,107.30
Grade M = 70 hours * £50.99 = £3,569.30
Total =£103,983.64
5 - Clarification needs to be given as to whether the proposal is for full school audit i.e. visiting the school or if self assessment audits are sufficient. If there is a requirement for full audits it would be an estimated additional 560 audit hours at 2019/20 costs would be 560 hours * grade I £37.56 = £21,033.06
6a - This can be carried out at the same time as 4b - included in that cost
6b - 5 hours Grade M = 37 hours * £50.99 = £254.95
6c - This is difficult to project as the proposal is vague
Grade J/K 37 hours * £44.39 = £1,642.37
Grade M 37 hours * £50.99 = £1,886.63
Total £3,259.06
7 - This will be a cost to schools and to school budget support if it is required to be monitored
Additional costs for schools
21 Please select from the list below all proposals that you believe would result in additional costs for schools.
Proposal 3, Proposal 4c, Proposal 6a
Please specify in as much detail as possible what costs you believe would arise and provide figures.:
3- We currently do not require special schools to produce a 3 year budget forecast as their funding is very volatile and difficult to predict. we have 5 maintained special schools and this would be at a cost of £900 per school totalling £4,500
4c - additional cost per school = £103,983.64/70 = £1,485.05 per school.
6a This would depend on the format and the frequency of reporting, and could impact on leadership and back office time. As there is no "typical" structure for school leadership and office functions this is very difficult to cost Page 41
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
REPORT TO SCHOOLS FORUM
26 September 2019
Item 7
TITLE OF REPORT: Trade Union Facility Time
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to share the attached joint letter (Appendix 1) from the National Union of Head Teachers (NAHT), the National Education Union and the Association of with School and College Leaders (ASCL) with Schools Forum.
Background
Gateshead’s mainstream maintained schools have always de-delegated Trade Union Facility Time since the requirement was introduced in 2013/14. Together with Gateshead’s academies, nursery school and special schools the majority of schools in Gateshead buy back this service.
The request for de-delegation will be brought to Schools Forum later in the calendar year for Schools Forum approval.
Proposal
Schools Forum considers the information in the attached letter to help inform their decision later in the calendar year.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Schools Forum read the attached letter for their information.
For the following reasons:
To provide Schools Forum with relevant information.
Contact: Carole Smith Ext. 2747
Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank Page 45 Page 46 Agenda Item 8
REPORT TO SCHOOLS FORUM
26 September 2019
Item 8
TITLE OF REPORT: School Funding Announcements
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to provide Schools Forum an update on the recent school funding announcements and an estimate of impact for Gateshead schools in 2020/21.
Background
As part of the Spending review the Prime Minister announced that minimum funding levels for mainstream schools would increase. The Chancellor announced that “the government will ensure that per pupil funding for all schools can rise in line with inflation (1.84%)” and for schools already on their National Funding Formula allocations, the per pupil values in the formula will increase by 4% in cash terms”.
However, because the National Funding Formula (NFF) – which calculates preliminary (known as notional) funding allocations to schools – is still in a transitional stage (and is planned to remain so into 2020-21), local authorities are not currently required to pass these minimum amounts on to schools.
The DfE also intends to implement mandatory minimum per pupil allocations. This new mechanism is currently out for consultation, but it is anticipated that it will become mandatory. Prior to several details being announced over the last weeks (such as the time scales), the Prime Minister’s campaign team estimated this policy would cost an additional £306 million for primary schools, and the publication Schools Week, estimated an additional £49 million for secondary schools. However, there are other estimates that differ significantly from the Prime Ministers estimates.
The following information has been released: -
The minimum per pupil funding for mainstream to increase to: o Primary schools current £3,500, 20/21 £3,750 21/22 £4,000 o Secondary schools current £4,800, 20/21 £5,000, KS3 £4,800, KS4 £5,300 All mainstream national funding formula pupil related funding factors to increase by 4% An increase for all schools of 1.84% in line with inflation The announcements will benefit schools in affluent areas Schools in deprived areas will not benefit as much by the announcements £700m has been announced for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. No details have been released on the allocation method for the additional funding The teachers pay and teachers pension grants will still be outside of the DSG There is no gains cap – at LA level Mobility funding to the LA will continue to be on a formula basis, but the rates have not been announced Page 47 The threshold for the mobility factor is reducing from 10% to 6%, therefore if a school 200 pupils and has 7% of the pupils classed as mobile the school will receive funding for 2 pupils. For 20/21 the MFG will be between +0.5% and +1.84% LA’s can still transfer 0.5% of the school’s block to another block HNB will increase by 8% per head for each 2 to 18 population through the funding floor, and will be based on 2019/20 funding allocations which includes the additional £420K announced December 2018 Above the minimum increase the formula will allow LA’s to receive increases of up to 17% There has been no announcements on early years funding.
The below estimates use the NFF 2019/20 notional funding allocations.
Proportion of schools below the proposed per pupil minimum funding levels Primary schools Secondary schools Sout h East 32% 51% South West 28% 56% East of England 24% 48% East Midlands 26% 44% North West 17% 30% Yorkshire and the Humber 17% 27% West Midlands 16% 38% North East 16% 30% London 2% 6% England 21% 37%
It suggests there are 3,399 primary schools in England below £3,750 per pupil (21% of primary schools) and 1,146 secondary schools in England below £5,000 per pupil (37% of secondary schools) in 2019-20.
On a regional level, the South East and South West regions have the highest proportion of primary and secondary schools which stand to benefit from this policy in 2020-21. London has by far the lowest proportion of schools impacted.
Schools Block Funding values for 2019/20
LA Number LA Name Primary Unit of Secondary Unit of Funding (PUF) Funding (SUF) 841 Darlington £3,893 £5,120 840 Durham £4,227 £5,253 390 Gateshead £4,074 £5,066 805 Hartlepool £4,267 £5,392 806 Middlesbrough £4,279 £5,757 391 Newcastle upon Tyne £4,124 £5,442 392 North Tyneside £3,860 £5,305 929 Northumberland £4,088 £5,042 Page 48 807 Redcar and Cleveland £4,088 £5,212 393 South Tyneside £4,126 £5,258 808 Stockton-on-Tees £3,991 £5,161 394 Sunderland £4,103 £5,234
There is currently a two-stage process for allocating Schools Block funding in England.
1.The Department for Education uses the National Funding Formula (NFF) to produce notional allocations for individual schools. Each allocation is then checked against the minimum funding levels and increased if necessary. Following further adjustments, the final notional allocations are aggregated and passed to the school’s local authority.
2. The local authority then decides how that money is shared out between schools, using its own funding formula.
The House of Commons Library provided a look up tool to show which schools in which constituency may benefit from the minimum funding level based on 2019/20 allocations.
School Name Amount per Pupil Primary Schools Kells Lane Primary School £3,546 Emmaville Primary School £3,569 St Mary’s and St Thomas Aquinas Catholic Primary School £3,608 Whickham Parochial Church of England School £3,612 Oakfield Junior School £3,619 Fellside Community Primary School £3,636 St Peters Roman Catholic VA School £3,676 St Agnes Catholic Primary School £3,689 St Mary’s Roman Catholic Primary School £3,714 Clover Hill Community Primary School £3,722 Oakfield Infants School £3,740
Secondary Schools St. Thomas More Catholic School £4,800 Whickham School £4,800 Thorp Academy £4,897 Cardinal Hume £4,929
Further details are expected in October together with a number of workshops run by the DfE to help LA’s plan for school funding for 20/21 and 21/22 and provide estimates for schools.
Modelling
In order to try and estimate what Gateshead’s Schools Block DSG could be NNF pupil related factor values were inflated by 4%, Rates remained static, for Mobility funding last years allocation via the proforma has been used. This will be an under estimation, but as the rate and updated methodology has not yet been released this is a prudent approach. PFI and
Page 49 lump sum have been inflated by 1.84%. The lump sum and rates were also removed for Thomas Hepburn.
Based on 2019/20 pupil numbers and data this would generate £113,941,159 an increase of £3,670,253 compared to 2019/20 allocation of £110,251,107.91.
A more conservative estimate has been calculated by uplifting last year’s allocation by 1.84%. This simple calculation increased the allocation by £1,914,446 to £112,165,654.
Proposal
That Schools Forum notes the contents of the report and forms a mainstream schools funding review group to review Gateshead’s fair funding formula to ensure that the additional funding is shared equitably and conforms with regulations.
Recommendations
That Schools Forum: - Notes the contents of the report Forms a sub group to consider formula changes due to the anticipated additional funding
For the following reasons:
To distribute the additional funding on a fair and equitable basis To comply with the Schools and Early Years Finance Regulations
Contact: Carole Smith Ext. 2747
Page 50