Growth Fund Payments and criteria
To recommend to Schools Forum, the proposed standardised rates of payments to schools eligible for growth funding following a meeting of the Technical Sub Group.
The Forum received a report which provided an update on the standardisation rate of payment to schools eligible for Growth funding as proposed by the Growth Fund Technical Sub Group.
Points and comments included:
1. The Growth Fund Technical Sub Group met on the 2 May 2017 to discuss and agree on the payment package that would be awarded from the Growth Fund to eligible schools from the 2017/18 financial year. Discussions included the recognition of the benefits the provision of more accurate forecast of the payments for the financial year and set payment amounts.
2. The typical payment model for the Growth Fund payment package for a 1 Form of Entry expansion and the first year payment for second site expansions are set out in Appendix A and B of the report.
3. The 1 Form of Entry package includes a class room set up cost of £750 awarded for each year of the programme for the setting up of the classroom prior to the new academic year based on one teacher and one teaching assistant taking 3 days to set up the new class.
4. In response to the concern expressed at the difference in proposed payment for advertising costs (£750 for lower/primary schools and £1,500 for middle, secondary and upper schools), the understanding is secondary and upper schools advertise wider in national papers and therefore to a bigger market.
5. The key differences in the one off lead costs for the Second site expansion are staffing costs as the Growth Fund Technical sub group felt that there was the requirement for a Deputy Head Teacher to be on the new site to manage growth and classroom consumables as there are no existing provisions for the new site to reuse.
6. When a school expands onto a second site recruitment advertisement covers a range of teachers / subjects not what is required for just for one class. Lower and primary advertise for Deputy Heads nationally so there wouldn’t be a difference in advertising costs for secondary and upper schools.
7. From an Academy point of view, a second site expansion takes substantial staff capacity. Why should the education of children already at the school be affected by not funding new places.
8. Some of the proposed costs are too low and the site agent time with contractors is not correct. More information is needed about the allocations and proposed spend.
Maintained schools and academy representatives of the Forum voted on the recommendation as follows:
· To approve the recommendation - 0
· To refer the report back for further work - 11
· To reject the recommendation - 0
1. that the content of the report on the standardised rate of payment to schools eligible for Growth Funding as proposed by the Technical Sub Group was noted.
2. that the proposed advertising costs for lower and primary schools would be reviewed and reported back to the Schools Forum.
3. that modelling of the Growth Fund allocation process would be undertaken and would include a flow chart indicating how payments are allocated.
4. the revised proposals for the Growth Fund would be circulated electronically to Schools Forum members for comments and approval.
[the meeting was adjourned at 16.22]
[the meeting was reconvened at 16.40]
- 5. Growth fund standardisation terms V4 vw, item 4. PDF 62 KB
- 5. Appendix A - Package per one FE expansion, item 4. PDF 64 KB
- 5. Appendix B - First year of payment for second site expansions, item 4. PDF 64 KB