Appendix 5 Cross-phase Headteacher Meeting Budget Consultation – 28th January 2015 Present: Cllr Rob Stewart (Leader of the Council, Chair of the meeting), Cllr Jen Raynor (Cabinet member for Education, Cllr Clive Lloyd (Cabinet Member for Transformation & Performance), Chris Sivers (Director of People), Mike Hawes (Head of Financial Services) 83 Heads or their representatives (2 apologies) Colleagues from Education dept. Headteacher view/comment Response During the consultation with the public RS: The various ways individual schools might choose to cope with the proposed reduction in funding it was not made clear what the cuts to are not yet known. schools could look like. So the JR: Education is really important in : the councillors chose it as a priority, as did the Forum. The public public/parents may not have had the chose to prioritise what they can see the easiest elderly care, bin collection, pot holes. The LA can – information to be able to prioritise or assist schools in explaining to parents what is happening in schools. raise concerns correctly. CL: All council services are being looked at. Reviews and innovative solutions are being sought to release funding for the priority areas of Education and Adult Social Services. Investment in improved ICT will need to help to realise savings and improvements. Land sales one example was cited of RS: The principle is that schools should be helping each other. Do school support the notion of selling – a school where is being land to fund the agreed programme or not? Only options were to sell land or stop the programme as ‘surplus’ land sought for sale. Helping to fund the further prudential borrowing was not advisable. Individual cases were to be discussed outside this school organisation programme should meeting. not come at the cost of losing land which is not surplus and is needed to deliver the curriculum. The Council does not appear to be MH: the Minister has changed the basis of to be an average over 5 years. The his ‘guarantee’ meeting the WG funding commitment relatively generous amounts has given schools in the last 3 years counts towards the 5 year period. next year. Is the £2.4 million funding Funding from WG to LAs has been cut despite the of certain areas. Minister’s ‘protection’ provided to schools in the last 3 years (over the to be Minister’s Guarantee) considered to be repaid next ‘a loan’
Appendix 5 Cross-phase Headteacher Meeting – Budget Consultation 28th January 2015 Present: Cllr Rob Stewart (Leader of the Council, Chair of the meeting), Cllr Jen Raynor (Cabinet member for Education, Cllr Clive Lloyd (Cabinet Member for Transformation & Performance), Chris Sivers (Director of People), Mike Hawes (Head of Financial Services) 83 Heads or their representatives (2 apologies) Colleagues from Education dept. Headteacher view/comment Response During the consultation with the public it was not made clear what the cuts to schools could look like. So the public/parents may not have had the information to be able to prioritise or raise concerns correctly. RS: The various ways individual schools might choose to cope with the proposed reduction in funding are not yet known. JR: Education is really important in : the councillors chose it as a priority, as did the Forum. The public chose to prioritise what they can see the easiest – elderly care, bin collection, pot holes. The LA can assist schools in explaining to parents what is happening in schools. CL: All council services are being looked at. Reviews and innovative solutions are being sought to release funding for the priority areas of Education and Adult Social Services. Investment in improved ICT will need to help to realise savings and improvements. Land sales – one example was cited of a school where ‘surplus’ land is being sought for sale. Helping to fund the school organisation programme should not come at the cost of losing land which is not surplus and is needed to deliver the curriculum. RS: The principle is that schools should be helping each other. Do school support the notion of selling land to fund the agreed programme or not? Only options were to sell land or stop the programme as further prudential borrowing was not advisable. Individual cases were to be discussed outside this meeting. The Council does not appear to be meeting the WG funding commitment next year. Is the £2.4 million funding provided to schools in the last 3 years (over the Minister’s Guarantee) to be considered ‘a loan’ to be repaid next MH: the Minister has changed the basis of his ‘guarantee’ to be an average over 5 years. The relatively generous amounts has given schools in the last 3 years counts towards the 5 year period. Funding from WG to LAs has been cut despite the Minister’s ‘protection’ of certain areas.
Sustainable_Swansea_-_Results_Report.docx