Agenda item
8.1 £4.3m summary
8.2 Education comparative spend 2015-16
8.3 Summary of weakening PTR an effect o protection
8.4 Modelling of weakened primary PTR
8.5 Modelling of weakening PTR in individual primary schools
8.6 Modelling of weakening PTR in individual secondary schools
Minutes:
A report was submitted by the
Head of Education outlining the options to share the remaining savings target
of £3,348,000.
(a)
The
Chairman expressed to the Forum, whilst accepting that schools lost money via grants,
demographic impact etc, that it was necessary to come to a specific decision
bearing in mind that other services within the Council had already agreed on
their targets.
(b)
The
Head of Education summarised the previous arguments and the report before them
took into consideration the context of the Gwynedd Challenge, the discussion
and the options to share the remaining savings target between the primary and
secondary sectors, Estyn feed-back and comparative national statistics. They were reminded that in the past the Cabinet had
protected educational interests and the authority had been extremely
transparent and totally open regarding the contents of the options within the
report. It had to be remembered that the
department was being challenged corporately.
(c)
The
Education Finance Working Group was thanked for determining the agreed plans in
the sum of £1,028,000 with the remaining savings of £2,320,00 to be found.
(d)
That
the recommendation before for preferred Option C was based on educational
arguments and options A and CH were not under consideration.
(e)
In
response to a comment made regarding long term plans for school organisation,
it was explained that the Cabinet’s direction was a target savings of £4.3m to
schools and that no saving was based on school organisation to be included
within the £4.3m. It was
stressed that the infrastructure was not sustainable within the available
budget.
(f)
During
the discussion regarding achieving the remainder of the savings target, the
following observations were highlighted:
- That it was very difficult to
consider the matter with no satisfaction to any of the two sectors
(primary and secondary) having to implement the cuts.
- There was a consensus of opinion
that any savings stemming from schools organisation should be recycled for
the pupil : teacher ratio (PTR).
- That the context of the
discussion set primary against secondary and the opinion was that the
Education Finance Working Party had further work to be achieved.
- It was felt that accepting the recommendation of
Option C would indicate a strong preference in favour of the secondary
sector at the expense of primary and was therefore against every principle
and educational logic of investing as soon as possible in a child's School
career. Implementing Option C would
entail a cut of £300,000 to the secondary sector with primary facing a cut
of £2m.
- An explanation was received regarding the impact
of the Option C cut on large, medium and small schools and the primary
sector did not accept that there was any valid reasoning for implementing
the Option C cut.
- It was felt that using the impact of demography
on the secondary sector as a reason behind the recommendation of Option C
on primary was a totally unjust argument.
It was noted that primary already faced this problem and were
therefore being penalised twice by taking money from their budgets to
reduce the impact on the secondary sector.
- Having to suffer a further cut in budgets the
recommendation of the primary sector was that Option A only, namely an
equal cut between both sectors, was acceptable. However, the wish of the primary sector
was to receive a better explanation of how the recommendation of Option C
was reached.
- If it was decided to cut budgets with a tendency
in favour of one sector rather than another the Council was requested to
clearly outline what aspects of the current provision would have to be
cut.
- It was added with discontent that the difference
between the two sectors was incredible
- On behalf of the secondary sector it was noted
that whilst agreeing that investment should be made early in a child’s
career, that the investment in primary schools was still much better than
in secondary schools.
- It was suggested that consideration should be
given to the additional learning needs budget at the next Forum meeting.
In response to some of the
above observations, the Head of Education noted -
- That the consultation with additional learning
needs was on-going and was based on the authority, schools and the
relationship with the Special Educational Needs Joint Committee.
- Looking at the national picture, it appeared that
the level of expenditure in the primary sector was higher than the
expected range and the comparative position had reduced in secondary since
last year but continued to be towards the higher end of the expected
range.
- That the size of the protection budget was
approximately £600,000.
(g) Following a discussion, it was proposed and seconded
to compromise by recommending option B to split the £2,320,000 remaining of the
savings target for both sectors subject to the following conditions:
(i)
To retain the savings of £4.3m fixed over the
next three years up to 2018.
(ii)
That any further schools
organisation savings would contribute to the savings after 2018.
An amendment was proposed to the
above, namely to offer another option between the option of cut B and C that
would take into consideration the cut to large primary schools and that more
work was undertaken to address the above.
In response, the Head of
Education noted his appreciation of the compromise by implementing option B and
this would be a challenge for the Cabinet Member for Education to press on the
Cabinet to approve recycling the money stemming from the schools organisation
to alleviate the schools cut in 2018/19.
Following the Head of
Education's response, the amendment was withdrawn.
The meeting was deferred for
10 minutes in order to give both sectors an opportunity to discuss the proposal
as outlined in (g) above.
The meeting was reconvened
and a vote was taken on the proposal and was carried with thee members
abstaining.
Resolved: (a) To
convey to the Council’s Cabinet that the Schools’ Budget Forum approve
implementing the remainder of the savings target of £3,348,000 as follows by:
(i)
Confirming the agreed plans of the
Education Finance Working Group in the sum of £1,028,000;
(ii)
Sharing the remainder of the savings
target of £2,320,000 in accordance with the option B cut (£1,642,151 – primary
sector and £680,363 – secondary sector) subject to the following conditions:
- Retaining the savings of £4.3m fixed for the next 3
years until 2018.
(iii)
That any further schools organisation savings would
contribute to the savings after 2018.
(b) That the Schools’ Budget Forum
discusses the budget of the special learning needs budget at its next meeting
on 20 January 2016.
Supporting documents:
- Schools Savings Target, item 8. PDF 19 KB
- Appendix 1 - £4.3m Summary, item 8. PDF 137 KB
- Appendix 2 - Gwynedd Comparative Expenditure on Schools 2015-16, item 8. PDF 497 KB
- Appendix 3 - The Effect of Weakening the Primary and Secondary PTR, item 8. PDF 6 KB
- Appendix 4 - Model Weakning - The Primary Pupil Teacher Ratio, item 8. PDF 6 KB
- Appendix 5 - Primary PTR Savings, item 8. PDF 30 KB
- Appendix 6 - Secondary PTR Savings, item 8. PDF 8 KB