Agenda item

Report from the Principal Finance Officer (CYPS).

Recommendation:

1.    That the Schools Forum note the contents of the report.

The Principal Finance Officer (Schools Finance) presented a report informing Schools Forum of the outcomes from Part A of the consultation on Rotherham’s local schools funding formula for 2026/27 and outlined proposed changes prior to submission to the Department for Education (DfE) by January 2026.

The consultation was conducted in November 2025, with 55 responses received (43 primary schools, 11 secondary schools, and 1 all-through school), representing an overall response rate of 49%.

The key proposals consulted on were:

• The continued inclusion of existing funding factors aligned to the National Funding Formula (NFF).
• Setting the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) at 0%.
• The continued use of capping and scaling to ensure affordability.
• Deducting £100,000 from the Schools Block to establish a Pupil Growth Fund.
• Deducting £50,000 from the Schools Block to maintain a Falling Rolls Fund.

It was noted that Rotherham’s existing local funding formula already closely mirrored the NFF.

Details of the responses of the school’s consultation was outlined in the report provided and summarised as follows:

Formula Funding Factors

Question 1 :  Do you support the continued inclusion of the above funding factors in Rotherham’s 2026/27 schools funding formula and the intention to mirror, or align as closely as possible, to the National Funding Formula (NFF) values?

Consultation Response:

Of the total responses representing 55 schools, 100% supported the proposal.

Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG)

Question 2 : Do you support the proposal to set the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) within the local funding formula at 0% for 2026-27?

Consultation Response:

Of the total responses representing 55 schools, 100% supported the proposal.

It was also noted that since the consultation had closed, the Department for Education (DfE) had confirmed that the allowable range for the Minimum Funding Guarantee would remain the same

Capping and Scaling

Question 3 : Do you support the continued use of capping and scaling in Rotherham’s 2026/27 schools funding formula to ensure fairness in resource and distribution and overall affordability of the funding formula?

Consultation Response:

Of the total responses representing 55 schools, 46 schools (84%) supported the proposal, whilst 9 schools (16%) were opposed. No additional comments were provided to explain the reasons for opposition.

Pupil Growth

Question 4 : Do you support the proposal to deduct £100,000 from the 2026/27 Schools Block to establish a Growth Fund, which will be used to support schools providing additional places to meet basic need? This represents a £50,000 reduction compared to 2025/26.

Consultation Response:

Of the total responses representing 55 schools, 46 schools (84%) supported the proposal, whilst 9 schools (16%) were opposed. 

Falling Pupil Rolls Fund

Question 5 : Do you agree that the Local Authority should continue to provide for falling rolls fund of £50,000 to schools with surplus capacity from falling pupil numbers – to be deducted from the schools block funding?

Consultation Response:

Of the total responses representing 5 schools, 46 schools (84%) supported the proposal, whilst 9 schools (16%) were opposed. 

It was noted that the Local Authority was awaiting confirmation of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations and would report back to the Schools Forum on this early in the new year.

Discussion focused on understanding why nine schools opposed certain proposals and whether these were the same schools across different questions or varied by maintained or academy status. It was noted that no reasons were provided in their responses, and that responses from Multi Academy Trusts were recorded for each individual school rather than as a single combined response.

It was highlighted that there was concern within the sector that deprivation related factors continue to increase whilst the minimum funding per-pupil level remains unchanged, leaving some schools at the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) level. The Head of Finance explained there was little flexibility to redirect funding due to DfE rules, but efforts continue to be made to try to reduce the number of schools at MFG level where possible.

Discussion continued to focus on demographic trends, birth rates, and new housing developments impacting pupil numbers and place planning, including how housing growth was reflected in current modelling. It was confirmed that the Access to Education Team would be able to provide more detailed analysis on school capacity and place planning for discussion at a future Forum meeting.

Forum Members raised concerns about pressures on Growth and Falling Rolls Funds and asked whether eligibility criteria considers if a school or trust has reserves and how prioritisation to access funding was managed. The Head of Finance confirmed that policies set out criteria for accessing funding and required schools to demonstrate strategic planning before requesting support. Financial position and use of reserves would be considered as part of the assessment.

Only one request for Falling Rolls funding had been received so far and was still being assessed.  It was confirmed that any unused funding would be recycled back into the DSG reserves and would form part of the following year’s Schools Block budget.

Resolved:   

1. That the Schools Forum notes the contents of the report.

2.That a detailed analysis of School Capacity and Place Planning be presented at a future Schools Forum meeting.