Loading
The minutes are published. No summary has been written yet.
Apologies for absence were received from Cabinet Members Cllr Jake Berriman and Cllr David Selby. Officers: E. Palmer CEO and C. James
There were no Declarations of Interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member had been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
General The Committee noted, observed, or requested that: • The potential impact of the Education Staff Review (Appendix 1 Pg 237) on the implementation of Inclusion Strategy, and undue pressure on the Central Team delivering both pieces of work through a Management of Change process. • Assurance received that work commenced on the Education Staff Review in September 2024, pressures were distributed amongst the Leadership team, to change structures to meet current and emerging needs in schools. • The Education Staff Review was based on a model to promote collaboration and expertise amongst colleagues, bringing clarity, responsibility, and accountability to roles. • The Management of Change process was not tied to an academic year and the Service was confident savings would be achieved during the financial year 2025-26, there could be no predetermination of future savings. • Reports lacked detail on Primary to Secondary transition, with little emphasis on Early Years. consideration was given within the new structure under a whole team around the cluster approach. • Clarity was received in respect of the Pre-school specialist provision and Nurture programme as the £50k saving formed the year 2 saving as detailed in the budget 2024-25. Delivery had changed focus from location based to across all schools as per Waves1-3 of the Additional Learning Needs Strategy. • Freedom Leisure Service Level Agreement had not been reviewed since 2015. A review would consider decreasing pupil numbers within catchments, to ensure contracted hours matched usage. • Due to a variation in the swimming provision, an engagement exercise had been conducted for a more equitable offer. Discussions were ongoing with Freedom Leisure. • Clarification was given in respect of the £390k undelivered PRU (Pupil Referral Unit) savings from 2024-25, as a virement of £120k had reduced pressure with the remaining £233k spread across 2025-26 (£110k) 2026-27 (£79k) and 2027-28 (£50k). • Leisure had been netted off from £177k in the Finance Resource Model (FRM) in 2024-25, with slight mitigation of £20k. The undelivered saving had been brought forward. • An individual FRM be produced for schools to allow savings to be tracked across financial years. • Continued realignment of grant income insured that base costs were covered and service provision provided. • Welsh Government (WG) had rationalised the number of grants and reduced the Terms and Conditions of use, Education Services had adjusted in line with the new measures as WG hold services to account via spending plans and overview of impact. • For grants that were specifically for schools e.g., Education Improvement Grant, WG had a national formula for funds to be passported via the Local Authority. • More information was required around the total percentage of the £30k savings on consultants. • Future papers to include all percentage figures of savings to indicate relevance to total service budget. • More detailed explanation be provided on individual savings and pressures. • Assurance was given on Third Party Spend, that the Secondary Strategy model from 5 years ago, had reduced year on year. • Significant increase in demand in pupils requiring Special School provision. Brynllywarch was noted in the FRM as banded levels had increased costs. • Funds would be available for the service to proactively cover any eventuality, not just those raised by Estyn even after the £350k saving on Emergency Planning and Safeguarding. • Officers to review the effect of reducing the number of secondary schools, which could be of assistance to the Transformation Programme future Administrations after a scoping exercise was requested. • Assurance received on mitigation of other costs which was reflected in previous years FRM’s on vacancy, slippage, utilisation of grants. The Education Leadership Team continued to support and challenge budgets to ensure they were reviewed and appropriate. • Consideration to the equity of Post 16 out of County Education across Powys be given as it was not aligned to Powys’ Transport Policy. Schools Delegated Budget The Committee noted, observed, or requested that: • The National Insurance (NI) contributions had not been included which amounted to £3.2million across the Council. • Outcomes of Deep Dive work with schools be shared with Scrutiny Committee, as concern held that the curriculum would be reduced, as schools would have to resort to staffing level cuts to submit a balanced budget. • Lack of confidence in the schools Funding Formula, to enable schools to provide the breadth of curriculum that should be provided. The mechanics of the funding formula may suit the needs of individual schools, however if the quantum of the budget was not enough schools would not achieve a balanced budget. • Staffing levels were being reduced, at a time when the National Curriculum in Wales was due to be expanded. • The Funding Formula Review Group looked at challenges faced by schools and forwarded recommendations or alterations in respect of areas of specific interest. • The Schools Budget Forum, consisted of Governors, Headteachers, business managers and lay members who discussed pressures faced by schools, commented on the funding formula and other elements to support professional learning and different service level agreements. It was unclear how the Forum influenced decision-making process. • Schools Budget Forum Chair and / or members be invited to future Scrutiny Committee meeting and minutes shared. • Welsh Government (WG) Key stage 4 curriculum expansion plans would affect the funding formula, assurances were given of continued impact evaluation of national changes which would be brought to Committee later in the year. • Assurance was given that credits from previous rate re-evaluations had been used in the delegated area in respect of the £205k. • Clarification be provided regarding the reduction and expected reduction in full time equivalents (FTEs) of teaching, teaching assistants and other staff within schools in years 2024-25,2025-26. • Confirmation of the use of school reserves from an opening balance in 2023-24 of £6.6million to a closing balance as at the 31 March 2024 of £891k. • A detailed explanation of the funding gap was received, as the actual consequential received from WG in March 2024 was passported directly to schools in its entirety (approx. £631k), which resulted in the gap versus pressures being £1.8m. In addition, the demography change expected and estimated created further pressure than the original demography in the FRM. Schools Capital Budget The Committee noted, observed, or requested that: • There was a strong relationship between investment in schools, the backlog of maintenance and the transformation programme. Concerns raised that the capital programme had significant delay, impacting on educational delivery and provision for the young people in Powys. • A breakdown of individual capital schemes be brought to Scrutiny Committee. • There was a significant level of borrowing, rising inflation had major impacts on interest rates which meant projected costs had increased and difficulties incurred to balance delivery against affordability, and some projects were delayed. • The disposal of assets across the council were a key part of the Capital Strategy. • Powys had a responsibility for schools, assurance was provided by the Portfolio Holder that schools could cope within the funding formula. However, concerns were raised that some schools did struggle with maintenance backlog issues.
Scrutiny Committee Recommendations to Cabinet were: 1. The Committee wished to formally note concerns regarding how much schools were struggling to balance budgets. 2. Request that narrative for each cost reduction and pressure be included in budget papers. 3. Request assurance and evidence that the voice of schools was heard via the School Budget Forum and the School Funding Formula Review Group. 4. Request assurance and evidence that the voice of schools was heard via the School Budget Forum and the School Funding Formula Review Group. 5. To reduce delays and improve the progress of the Transformation Programme. 6. The current Estyn Review be presented to the Scrutiny Committee. 7. The budget report for Schools did not align with the Sustainable Powys Programme. The Sustainable Powys Programme which underpins the Sustainable Communities for Learning process which had Council services within schools had not always been favourably received. 8. More detailed information requested on the schools' funding formula. 9. A more detailed analysis was requested on the relationship between the resources (capital & revenue) and standards within schools. Evidence indicated that the outcomes were below what was expected.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.