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

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.