Agenda item

Context:

We received the proposed changes to the funding formula for schools which provided members with an update on the proposed changes to the school funding formula and provided members with details of any consultation responses received in relation to these proposals.

Paper 1: Threshold funding for Teaching staff, Top up funding for Primary schools and funding for Free School Meals.

Key Issues:

The School Budget Forum agreed to review the formula every year and to look at potential changes to ensure the formula remains up to date and to ensure that it continues to distribute funding in the fairest way.

Following the establishment of a working group, with requested representatives from all groups of schools, this consultation document sets out the areas that are to be considered for implementation for the financial year 2016-17.

The areas to be considered are:

·         Threshold Funding

·         Top Up Funding

·         Free Primary School Meals

Threshold funding is for schools with employees on the Upper Pay Scale (UPS). It is currently a large administrative burden to determine the required funding each year as schools are required to provide details of all staff on UPS and determine if they will be eligible to increase in September. Also due to the changes in teachers’ pay and conditions, if a teacher applies to increase more than one point and is successful the school currently would not have the funding for that financial year and vice versa, schools who have accelerated teachers and have been funded will reduce funding available to other schools.

Top up funding is for Primary Schools only, it is additional funding to support the funding for a teacher generated by pupil numbers. For example 91 pupils in Key Stage 2, would fund the school for four teachers. We see large differences with the level of funding year on year, for example if a school suddenly has 31 pupils, this would generate funding for 2 teachers, however it is likely that the school will arrange mixed classes and therefore an additional teacher would not be required.

Primary Schools currently receive funding for free school meals, this is an historical factor in the formula and the cost of free school meals is not passed to the school.

Member Scrutiny:

• A question was raised whether there was a possibility, with Welsh Government guidelines, to increase class size and for an additional staff member be appointed.  Officers confirmed that in terms of funding, a class of 40 would have 2 teachers provided, however, one or two additional pupils may be accommodated without an extra teacher.  There is a degree of reasonableness and regulations allow exceptions, the expectation is that the class size would be manageable.
• Members were reassured that the main focus is for the best education to be provided to pupils.
• The committee recognised that 9 responses were received to the questionnaire and whether this was an appropriate basis for proposals.  The committee were reminded that elected members were included and a review was undertaken every year.  Responses had been disappointing however, officers concluded that the majority were content.
• Officers assured members that funding was calculated on a small amount per pupil for all pupils and not just FSM, therefore, no schools with large numbers of FSM would be penalised or disadvantaged.
• A question was raised regarding the number of teachers on the upper pay scale and we were informed that the current formula fund teachers on upper pay scale.  The majority of teachers would be on the upper pay spine, Schools provided information each October so that the number of teachers on upper pay scale could be identified and this burden would be removed.
• The committee requested reassurance that the formula would not predispose schools of having more experienced teachers and increased numbers of younger teachers on less pay.   Officers confirmed that the Monmouthshire County Council personnel policies were in place and were clear that the best teacher would be recruited for the school.

Paper 2: Funding for the residential element for Mounton House Special School

Key Issues:

The School Budget Forum agreed to review the formula every year and to look at potential changes to ensure the formula remains up to date and to ensure that it continues to distribute funding in the fairest way.

Following a meeting of the School Budget Funding Forum on 16th November 2015, members agreed to consult on the funding formula for Mounton House Special School.

The current formula provides funding for the residential capacity of the school.  The current placement funding is 42. Currently there are 10 residents in the school, but this number will fluctuate slightly from this during the year.

The funding formula for Mounton House was reviewed in 2010 and at this point there were more residential pupils on roll.  From 2010 the number of residential pupils have reduced, however the formula has not been adjusted to reflect this decline.

Member scrutiny:

• A query was raised regarding whether the school had been significantly over funded since 2010.  Officers responded that placements had reduced over time and presently at 12, the school had been over funded.
• Meetings had been held with the school and there was a need to bring into line with other schools.  In the event that numbers increased, then funding would be increased proportionately.  The school would be enabled to deliver provision.
• Members were alarmed by the report, specifically consequences to the school.  Further detail was required as to why the school had got into deficit, when they have historically been significantly over funded.  It was requested that concerns were addressed regarding pupil welfare, education and vulnerability.
• The committee highlighted the need for additional detail and significance of financial implications.  Members were informed that the school had significant staffing costs, the deficit would be scrutinised through the monitoring report and a recovery plan would be put in place.
• Members were guaranteed that the governing body recognised the need to look at levels of staffing in school.
• The select committee unanimously recognised the substantial serious issues raised through the report.  A review of the school had been expected and the select committee had been advised that it was ongoing.
• The committee agreed that this aspect of the report could not be supported.
• Further information was requested regarding why maximum funding had been provided, details of the recovery plan and members questioned the validity, due to lack of consultation responses.

Recommendations:

The committee scrutinised the proposed changes.