Agenda Item:
THE CUMBRIAN SCHOOLS’ FORUM
Draft MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
10 October 2013
The Old Court Room, The Courts, Carlisle
PRESENT
Louise Anderton (Small Schools)
Anne Burns (Lead Member for Children’s Services)
Linda Dean (Barrow Primary)
Jackie Drake (Nursery Schools)
Leeanne Evans (PRU – representing Lisa Balderstone)
Nick Fish (Copeland Primary)
Bev Forster (Primary Academy)
Jackie Franklin (Non-teaching Associations)
Bernard Gummett (Special Schools)
Steven Holmes (Secondary Academy)
Jonathan Johnson (Allerdale Secondary)
Jo Laker (Allerdale Primary)
John McAuley (RC Diocese)
Alan Mottershead (Secondary Academy)
David Nattrass (Eden Primary)
Lynette Norris (Copeland Primary)
Ty Power (Secondary Academy)
Vanessa Ray (Secondary Academy)
Alan Rutter (Teachers’ Professional Associations)
Officers in Attendance:
Caroline Sutton (Assistant Director Schools and Learning – Children’s Services)
Helen Hamilton (Children’s Services Finance Manager)
Nicola Shiels
(Children’s Services)
Observers:
Ian Smith, Headteacher, Millom School
Duncan Fairbairn, CCC Conservative Group
Tony Wolfe, Leadership Support Officer
Apologies for Absence
Anne Attwood
Lisa Bladerstone – represented by Leeanne Evans
David Batten
Chris Brooksbank
Viv Halliday
Michael Mill
D:\687294046.doc
1
1.
Declarations of Interest
Jackie Franklin – Item 7, Equal Pay Settlements
Lynette Norris – Item 9, Schools in Financial Difficulty
Jo Laker, David Nattrass – Item 6, Sparcity Factor
Nick Fish – Item 12, Control of Surplus Balances
Linda Dean – Item 6, School Funding Reform – Changes for 2014-15
2.
Membership
Jonathan Johnson, head at Netherhall School, had joined the Schools Forum
representing Allerdale Secondary Schools. This was his first meeting.
3.
Minutes
The minutes of the meetings of the Schools Forum held on 21 June 2013 and 2
September 2013 were presented.
21 June 2013 – Subject to an amendment regarding the Pupil Premium, the minutes
of the meeting of the Schools Forum held on 21 June 2013 were agreed as an
accurate record.
2 September 2013 – The meeting on 2 September had been a single item meeting to
consider the school funding changes consultation document prior to it being
circulated. The minutes of the meeting of the Schools Forum held on 2 September
2013 were agreed as an accurate record.
Any matters arising from the minutes would be covered by items on the agenda.
4.
Working Group Minutes
i)
School Budgets Working Group
The School Budgets Working Group had met on 10 September 2013. The Chair
presented the notes of the meeting.
It was reported that an amendment was needed regarding some of the figures.
Other than this, all other items that had been considered would be discussed
further at this meeting.
ii)
SEN, Social Deprivation, Access and Inclusions Working Group
The SEN, Social Deprivation, Access and Inclusion Working Group had met on
10 September 2013. The Vice –Chair of the group presented the notes.
A number of the items would be considered further at this meeting, points noted
were that the group now received monthly updates regarding SEN budgets. The
budgets did fluctuate but they were very carefully monitored and detailed
explanations were provided. The group had also discussed, at length, High
Needs Top Up funding and the new SEN Code of Practice/guidance.
D:\687294046.doc
2
5.
School Funding Reform Changes – 2014/15
In 2013-14 changes to the school funding system, aimed at making it fairer, more
consistent and more transparent, were introduced. Following the initial changes, DfE
undertook to review the arrangements through consultation with a number of local
authorities. Following the review the DfE published ‘School Funding Reform: Findings
from the Review of 2013-14; Arrangements and Changes for 2014-15’.
The key changes for 2014-15 were:



The introduction of an optional sparsity factor
The ability to have a separate lump sum value each for primary and secondary
schools. The maximum lump sum value was now capped at £175,000 (in 201314, the cap was £200,000).
For 2014-15, the DfE had made it a mandatory requirement for schools to fund
the first £6,000 per high needs pupil. In 2013-14, this was a recommendation
from the DfE which Cumbria County Council members decided not to implement
and rather to allocate SEN funding to schools on the basis of SEN statements, to
ensure that SEN funding followed the pupil.
A consultation with all Cumbrian maintained schools and academies on proposals for
the 2014/15 funding arrangements took place between Friday 6 September and Friday
4 October 2013. An analysis of the consultation responses received by the close of
the consultation period on 4 October 2013 was considered.
The Schools Forum was asked to make recommendations to the Council Cabinet for
the 2014/15 Cumbria School Funding Formula. Schools Forum members were also
asked to decide on the centrally retained budgets for 2014/15 and maintained school
representatives were asked to make decisions on de-delegation for 2014/15.
The recommendations for the funding formula and decisions on centrally retained
budgets and de-delegation would be presented to the Council Cabinet on 17 October
2013, where Cabinet would make a decision on the funding formula for 2014/15. The
2014/15 Cumbria Schools Funding Formula must then be lodged with the Department
for Education by 31 October 2013. All schools would be informed of the proposed
funding formula for 2014/15 on 31 October 2013.
In discussing the proposed changes several areas of concern were raised:

The Chair of the School Budgets Working group had significant concerns
regarding the sparcity factor. These had been discussed at length at the working
group meeting on 10 September.

Primary/Secondary ratio – there was an indication that Cumbria were out of line
nationally in terms of funding ratios. This had been raised previously and it was
important that further information be provided to Forum members. There was a
request for this issue to be considered as a formal item.

Strategic Schools – how could ‘strategic’ schools be supported properly?

Pressure on secondary schools in Cumbria.

The low number of responses to the consultation was disappointing.
In total, 77 responses had been received. Of these, 62 (80.5%) were from primary
schools and 15 (19.5%) were from secondary schools. The responses represented
D:\687294046.doc
3
20,122 pupils (7,382 primary pupils and 12,740 secondary pupils – based on the
January 2013 census).
The Schools Forum considered the responses to each of the consultation questions:
Question 1: Do you agree that Cumbria should continue with the existing ratio
for allocating funding based on individual pupils 1: 1.14 : 1.41 for Primary, Key
Stage3 and Key Stage4 pupils
For
13
Against
2
Abstentions
0
Question 2: Do you agree that Cumbria should continue to target 1.9% of the
Schools Block at deprived children?
For
15
Against
0
Abstentions
0
Question 3: Do you agree that Cumbria should continue to allocate 1.2% of the
Schools Block to primary school low cost high incidence SEN?
For
13
Against
0
Abstentions
2
Question 4: Do you agree that Cumbria should allocate £733.00 per eligible pupil
for secondary school low cost high incidence SEN?
For
15
Against
0
Abstentions
0
Question 5: Do you agree that Cumbria should continue to allocate £100,000 to
support English as an additional language?
For
15
Against
0
Abstentions
0
Question 6: Do you agree that Cumbria should continue to allocate £100,000 to
support Children Looked After within schools and academies?
For
15
Against
0
Abstentions
0
Question 7: Do you agree that Cumbria should not allocate any funds from the
DSG to the Mobility factor?
For
15
Against
0
Abstentions
0
D:\687294046.doc
4
Question 8: Do you agree that Cumbria should include a lump sum that
minimises financial turbulence to those schools significantly adversely affected
by the funding formula changes?
For
14
Against
1
Abstentions
0
Question 9: Do you agree that Cumbria should set the threshold for sparse
schools at three miles for both primary and secondary schools with the local
authority applying for exceptional circumstances where schools are able to
demonstrate specific and reasonable reasoning for this?
For
9
Against
3
Abstentions
3
Question 10: Do you agree that Cumbria should provide sparsity funding at
£20,000 for eligible primary schools and £100,000 for eligible secondary
schools?
For
6
Against
7
Abstentions
2
Question 11: Do you agree that the sparsity factor should be provided as a lump
sum and not pro-rata to the number of pupils within the school?
For
0
Against
5
Abstentions
10
Question12: Do you agree that Cumbria should allocate the £3.2m of high needs
funding in an equal split between the AWPU and low cost high incidence SEN
factors?
For
8
Against
6
Abstentions
1
Question 13: Do you agree that a central fund of approximately £0.300m should
be allocated outside the funding formula on the basis of £3,000 per statemented
pupil above a 3% threshold (where 3% is the proportion of statemented pupils in
a school)?
For
14
Against
1
Abstentions
0
Question 14: Do you agree that the notional SEN budget should be calculated as
5% of a school's AWPU allocation, 50% of a school's deprivation allocation and
100% of a school's low cost high incidence SEN allocation?
For
13
Against
0
Abstentions
2
D:\687294046.doc
5
Question 15: Which services do you consider should be de-delegated to be managed
through the local authority?

Contingencies
Primary
5
0
0
Secondary
2
0
0
Primary
5
0
0
Secondary
2
0
0
Licenses and subscriptions
Primary
For
5
Against
0
Abstentions
0
Secondary
2
0
0
Staff costs – supply cover
Primary
For
5
Against
0
Abstentions
0
Secondary
2
0
0
For
Against
Abstentions

Insurance
For
Against
Abstentions



Library Services
For
Against
Abstentions
Primary
5
0
0
Secondary
0
2
0
Question 16: Do you agree that the central services detailed in paragraph 66 of
the consultation document should continue to be retained centrally and not
distributed to individual schools?
Paragraph 66 of the consultation document detailed services that should continue to
be retained centrally and not distributed to individual schools. These services
included:

School Admissions

Servicing of the Schools Forum

Capital Expenditure funded from revenue

Contributions to combined budgets, e.g. Health & Safety

Centrally funded termination costs

Prudential borrowing costs

Copyright Licensing Agency and Music Publishers Association Licences
D:\687294046.doc
6
For
Against
Abstentions
13
0
2
Each of the votes, and the comments that had been made during the debate would be
taken into account in the preparation of the report to the County Council Cabinet. The
Cabinet would be asked to take account of each of the recommendations from the
Schools Forum but it was noted that an alternative decision might be agreed. The
report would be presented to Cabinet on 17 October 2013, there would then be the
usual call-in period and schools would be notified of the decision by 31 October 2013.
Forum members thanked colleagues in the Finance Team for all the work that had
been undertaken regarding the consultation and funding changes.
6.
Equal Pay Settlements
From 2008 onwards schools had been advised that the likely total equal pay claim
settlement for school based staff would be in the region of £19m. Schools were
advised to set aside around 4% of their individual budget shares to meet these costs.
Following a mandate to negotiate the settlement of claims by the Leader of the
Council and a subsequent order from a tribunal judge to work to a tight timetable to
avoid costly litigation, intensive negotiations intensive negotiations have been held
between the Council and the recognised trade unions.
As a result of this work and negotiations these settlement costs were now estimated to
be £2.436m. The estimated costs related to both claimants and potential claimants in
a range of roles (Teaching Assistants, Midday Supervisors, Housekeepers, Janitors,
Playworkers, Breakfast/ After School Club Workers). On the advice of a tribunal
judge, it was proposed to make a settlement with these claimants to not pursue their
claim to tribunal.
Schools Forum members had discussed the method of settlement of equal pay claims
on 24 January 2011 and 7 March 2011. Whilst Forum’s preference at that time was
for individual schools to meet equal pay claims for their individual budget shares no
formal decision was taken.
Under the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2012 (covering the
2013/14 financial year) and the draft regulations for 2013 (covering the 2014/15
financial year), ‘equal pay back pay’ relating to school based staff should be funded
from the Dedicated Schools Grant as a centrally retained budget (top-sliced from the
Dedicated Schools Grant before the calculation of individual school budgets). This
arrangement has been confirmed by refreshed legal advice received by the County
Council in September 2013.
In addition, Forum were asked to consider that the work and costs entailed to settle
these claims would fall entirely on individual schools and their HR providers should
schools choose not to top slice DSG. These administrative elements would still be
required if Schools Forum accepted the recommendation to top slice DSG, however,
support would be provided by the CCC HR Service to help schools through the
process. Taking this centralised approach would also offer economies of scale in that
D:\687294046.doc
7
central negotiations with the HMRC, solicitors, pensions and ACAS would lead to
better deals than on small scale.
As the estimated costs were £2.436m, it was proposed that they were funded over a 5
year period with 20% of these costs paid from the Dedicated Schools Grant budget in
each year (approximately £0.487m per year). The repayment would begin in the
2014/15 financial year.
There was a specific question regarding the potential reimbursement of any costs that
had already been attributed to work undertaken to settle a claim – a response would
be provided.
In previously discussing this issue, the Schools Forum had made a judgement based
on the information available at that time. Forum members stood by that decision but
based on the updated position it now appeared that the amounts were more
manageable and there was now the opportunity to settle all claims thus drawing a line
on this issue. It was also report that both the CE and RC Diocese had responded
positively to this proposal.
Taking account of this, The Schools Forum was asked to either:
1.
2.
Approve that £2.436m relating to equal pay settlements for schools based staff is
funded as a top-slice from the Dedicated Schools Grant and that this is funded
over a 5 year period.
Not approve that £2.436m relating to equal pay settlements for schools based
staff is funded as a top-slice from the Dedicated Schools Grant.
The options were put to the vote:
Option 1 above – For 16, Against 0, Abstentions 1
The Schools Forum therefore recommended that a budget be centrally retained
from the Dedicated Schools Grant to fund equal pay settlements in relation to
school based staff. This budget would cover both settlements in maintained
schools and Academies. The estimated budget of £2.436m would be spread
over 5 years.
7.
Proposed Use of the De-Delegated Schools Contingency Budget – Southfield
School
A report regarding the proposed use of the de-delegated contingencies budget to fund
the deficit at Southfield School on conversion to academy status at 1 January 2014
was presented. This proposal was dependent on the maintained representatives of
the Schools Forum deciding to de-delegate the contingencies budget back to the
Local Authority for 2014/15 and any relevant future years.
This proposal was considered by the Schools Forum Budget Working Group at its
meeting on 10 September 2013. The Budget Working Group recommended that
these costs should funded from the de-delegated contingencies budget, should this be
de-delegated for 2014/15 and the relevant future years. The Budget Working Group
recommended that the costs were funded over 2 years.
D:\687294046.doc
8
On 24 May 2012, the local authority received approval from the Department for
Education (DfE) for a new school build replacing the current Southfield and Stainburn
secondary schools as a single combined school. The approval was part of the DfE’s
Priority Schools Building Programme. The Priority Schools Building Programme was
not affected by the governance arrangements at the school. Should the schools
become academies then the scheme would go ahead dealing directly with the
academies rather than the Local Authority.
Both schools had received approval to convert to academy status at a potential date
of 1 January 2014. This was, however, subject to the establishment of academy
funding agreements for the schools and the DfE had stated that Southfield School was
currently unable to convert to academy status due to the size of the deficit which was
£0.454m at 31 March 2013 and was projected to rise to £0.806m by 31 March 2014.
The projected deficit on the school at 1st January 2014 was £0.707m.
Initial discussions with the DfE had identified that Southfield School would be able to
convert to academy status if an agreement is reached between the DfE and the Local
Authority over splitting the cost of the deficit on Southfield School at the point of
conversion (1 January 2014) . The total projected deficit for the school at 1 January
2014 was approximately £0.707m. The Local Authority was willing to contribute a
total of £0.511m towards this deficit position. The Local Authority had stipulated that it
would not be liable for any increase in the projected deficit for the school before 1
January 2014.
The DSG budget for 2013/14 included a de-delegated contingency budget which
could be used for ‘the writing-off of deficits of schools which are discontinued’ and
costs associated with ‘new, amalgamating or closing schools’. Southfield School was
a maintained school up to the point of conversion and so the costs associated with the
school’s deficit could be appropriately charged to the de-delegated contingencies
budget.
Commitments against the de-delegated contingencies budget in 2013/14 meant that it
was unlikely that the costs relating to Southfield could be funded in this financial year.
The costs could therefore be charged to the DSG reserve (as a deficit) in 2013/14
and then repaid from the de-delegated contingency budget in either 1 year (2014/15)
or over 2 years (2014/15 and 2015/16).
In 2013/14, the de-delegated contingencies budget was £1.482m. This included
£0.808m relating to Schools in Financial Difficulty. The remaining contingency budget
was £0.674m. Options that the Schools Forum were asked to consider were:


Option 1 – De-delegated contingencies budget in 2014/15 is used to pay off the
full share of Southfield School’s deficit attributable to Cumbria County Council.
Option 2 – De-delegated contingencies budget is used to pay off 50% of
Southfield School’s deficit attributable to Cumbria County Council in 2014/15 and
2015/16 respectively.
These options were dependent on the maintained representatives of the Schools
Forum deciding to de-delegate the contingencies budget back to the LA in 2014/15.
Option 2 would require the Schools Forum to agree to de-delegate the contingencies
budget in both 2014/15 and 2015/16.
D:\687294046.doc
9
Should the contribution to the deficit at Southfield School not be funded, the school
would be unable to convert to academy status which may put the joint-school Priority
Schools Building Programme project at risk. In future years, the full deficit of
Southfield School may then fall on the Dedicated Schools Grant budget meaning a
higher cost to all schools.
There was some concern from Schools Forum members about agreeing to contribute
towards the deficit and the possible effect on other schools in the future. There was
also a view that the projected deficit may increase thus meaning the LA contribution
also increased. Members were assured that this had been discussed with DfE and
the cost to the LA would be based on the current projected deficit. There would be
tight control and management of the deficit and it was hoped that this would continue
to reduce. In relation to the west coast specifically there was a concern about surplus
places being perpetuated and the longer term effect on neighbouring schools.
Taking account of the concerns, the maintained schools representatives on the
Schools Forum voted on whether to agree to the proposal to make a contribution to
the deficit at Southfield School on conversion to academy status:
For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 0
On the options, as set out above:
Option 1 – 3
Option 2 – 3
Based on the above, the Schools Forum recommended that a contribution be
made to the deficit at Southfield School on conversion to academy status and
that this to be funded from the de-delegated contingencies budget.
It was suggested that option 1 or 2 be revisited when more information regarding the
negotiations was available.
8.
Schools in Financial Difficulty
As agreed by the Schools Forum at its meeting on 21 June 2013, there was currently
a budget of £808,000 within the de-delegated contingencies budget for schools in
financial difficulty. On 21 June 2013, the Schools Forum also agreed criteria against
which schools would be assessed to identify eligibility for this funding. A report setting
out options for the allocation of this funding in 2013/14 was presented. It should be
noted that schools in financial difficulty was a de-delegated budget and only applied to
maintained schools.
The maintained schools representatives of the Schools Forum were asked to decide
on the allocation of funding for schools in financial difficulty and whether there should
be a de-delegated fund in 2014/15.
Using the criteria agreed on 21 June 2013, the Schools and Learning Finance Team
analysed the Cumbria maintained schools. The analysis showed that five schools
would be eligible for assessment. The recommended amount that each school should
receive was set out in the report.
D:\687294046.doc
10
Further analysis was undertaken by the Schools and Learning Finance Team to
identify how funding could be allocated to schools in financial difficulty. One option
was to lower the deficit percentage level for eligibility. This could be lowered to 3% for
all schools. Based on this analysis, one more school would be eligible to receive SFD
funding.
The analysis work showed that one barrier in the criteria which prevented schools
from being eligible for funding was the requirement for schools to be in receipt of the
minimum funding guarantee. One option was to remove this from the criteria
especially as there was uncertainty as to how long the minimum funding guarantee
would remain in place. For schools with historic deficits, the presence of the minimum
funding guarantee may be preventing the reduction of these deficits.
Analysis was also undertaken to identify the amount of funding actually lost by the
schools with a projected deficit of 3% or more. This exercise excluded the impact of
reducing pupil numbers as schools were expected to make changes in response to
pupil number reductions.
Based on schools projecting a deficit of 3% or more in 2013/14, having a loss of
funding of at least £10,000 from 2012/13 to 2013/14, meeting the criteria agreed on 21
June 2013, but not necessarily being in receipt of the minimum funding guarantee, the
number of eligible schools increased to seven.
Any surplus on the £808,000 schools in financial difficulty Funding would be carried
forward into the 2014/15 financial year in agreement with the Forum. A suggestion
had been made at the Schools Forum meeting on 21 June 2013 about the possibility
of ‘writing off’ entrenched, historic deficits on schools.
There were 29 schools with entrenched historic deficits (over 3 years). Out of these
29 schools, 21 have received schools in financial difficulty funding. The schools were
graded in terms of the Local Authority’s concern over the ability of the school to
recover the deficit (low, medium, high). It should be noted that in principle, all schools
in deficit were considered to be of highest concern to the Local Authority
It was reported that is was not possible to write off historic deficits, however, the
schools in financial difficulty fund could be used towards the elimination of a deficit
balance. Although 21 of these schools had received schools in financial difficulty
funding, the funding had been spread widely amongst schools meaning that it has had
little impact on historic deficits.
There was a perpetual conversation about whether or not to have a SFD budget and
how to allocate it. It was reported that the deficits listed in the appendix were ones
that headteachers/governing bodies had not accumulated themselves, relating to
staffing issues etc, and the schools were being highly prudent. SFD funding could be
used to address some of these entrenched deficit budgets, although it might take
more than one year.
There continued to be concerns regarding the use of this funding. There was a view
that it was difficult for a school to demonstrate financial prudence when there had
been an entrenched deficit for a number of years. There were long and ongoing
concerns about how the budget had originally been established.
D:\687294046.doc
11
There were a number of options to consider and more detail was required. It was
suggested that the Schools Budgets Working Group give some further consideration
to their options at their meeting in November. Further information regarding Appendix
1 would be made available. It was noted that some of the information was sensitive
and would need to be considered as such.
To conclude, it was agreed that further information and further options as to how to
deal with this funding would be presented to the School Budgets Working group in
November with a further report to the December meeting of the Forum.
9.
Review of Efficiency in the School System
In June 2013 the DfE published a report, ‘Review of Efficiency in the Schools System’.
The report identified 7 key characteristics of the most efficient schools, and shared
examples of good practice. The report also set out 6 government proposals that
would help schools to achieve greater efficiency.
The report was communicated to all schools with a covering letter via the School
Portal in July 2013.
The report was presented to the Budget Working Group at its meeting on 10
September 2013. The Budget Working Group asked for the document to be issued
again to all schools at the end of October 2013. This document was presented to the
Schools Forum for information. The Schools Forum was asked to read the appended
report and to consider how the principles contained within the report could be
encouraged and put into practice in Cumbrian schools.
It was noted that the School Budgets Working Group had considered the report in
detail and had suggested that rather than the full report being circulated to school, it
would be more helpful to provide a condensed view of the report with signposting to
what was considered useful.
10. Schools De-delegated Contingency Budget – Forecast as at 31 August 2013
At the meeting of the Schools Forum held on 21 June 2013, the Schools Forum had
agreed that a report detailing the forecast budget position on the de-delegated
contingency budget would be presented at each Forum meeting. A report setting out
the forecast 2013/14 budget position on the contingency budget as at 31 August 2013
was presented. A projected underspend of £263,496 was reported. Any underspend
on the budget at the financial year end would be transferred into the Dedicated
Schools Grant reserve for future distribution to schools. This was subject to the
approval of the Schools Forum.
The original de-delegated contingency budget for 2013/14 was £1,583,544. An
adjustment was made to this budget in July 2013 in respect of £102,000 that was
moved to the Access and Inclusion Team. The Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant
would no longer be received as a separate grant in 2013/14 and has been subsumed
into the Dedicated Schools Grant. This grant formerly provided funding for the team
to provide support to schools in respect of ethnic minority pupils. Therefore £102,000
had been transferred from the contingency budget to the team to enable the team to
support schools in this way in 2013/14. The revised contingency budget for 2013/14
was therefore £1,481,544.
D:\687294046.doc
12
The DfE guidance stated that the contingency budget can be used for three purposes:



Exceptional unforeseen costs which it would be unreasonable to expect
governing bodies to meet
Schools in financial difficulties
Additional costs relating to new, reorganised or closing schools
£808,000 is forecast to be spent on schools in financial difficulties. However, this
budget may not be fully spent depending on the decision taken by the Schools Forum
on the allocation of this funding.
The forecast on the contingencies budget for 2013/14 was that there would be an
underspend of £263,496. Any under or overspend on the budget at the financial year
end will be carried forward into the Dedicated Schools Grant earmarked reserve for
future distribution to schools (to be determined by the Schools Forum).
The Schools Forum noted the forecast year end position on the contingencies budget
as at the end of August 2013.
11. Control of Surplus Balances 2012/13
The Control of Surplus Balances policy was introduced in March 2012. The policy had
been updated and the Schools Forum was asked to note the updated Control of
Surplus Balances policy.
A report was presented that set out the action that had been taken to address school
surplus balances as at 31 March 2013 in accordance with the agreed policy. In total,
£108k had been clawed back from schools and Schools Forum was required to agree
how the £108k should be utilised.
Following the closure of the LA accounts the excess surplus balances for schools
were determined. In accordance with the procedures in the policy a total of 64
schools were identified as having excess surplus balances over the permissible 8%
(primary, nursery and special) 5% (secondary) as at 31st March 2013. The total
excess balances over the threshold amounted to £1,690k, a significant increase of
£502k compared to the previous year of £1,188k.
Of the 64 schools with excess balances, 17 had also closed the previous year with an
excess balance therefore these had been informed that there would be an automatic
claw back of the excess over the allowable threshold by letter on 30 April 2013. A
number of schools appealed the claw back in accordance with the policy and following
a review of the evidence received this resulted in a claw back totalling £9k from 3
schools.
The returns and supporting evidence provided had been scrutinised to determine if the
reasons given were justifiable in accordance with the policy and a number of checks
carried out to ensure that the reasons given were reflected in the budget. Capital
balances were also checked in the case of planned capital projects funded by
revenue.
It was noted that where schools were undertaking planned buildings work, schools
had not always informed the Local Authority’s property team. These schools were
informed to contact the property team. Accordingly the Control of Surplus Balances
D:\687294046.doc
13
policy had been updated to inform schools that contact with the Local Authority
property team is required for any planned building/ refurbishment work to schools
where the land and buildings are owned by the Local Authority.
In total £108k would be clawed back from 13 schools. All schools had been informed
that there would be an automatic claw back if they closed the 2013-14 financial year
with an excess surplus balance.
The Schools Forum was asked to recommend how the £108k should be utilised.
Suggested uses were:



Roll back into DSG for 2014-15 and allocate to all schools via the funding formula
(4)
Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty in 2013-14 (0)
De-delegated Schools Contingency Fund in 2013-14 (0)
The Schools Forum voted on each of the options above, the number of votes are
shown in brackets beside each option. There was one abstention.
Based on the above, the Schools Forum recommended that the £108k should roll
back into DSG for 2014-15 for allocation to all schools via the funding formula.
12. Cross Border Working Arrangements for the Two Year Old Entitlement
From September 2013 the local authority had a statutory duty to provide, free nursery
provision for eligible two year olds. As per the Early Years Funding Consultation in
February 2013, Cumbria County Council would fund providers at £4.85 per hour of
child care taken up by eligible two year olds. There may be instances where two year
olds from neighbouring local authorities attend provision in Cumbrian settings, and
vice versa. Cross border arrangements had been developed by both the North West
and North East Local Authorities. Details of these arrangements were included with
the report and the Forum was informed that Cumbria County Council’s intended to
comply with these arrangements.
The Schools Forum noted the report.
13. Schools Forum – Issues
i)
Proposed Dates – 2014
A list of proposed meeting dates for 2014 had been circulated. The date
proposed for the June 2014 Forum meeting was a Saturday so it was suggested
that this be changed to Friday 20 June 2014. Forum members were asked to
look at the dates and e-mail any concerns to the clerk. Subject to any changes,
a list of the dates of meetings of the Schools Forum and working groups for 2014
would be circulated.
ii) Support to Forum
Concerns a regarding how the Schools Forum was supported had been raised
on a number of occasions. It was agreed that this should be discussed in more
details at the next meeting of the School Budgets Working Group in November.
D:\687294046.doc
14
iii)
Constitution
A draft constitution had been circulated. As Schools Forum meetings were public
meetings, it was suggested that the constitution should also include a reference
to how the Forum would deal with ‘confidential’ items. It was agreed that the
constitution should be amended to incorporate a reference to Part 2 items. The
amended constitution would also be considered at the next meeting of the School
Budgets Working Group. It was also noted that proportionality and split between
maintained school representatives and academy representatives would need to
be considered.
14. Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Schools Forum would be held on Tuesday 3 December 2013
at 9.30am, in Committee Room 2, Carlisle.
15. Any Other Business
There were no other items of business.
SL/SAA/NJS
November 2013
D:\687294046.doc
15