Agenda item

David Baxter

2024-2025 Funding Update

Copies of the Draft DSG funding allocations document were circulated prior to the meeting.

David Baxter updated the meeting on the 2024/25 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and circulated a copy of Draft A which looked at the potential impact of the recent announcement by DfE, of a funding miscalculation.

It was reported that the DfE miscalculation amounts to 0.62 percent of budget, equivalent to £370m nationally. It was reported that the Kirklees share of this error amounted to £2.95m.

It was confirmed that £2.6m had been made as a block transfer and some items under discussion in draft form are still likely to apply. The final position and therefore mitigation of these would be known by December/January.

It was also confirmed that Authority Proforma Tool (APT) had been balanced for all schools for this year.

ACTION: Revised version D to be circulated to the group.

It was confirmed that the growth fund notionally valued around £1.2m used to balance funding, is now closer to £1.0m in value. It was confirmed that funding for the teacher pay award was outside of this fund.

The next stage of the work is to understand the impact of this school by school.

(KL joined the meeting at 9.05am)

Q: Trying to understand the spreadsheet, there is one column talking about £2.1m and the other £2.6m?

A:  Last year the pot was £2.1m and this year £2.6m so we were trying to illustrate the difference between the two.

Q: So does this mean the same figure will apply to all schools?

A: The minimum funding guarantee (MFG) means this is not straightforward. Some schools, because of MFG, will not see any adverse impact.        

Q: So why is the impact not proportional to pupil numbers instead of a flat rate?

A: Because this is at illustration stage only, we have used existing parameters and colleagues need to be aware this is not the final version. It may well be unfair to apply the same impact to a large High School as to a tiny Primary.

Q: Is this really the best way to apply it?

A: It may well be the most effective, least complex way.

Q: What is option 2 on this sheet?

A: This is trying to illustrate the impact of bringing the growth fund back to £1.2m.

Q: Does this mean that schools that benefit from the growth fund will lose out?

A: No, we will be likely to overspend this year on growth fund. Next year there are likely to be lower bulge places so it could reduce next year without compromising existing commitments. The series of bulges we will encounter are visible so we have certainty on funding in this aspect.

Q: So are you proposing option 2 as the way forward?

A: No, compilation 1 will be based on achieving the £2.6m figure and on last year's census. The final version will also factor in other decisions. Compilation 1 is based on that figure being £2.1m instead of £2.6m. It assumes £2.1 then uses the growth fund to balance it back to the £2.6m figure.

Q: Does compilation 1 achieve the £2.6m then?

A: Yes it does.

Q: So, is this saying that the reduction in funding per school if applied as in this model, to balance back to the £2.6m figure, would be no worse than £3k to £4k next year per school?

A: Not necessarily.it might be more once any reduction in pupil number fr4om the census are factored in. Please remember this is for illustration purposes, until we have the certainty of the census outcome. However, using this as a guide, individual schools will know whether their census is higher or lower versus last year.

Q: Does the calculation take the DfE error into account?

A: Yes it does.

Q: There seems to be a small number of schools that will have a greater impact, why is this?

A: This is because of a reduction in growth fund applying to those schools.

Q: So will a reduced size of growth fund be enough for Kirklees?

A: There is a known risk within these figures, but it's calculated and worth taking in this form. It’s a relatively small risk in comparison to the total funding we are talking about. So we are using comparator 1 as the baseline to work with, with the aim of achieving overall, a balanced position. Bear in mind also, the £3m error and impact is basically money we never had anyway.

The Chair remarked that there was nothing to gain by large-scale engagement on this issue but it could be addressed with a relatively simple explanation via e-mail to all schools explaining the final position was not fully worked through, but the overall impact on each school worst-case was likely to be no worse than £4k per school next year.

RESOLVED: That there will not be any face to face engagement on this matter at this time, an e-mail will be the agreed route of communication at this stage.

ACTION: Suitable email to be drafted and circulated to the forum group for comment/approval.

The copies of the compilation 1 and 2 illustrations were collected at the end of the meeting to be destroyed by the Finance team.

Q: I am still struggling with the information and what it is telling me?

A: Finance team will have a chat with you off-line to help.