Agenda item

Report presented by Travis Young, Finance Business Partner: Children & Education

The report seeks a decision on De-delegation 

Steven Goodwin, Finance Manager, addressed the report that had been shared with members prior to the meeting.

The report sought to inform and seek agreement on the final application of the funding formula for maintained schools and academies for 2024/25.  The forum decisions will form part of the decision to be main by Cabinet during the budget discussion on the Authority Proforma Tool (APT) to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).

Forum considered the LA recommendation in the report at 2.1 to 2.3 before moving to discuss the de-delegation recommendation.

·       Forum was asked to note that the figures given in November 2023 had to be remodelled to take into account the support required for Key stage 4 secondary provision.

·       To note the sum to be distributed, of £344.3m.

·       To note the final funding settlement

The following was noted from the discussion that arose:

·       It was not known the exact numbers of schools subject to minimum funding level; finance officer agreed to report back (Action: Finance Officers)

·       The funding guarantee ensures that no school is disadvantage and that the allocation meets the directive given by the DfE.

·       The £2m Growth fund, of which £1.2m committed with £0.8m remaining; the question was asked whether the remaining balance could be used elsewhere.  Officers explained that the fund was restricted; that it was anticipated it would support those schools currently crafting growth plans;

·       Pupil Forecast is central to the decisions made by the Forum and in order to assist in assessing impact of decision-making, pupil forecast report should be brought on a regular basis. (Action: Future Agenda item RBW)

·       Support was expressed for scenario 2 that was outlined in the report, which is the LA recommended option.  The scenario outlined protected primary settings at a time that more financial assistance is needed and at the same time accomplishes the objective of moving the formula factors closer to the NFF values.  

Resolved when put to the vote:

         i.            Agreed to support the LA recommendation Option 2 formula model for 2024/25 mainstream funding formula

       ii.            Approved the arrangements set out for 2024/25 mainstream funding formula together with the sum set aside for the Growth Fund

     iii.            That Cabinet and Council are advised that Forum have concerns about the ongoing financial challenges being experienced by schools

De-Delegation to Maintained Primary and Secondary Schools

Forum Maintained members deferred this item from the November 2023 meeting with instructions to Finances Officers for further fuller explanation on the areas of De-delegation.  Email information was shared prior to the meeting and answers provided to questions posed over the ensuing weeks.

The following was noted from the discussion that arose:

a.       Trade Union Facility Time – proposed de-delegation £4.15

b.       The fund had a credit balance of £192K

c.       The discussion centred around the proposed allocation of funds to a pot with a large surplus: Officers acknowledged the surplus and proposed that members did not support the proposed de-delegation for 2024/25; no further invoices would be raised for payment from Academies for 2024/25, however any outstanding invoices relating to 2023/24 or earlier must be paid without delay; Officers would review the mechanism in place to manage this fund and related matters during the course the next financial year.

d.       Academies voluntary buy-in to the arrangement; Many are aware of their obligation to provide TU rep to rep members in Academies Trust settings; many procure trade services via an alternative mechanism; assurance was given that the fund was for school settings to cover the cost of staff and is not given directly to union organisations.

e.       Clarification was sought on the ‘right off’ of invoices for Academies; the proper explanation is that some academies were invoiced when they had not bought into the service.

f.        Union rep confirmed that they would support not having a de-delegation for 2024/25

g.       (Action: Finance Officer): To report back to on the outcome of the planned Review on the operation of Trade Union Facility Time fund; that a report is brought to the Forum in good time prior to any future decision-making.

h.      School Improvement Services

i.         Concerns were expressed by the maintained setting members about the lack of information given to settings on the re-modelled school improvement services.  Assurances were sought from Officers that there would be equity across settings and an explanation of the new look to the service. 

j.         Su Coombs, Head of Services (School Partnership Education & Skills) was invited to address the concern expressed. In her presentation she confirmed that an interim model had been introduced; that all models of operation were under constant review; learning would feed into implementation; assured members that current and relevant information is to be shared in the coming days to all settings; that there was a co-production workshop planed for February 2024; that this would enable an improved offer for all settings.

k.       RBW acknowledged that there had been a lengthy delay that gave rise to justifiable frustration and apologised sincerely for the delay; RBW gave assurances that the intention was to move from one school improvement officer to ten across phases; that the recruitment process was well underway to have colleagues in place to deliver the new model; to ensure that it was properly embedded and was sustainable; RBW assured members that what was to be implemented would be far superior to the service that existed up to this point.

l.         Secondary Maintained Representative from St Mary Redcliffe, confirmed that he spoke on behalf of the one other Secondary maintained setting, St Bernadette Catholic Secondary, this was confirmed by the governor rep from that setting, recently appointed to the Forum.  That the update on SI Service was welcomed but that they had agreed not to support the de-delegation to the service.

Decision Making

When the recommendation for de-delegated services allocation, as listed in the report at 2.4  & 2.5, was put to the vote;

The Chair moved for a vote from the Primary Maintained Representative on the recommended de-delegation:

Resolved to Approve the de-delegation to the following services:

         i.            Employee and Premises insurance

       ii.            Assessment of eligibility for free school meals

     iii.            Maternity supply cover

     iv.            Schools in financial difficult

       v.            Education Psychology

     vi.            School Improvement Services

Resolved to Reject Officer Recommendation to the following service:

         i.            Not to approve a de-delegation to Trade Union facility time services and

       ii.            For the surplus sum of £192k to be rolled over for 2024/25

The Chair moved for a vote from the Secondary Maintained Representative on the recommended de-delegation:

Resolved to Approve the de-delegation to the following services:

         i.            Employee and Premises Insurance

       ii.            Maternity supply cover

     iii.            Health and safety roving reps

     iv.            Education Psychology

Resolved to Reject Officer Recommendation to the following services:

     iii.            Not to approve a de-delegation to Trade Union facility time services and

     iv.            For the surplus sum of £192k to be rolled over for 2024/25

       v.            Not to approve a de-delegation to School Improvement Services