Agenda item

The Leader of the Council provided the Council with an update of business discussed by Cabinet on 17 October and 14 November 2018 (for copy see file of Minutes).

Councillor Temple asked the following question on Item 6 of the Cabinet report:

With regard to writing off a £3.4 million deficit at Wellfield School, the 2014 Ofsted Report stated ‘The school is currently in a deficit budget but strong plans are in place with the local authority to ensure that the school has financial stability within the next three years.’

Four and a half years later, as it plans to write off the debt, does the Portfolio holder agree that Cabinet has been negligent in failing to prevent this £3.4 million hit to the public purse?  And what assurance can the Portfolio holder provide to Members that the Cabinet will never again leave the Council open to such losses?

In the absence of the Portfolio holder, Councillor Hovvels provided Councillor Temple with a response as follows, and informed Councillor Temple that the Portfolio holder was prepared to meet with him afterwards.

The Council took its responsibility for Education very seriously and this extended to the proper governance and financial management of its maintained schools.  Councillor Temple was pointed to the full response provided to Cabinet by Councillor Napier on 14 November 2018, following a very similar question from Councillor Hopgood.

The Council monitored schools financial performance on a termly basis and provided regular updates to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committee on a quarterly basis.  It provided both challenge and support to School Governing Bodies in dealing with the financial challenges they faced.

Wellfield School suffered a reduction in pupil numbers from around 2010/11 which accelerated in 2012 when the school received an Ofsted judgement of ‘inadequate’ and was at that time required to be sponsored by an existing Multi-Academy Trust.  At the point that the Ofsted judgement was received the school had a surplus brought forward of in the region of £201,000.  Pupil numbers then fell in the following four years.

A new head teacher was appointed in September 2012 and the school, supported by the Council’s School Improvement Team, began to address the concerns raised by Ofsted.  Across the next two financial years the Regional Schools Commissioner attempted to find a sponsor for the school.

They could not find a sponsor and in 2014 the school was re-inspected by Ofsted and categorised as a ‘Good’ school.  At that point the school was no longer mandated to become a sponsored academy.

The Ofsted figures to which Councillor Temple referred were based on forward projections of increases in admissions that would have brought the in-year budget into balance within three years, but the numbers of pupils did not materialise as quickly as was being envisaged at that time.

The Council had continued to support and challenge the school and its governing body to make efficiencies to bring its budget into balance in year, pending the review of schools provision in this area.

In the current year the school had, for the first time in seven years, been able to set an in-year balanced budget, with the outlook for future years indicating a strengthening financial position.

The position at Wellfield was at least in some part a legacy of the time taken to try and find a sponsor for the school, but also a symptom of the under-funding of schools more generally, where they have faced real terms cuts in funding as the Dedicated Schools Grant had not kept pace with inflationary pressures.

While Wellfield had exceeded the three-year rule in terms of carry forward of deficits, this had been a managed position, balancing the impact on school performance, school educational outcomes and finance considerations.  The Council’s External Auditors had been kept fully involved throughout this process.

In terms of the actions the Council had out in place to stop this happening again the Council had strengthened its corporate recording and monitoring of schools, it continued to work closely with the Regional Schools Commissioner, and had instigated an area by area review of education provision across the county, with the outcome being a more financially sustainable provision going forward.

Councillor Temple replied that in the absence of the Portfolio Holder it would be impossible to ask a meaningful supplemental question.  However the reply provided did not correspond with the figures he had been provided.  He would raise the issue with the Portfolio Holder outside of the meeting and also request Scrutiny to oversee the issue.