Issue - meetings

Councillor Dempster submits a report that considers a range of issues affecting the determination and distribution of the Schools’ Budget for 2011/12.  The Pupil Premium funding will also be considered.  Cabinet is asked to approve the recommendations set out in Paragraph 2.2 of the report.

A minute extract from the meeting of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee on 28 February 2011 will be circulated as soon as it is available.

Councillor Dempster submitted a report that considered a range of issues affecting the determination and distribution of the Schools’ Budget for 2011/12.  She explained that because of the government spending cuts, there would be a 5% reduction in the spending power of schools. However it was proposed that through this strategy more money would be given direct to schools and less held centrally, which would reduce bureaucracy. Thanks were given to the Schools’ Forum for their work on the strategy.

Councillor Dempster added that the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee had endorsed the report and the comments of the Committee had been noted.

RESOLVED:

                        that Cabinet:

a)     Supports the proposals detailed in Section 4 in this report as the guiding principles in determining the allocation of the Schools Budget in 2011/12.  

b)     Approves the changes to the local formula for funding schools, specifically relating to:-

-          Mainstreaming a number of grants into the Dedicated Schools Grant (paragraphs 4.2 to 4.4);

-          Introducing the new Early Years Single Funding Formula. There is a legal requirement to have this in place from April 1 2011 (paragraphs 4.13 to 4.16);

-          Introducing a new method of distributing funding related to Threshold Pay (paragraph 4.18);

-          Introducing the new methodology to directly fund schools related to Meeting Individual Needs (paragraphs 4.19 to 4.20);

-          Introducing a new method of distributing funding related to Pupil Mobility (paragraphs 4.21 to 4.23).

c)      Notes the need to consider alternatives for the future operation of the School Balance Control Mechanism if the legal requirement to have one in place is removed (paragraphs 4.27 to 4.28)