Category: Cabinet

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall explains why Wirral Council are consulting on closure (Part 1)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall explains why Wirral Council are consulting on closure (Part 1)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall explains why Wirral Council are consulting on closure (Part 1)

                            

The last of the meetings concerning the consultation on closing Lyndale School was held in the hall at Acre Lane Professional Excellence Centre. There to answer questions people had were David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive), Julia Hassall (Director of Children’s Services), Andrew Roberts and Phil Ward (who was chairing the meeting). There was also a sign language interpreter called Sue March, however Phil Ward sent the sign language interpreter away as there was no one present (from the twenty-five or so others present at the start of the meeting) that indicated they needed sign language interpretation.

Labour’s Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services Councillor Tony Smith arrived about five minutes late to the meeting. He sat with the three officers, but didn’t take a part in answering the questions people had.

Julia Hassall said she was “pleased to see so many people” and that there had been some people who had been to all six meetings. She was giving the same introduction at each one, which was drawn from the consultation document (copies of which were available for people at the meeting). She described Lyndale School as a special school in Eastham for children with complex learning disabilities whose viability was compromised by a falling roll and a small number of children.

It was at this point that Councillor Tony Smith arrived.

She repeated a point she had made at a previous meeting, that the consultation on closure was nothing to do with standards of education at the school as the last OFSTED inspection in November 2012 had concluded that the school was good with many outstanding aspects. However in her view Wirral Council needed to get future provision right and in her view two other schools (Elleray Park and Stanley) were able to provide good quality education and care.

Ms Hassall said that the closure proposal was not linked to Wirral Council’s need to save money as any money saved would be used elsewhere, however they were under a duty to make sure there were sufficient school places. She referred to the Children and Young Peoples Plan and the Children and Families Act 2014 c.6. She said that the new legislation would improve the partnership between education and health as the care plan would detail how both education and health would meet the children’s needs in a joined up way.

She referred to the report to the Cabinet meeting of the 16th January when they had agreed to start the consultation and the other options that were being consulted on (she went through the options some of which other than closure were becoming a 2-19 school, federating with another school, co locating with another school, becoming a free school or academy). The full list of options are detailed in an appendix to the Cabinet report. Julia Hassall said that during the consultation all options and any new ones were being considered.

Continuing she told those present that the Cabinet decision of the 16th January had been called in and looked at again by the Coordinating Committee on the 5th February and 27th February. She said that the Coordinating Committee had recommended that the consultation start, which had begun on the 2nd April.

Since the consultation had begun, there had been three meeting in April, two already in June with this meeting being the last of the six. Issues that had been brought up previously were referred to. She said that they had to apply the SEN Improvement Test as any alternative had to be as good as or better than the current provision. Julia Hassall said that they had agreed to engage an independent consultant Lynn Wright (Ed – I am unsure of the exact spelling of this person’s name however this was what it sounded like Julia Hassall said) to offer advice how how they looked at the eight options, any new options and to assess how they applied the SEN Improvement Test. She said that Lynn Wright was not known to the officers prior to this and would produce a separate report with an independent view that would be included when Cabinet decided whether to proceed for a formal proposal.

If Cabinet decided to proceed to the next stage, then there would be a four week statutory representations period and if Cabinet finally approved to close the school it would close at the end of the summer term in 2015 and children at Lyndale would be transferred in September 2015. She wanted to stress that no decision had been made and they would take everybody’s views into account. Ms Hassall referred to someone called Janice who was taking notes on the front row. She continued by saying that small schools could go into financial deficit whereas larger schools had more flexibility and could spend a higher proportion on teaching and meeting children’s needs.

Every January they took a census of pupil numbers. There were 401 children attending nursery with complex learning difficulties and within this 401, sixty-four had profound and multiple learning difficulties. However the number of children with profound and multiple learning difficulties had been similar over the past four years and wasn’t a growing trend. She referred to the number of places at Elleray Park and how through discussions with the school and building work they planned to increase the places there to 110. Stanley School had moved from its former site to a purpose built school and in her view they could add a further five to ten more children there without an extension but could extend it if needed to give sufficient places. She referred to a meeting between the Chief Executive (Graham Burgess) and three parent governors and how there would be a further meeting on Friday (20th June). She then handed over to David Armstrong.

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: David Armstrong explains why there’s a consultation and questions begin (Part 2).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

EXCLUSIVE: 1 letter, 4 emails and a note, Wirral Council’s incredible “behind the scenes” responses on Fernbank Farm

EXCLUSIVE: 1 letter, 4 emails and a note, Wirral Council’s incredible “behind the scenes” responses on Fernbank Farm

EXCLUSIVE: 1 letter, 4 emails and a note, Wirral Council’s incredible “behind the scenes” responses on Fernbank Farm

                        
“If you make money your God, it will plague you like the devil.”

This is very long and detailed. Today may well be the last time I write about the ins and out of the Fernbank Farm saga (unless more documents surface or something dramatically changes), as I can’t see anything changing in the near future. I hope however that this gives an insight about what happened “behind the scenes” at Wirral Council, as if the tenants were kept in the dark by what seemed to them to be a conspiracy of silence, how can politicians hold officers to account on this topic without knowing the full details?

The first document I below is a letter dated 14th March 2014. The context to this letter is that after the fast track trial, the husband of one of the two defendants made a complaint to Wirral Council. This letter is the reply. I’ve not included the Wirral Council logo on the letter, Malcolm Flanagan’s signature or the www.wirral.gov.uk that appears at the foot of each page.

The letter refers to the letter sent in July 2012 to the tenants with the eviction notice (and which forms part of the eviction notice) as the “wrong letter”.

=======================================================================================================
(Wirral Council logo)

Transformation and Resources Department
Joe Blott,
Strategic Director

PO Box No 2,
Treasury Building
Cleveland Street
Birkenhead
Wirral
CH41 6BU

date 14 March 2014

to Mr M Woodley

your ref
my ref Farm3/MJF/DM
service Transformation and Resources – Business Processes
tel 0151 666 3260 Please ask for Malcolm Flanagan
email malcolmflanagan@wirral.gov.uk

Dear Mr Woodley,

Fernbank Farm complaint

I refer to your complaint of 18 February 2014, regarding the above matter as well as the pack of information including memory stick that you submitted to me on 24th February.

I have been asked to review your complaint under the authority’s complaints process. I have looked at the matters you raise in how the authority acted in these proceedings. I have reviewed your comments as well as the information available to me and spoken to the officers concerned and set out below my views of the complaint.

As far back as 2000 the land in question had been allocated as a potential housing development site/primary residential as identified within the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. The restriction of developing such green field land which had been in place for some time was abolished nationally in May 2012. This then opened up the possibility of the property to development and realising a very significant capital receipt once it had been agreed by the authority. This national change was put before Cabinet on 27 September 2012 and the development restraint was effectively withdrawn on 15 October 2012 at Council.

The authority’s budget process identifying the stark financial position of the authority came to the fore in the September period under the direction of the Interim Director of Finance. It was at this point that wholesale reviews of authority expenditure, income and assets were undertaken. At the Council meeting in October this detailed the severe financial challenge the authority and that it must take drastic action to balance its budget.

It is then as the scale of the budget issue crystallised this property’s standing as a sizeable and realisable asset increased significantly in importance. It is my view that it was this budget process that changed the authority’s position on this property and it was not its original position.

I am satisfied that, despite what the later actions or inactions may make this look like, in May 2012 there was I believe an intention on the part of the authority to negotiate a new lease with the current tenants. I believe this is shown from the early contacts between the tenants and the authority.

I do not believe the authority intentionally used the wrong letter in July 2012. It is clear though that by some time no later than November 2012 the authority had chosen not to respond to enquiries in recognition of how the authority preferred to see the situation develop. I accept the tenants did write and phone but the authority did not respond and I do not think the authority denies this. At the hearing the authority’s officers said this is what they did and why they did it. The Judge at the hearing described this as “staying silent” and it is seemingly something a landlord can legally chose to do, as the tenant still has an available remedy to apply to the court to protect their own position.

I can though understand your concern on this stance and that the tenants were given no clear signal that this was the authority’s developing position. Again I appreciate your view on this non engagement and how you judge whether this is an appropriate way of transacting business as a public body.

In your complaint you asked who authorised the change in position in effect to “stay silent” and were they entitled to do that. My understanding is that officers in Asset Management have within their job description to act in a commercial manner and to effect the best position for the Council. In my interview with David Armstrong he made it clear that while the decision had predated him given the scale of the budget issue he could foresee no other alternative that he could have taken if it had been his service area at the time.

You have also commented that Mr Armstrong was unaware of the legal action. I have spoken with him and having looked at the timing of contacts no other action than the letter of August 13 was being referred to by you. He is clear that when speaking to you he thought from the information you gave that something else had been done without him being aware. This was not the case and it was the August 2013 being referred to.

Reviewing all these matter, I believe that it was a proper and legal position that the authority was entitled to take in recognition of its budget situation. In its formal role as Landlord, it acted within its rights, in a way to best manage its interest which was to re-acquire the property and realise the best possible receipt for use as capital in the future.

I fully realise you will view that differently. The stance taken by the authority was a formal and legal position but I realise how that translates in human terms on the impact it has on the longstanding tenants and the associations members.

Regrettably whilst appreciating your concerns on the authority’s manner of getting to the position it favoured, I cannot uphold your complaint that it was wrong of the authority to do this. I accept that the “non action” did not alert the tenants to the change in the Landlords intention as it was not something they anticipated from the authority.

Whilst I cannot uphold your complaint for the above reasons, I do appreciate the strength of feeling it has caused in so many people affected by this.

At the recent hearing the Judge gave the authority the right to take back the property I believe, in six months from the date of the decision. I am aware that Mr. Armstrong, Assistant Chief Executive, at the hearing indicated the offer of occupancy by the group for a longer period of 12 months. I believe this shows as the senior officer Mr Armstrong is keen to try to offer support for the club and not just act as quickly as the law allowed.

I have spoken to Mr. Armstrong and he is keen to mitigate the loss of the land to the group. He has also indicated to me his intention is to have the officer’s look at alternative sites for the group and to hopefully agree a suitable way forward over the next few weeks. I have had no reason to doubt the authority’s intention to support this process, while realising a very considerable asset, to help as much as reasonably possible those affected by its decision.

I do realise you will be disappointed by the outcome of my review in not supporting your complaint. However I remain clear that whilst all was done by the authority in a legal manner I appreciate how the change to a more commercial operation in handling this situation has been seen by those affected.

I have to advise you that my review is undertaken at Stage 1 of the authority’s complaints process. If you are dissatisfied with my review you do have the right to request a further review, which can be requested by writing back to me and it would be reviewed by another officer.

Yours sincerely,

(Malcolm Flanagan’s signature)
Malcolm Flanagan
Head of Business Processes

=======================================================================================================
Below are some emails and a note that show what was happening “behind the scenes” at Wirral Council.
=======================================================================================================
From: Dickenson, David
Sent: 23 January 2013 10:54
To: Voas, Sandy
Subject: Upton Pony Owners Lease, Sandbrook Lane, Moreton

Hi Sandy

As discussed Upton Pony Owners lease land at Sandbrook Lane Moreton and the section 25 notice has been served to terminate the lease on 31st May 2013. The trustees are Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley. Please can no further invoices be raised or any rent accepted after 31st May 2013. The tenants are not aware yet but the Council may be looking at the future of this land.

Thanks

David

David Dickenson MRICS
Asset Management Surveyor
Asset Management Section
Wirral Council
Cheshire Lines Building
Canning Street
Birkenhead
Wirral
=======================================================================================================
From: Coathup, Cheryl
Sent: 20 May 2013 12:07
To: Dickenson, David
Subject: Telephone Message – Mrs Kane
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red

Can you please phone Mrs Kane – 678 XXXX, she is awaiting a response from a letter she sent in 3 weeks ago.

Cheryl Coathup

(Technical Assistant)
Department of Law, HR and Asset Management
Asset Management Section
Tel: 0151 666 3878
Fax: 0151 606 2090
email: cherylcoathup@wirral.gov.uk

=======================================================================================================
From: Jones, Debbie A.
Sent: 20 May 2013 15:48
To: Dickenson, David
Cc: Voas, Sandy
Subject: RE: Upton Pony Owners Lease, Sandbrook Lane, Moreton

Hi Dave

Sorry we don’t have the facility to stop payments coming in at all. All we can do is refund straight away if we receive a payment in.
——————————————————————————————————-
From: Dickenson, David
Sent: 20 May 2013 15:38
To: Jones, Debbie A.
Cc: Voas, Sandy
Subject: FW: Upton Pony Owners Lease, Sandbrook Lane, Moreton

Hi Debbie

After 31st May although no new invoices will be sent out, can the account be changed so no rent can be paid onto old invoices as this would also be classed as them paying the rent by a court.

Thanks

David

=======================================================================================================
From: Jones, Debbie A.
Sent: 13 August 2013 14:23
To: Dickenson, David; Simpson, Tony
Cc: Voas, Sandy; Chan, Kit C.; Bayatti, Ali N.
Subject: Upton Pony Owners Association

Hi Dave

I refer to another £350.00 standing order payment received against the above mentioned customer 4206583 dated 1st August 2013. Even after the customer number had been made inactive on the AR system, it appears any money being received quoting a valid customer will still appear on their account.

I have again refunded the money back to the Associations bank account but this time have asked for another customer number to be set up with the clients address details and merged the old customer number 4206583 with the new one, therefore making 4206583 invalid so hopefully as the Association quote their customer number when paying by BACS/Standing Order the AR system will now not recognise it as a valid number and place it in our unidentified payments were we will be able to refund straight away without the money hitting their account.

Can you please confirm and send me a copy of the letter that you have sent to the above requesting that they now cancel the standing order payment.

Thanks

(Debbie Jones signature)
(Wirral Council logo) WIRRAL BOROUGH COUNCIL
Accounts Receivables
Debbie Jones
Accounts Receivable Income Officer
Revenues Services/ Business Processes

=======================================================================================================
20th May 2013

After 31st May 2013 Pony owners will have lost the right to renew if they do not apply to court but Sundry debtors must not charge or accept any rent.
Spoke to Tony after getting first message and again, ignore phone call as any commercial firm would do.

Tony has spoken to David Armstrong about situation.

Spoke to Peter Rowlands after 31st May need to apply to court to get them off, after 6 months get protection again. Peter will need to check with Anne Quirk. V important that Council accepts no rent.

Emailed and spoke to Debbie Finance cannot stop any rent payments being received either by tenant using customer number old invoice number of name. Debbie checked with IT.
=======================================================================================================
* Peter Rowlands is Wirral Council’s officer contact for property that they are auctioning off through Pugh Auctions. Therefore it is clear that Wirral Council’s intention was to get a possession order for Fernbank Farm, evict the tenants and sell the property off to the highest bidder. Obviously before then a Cabinet Member would have to decide to declare it “surplus to requirements” which is something that can’t be decided while the tenants are still there.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.

Wirral Council officers want to spend £600,000 of £1.4 million special educational needs underspend on PFI deal

Wirral Council officers want to spend £600,000 of £1.4 million special educational needs underspend on PFI deal

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee voting earlier this year to consult on closing Lyndale School

Wirral Council officers want to spend £600,000 of £1.4 million special educational needs underspend on PFI deal

                                 

Tonight (at the time of writing) the Wirral Schools Forum meets. Regulation 8(2) and 8(13) of The Schools Forums (England) Regulations 2012 mean that meetings of the Wirral Schools Forum are public meetings and the papers for the meetings have to be published on Wirral Council’s website.

The report for agenda item 8 (Schools Budget Monitoring Report 2013-14) contains some rather interesting information about spending in the special educational needs area of the budget.

For example this quote from that report refers to the budget that goes towards special schools such as Lyndale School (which Wirral Council is currently consulting on the closure of):

“2.12 Special Education Needs Transition Reserve £0.3m under spend The 2013-14 budget is £8.3m, of which £8.0m has been committed, including the costs to fund the High Needs MFG in 2014-15 of £330,000.” and there are other underspends in the special educational needs budget too, a half a million pounds underspend on special educational needs statementing costs for schools and early years (detailed at 2.13), a £400,000 underspend in support for special educational needs (detailed at 2.15) and a £200,000 underspend on the independent special schools budget. In total this comes to an underspend of £1.4 million across the special educational needs budget, when Wirral Council are consulting on closing Lyndale School (according to their consultation document) over a predicted shortfall of £12,313 last year and £19,000 this year.

Part of the reason for the predicted shortfall of £12,313 is because when the 2013-14 schools budget was agreed (first by the Wirral Schools Forum, then by Cabinet, then by Council) a high needs contingency in the special schools budget was set of £880,000, which as the report states there is a £300,000 underspend of this reserve it was set too high. If this reserve had instead been set a little more realistically and let’s just say for sake of argument the £300,000 divided equally between the eleven special schools on the Wirral, each school would’ve received an extra £27,272 which would’ve meant that there was no deficit at Lyndale School last year and that the deficit this year would be extremely small (~£4,000).

Despite these large underspends in the special educational needs budget of £1.4 million, overspends and underspends elsewhere in the education budget and a contribution of £600,000 to reserves reduces the total underspend to £384,000.

You may well ask what reserve is £600,000 needed for that had been previously allocated for special educational needs? This report on School Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Costs explains the need for a £600,000 reserve. Thirteen years ago a private finance agreement was agreed to by Wirral Council for the rebuild/refurbishment of one primary and eight secondary schools on the Wirral. Variations to the agreement were then agreed for the construction of two City Learning Centres. This PFI contract was originally for 25 years, but then extended for a further two years in 2004.

Wirral Council pay amounts to Wirral School Services Limited for the PFI costs according to the contract signed. The annual cost this year will be £11 million, which is offset by a government grant of £5.5 million a year. The PFI schools pay their share of the PFI facilities management support services costs which comes to £3 million a year. However this still leaves £2.5 million.

Officers are proposing that £600,000 of the underspend (money that was originally allocated for special educational needs) should be put towards PFI costs. The rest will be have to be found from permanent savings in the Schools Budget.

So who was Cabinet Member for Children’s Services when the PFI agreement was agreed in 2004, that may result in money that was agreed for the education of children with special educational needs being diverted into the profits of a private company? The Cabinet Member for Childrens Services from 2000 to 2009 was Councillor Phil Davies, the current Leader of Wirral Council.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor Phil Davies agrees to pay extra £113,189 to Hoylake Golf Resort consultants based on secret report

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor Phil Davies agrees to pay extra £113,189 to Hoylake Golf Resort consultants based on secret report

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor Phil Davies agrees to pay extra £113,189 to Hoylake Golf Resort consultants based on secret report

                     

Yesterday Councillor Phil Davies agreed that consultants on the Hoylake Golf Resort project would be paid an extra £113,189 based on a report in the name of Kevin Adderley, the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment. David Ball, Wirral Council’s Head of Regeneration (davidball@wirral.gov.uk/0151 691 8395) had a role in preparing the report.

The report on which Councillor Phil Davies made his decision has not been made available to the public on grounds that it has “commercial sensitive information”. However the surprising decision would seem to not to comply with The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. The decision is a key decision however:

  • A document detailing that they wish to make a key decision was not published 28 clear days by Wirral Council before making the decision (see Regulation 9 (Publicity in connection with key decisions).

  • A notice was not published five days before the decision detailing agreement of the chair of the relevant policy and performance committee that it was an urgent decision and could not be reasonably deferred (see Regulation 10 (General Exception).

  • A notice wasn’t published claiming special urgency and detailing agreement of either the chair of the relevant policy and performance committee, Mayor or Deputy Mayor that it was urgent and couldn’t be reasonably deferred (see Regulation 11 (Cases of special urgency).

  • It’s a legal requirement that an annual report (see Regulation 19) is brought by the Leader to a meeting of all Wirral Council councillors about decisions where a case of special urgency is used since the last report. Despite this being a legal requirement since the 10th September 2012, to my recollection no such report has ever been brought to a Council meeting.

Councillor Phil Davies’s decision could still be called in by councillors as a call-in deadline of 24th April 2014 has not yet passed. The reason for the urgency was given as “to allow the OJEU Competitive Dialogue process to be finalised and a preferred developer for the Hoylake Golf Resort project to be selected and announced prior to the Open Golf Championship at Royal Liverpool in July 2014.” At least one Conservative councillor has previously asked at a public meeting about when the public will be consulted on Wirral Council’s Hoylake Golf Resort plans.

UPDATED: The extra £113,189 paid to David Langdon (AECOM) is in addition to £123,823 already agreed by Cabinet last year who also agreed to £55,000 of legal advice from Pinsent Masons LLP.
A report on Wirral Council’s website from last year details what the Hoylake Golf Resort is about.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

3 reasons why Wirral Council got budget projections on Lyndale School so very wrong

3 reasons why Wirral Council got budget projections on Lyndale School so very wrong

3 reasons why Wirral Council got budget projections on Lyndale School so very wrong

                         

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Reason 1: An assumption was made about the minimum funding guarantee

As covered in an earlier blog post, Wirral Council applied to the Education Funding Agency for permission that the minimum funding guarantee requirement that Lyndale School in 2014-15 (minimum funding requirement means it would receive at least 98.5% of the funding it got in 2013-14 when Lyndale School’s budget was £761,733) wouldn’t apply.

You can read Wirral’s application here in response to my Freedom of Information Act request to the Education Funding Agency.

The report to Cabinet uses a figure of a deficit of £72,000 for 2014-15 (see the fourth paragraph of 2.8) which is 9% of Lyndale School’s budget. However Wirral withdrew their application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee before the call in meeting.

As this blog post details at the end thanks to the minimum funding guarantee Lyndale now project a small surplus in 2014-15 and the cumulative deficit at the end of 2015 is only projected to be £18,000 rather than the £72,000 figure used in the January Cabinet report.

Reason 2: A prediction about Lyndale’s budget in an unspecified future year

In the same Cabinet report a deficit for Lyndale School’s budget is predicted in an unspecified future year of £160,000 (representing £10,000 for each of the sixteen spare places it has) (see the fourth paragraph of 2.8). This is added to the projected £72,000 deficit to make £232,000. Reason 1 goes into detail as to why the £72,000 figure is wrong.

However the £160,000 figure is wrong (in my opinion) too and here is why. As specified in Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee, the minimum funding guarantee is a condition of the Dedicated Schools Grant that Wirral Council receive each year from the government for education. The minimum funding guarantee is also a legal requirement.

The full wording of that condition of the 2014-15 schools grant for Wirral Council is only partially quoted in their application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee. However it can be found in this document Dedicated schools grant (Departmental guide for local authorities on the operation of the grant 2014-2015) (page 6) and is quoted here:-

Determination of the local funding formula and funding for high needs pupils

“11. The following conditions apply in relation to the determination of the local funding formula and the funding for high needs pupils:

…….

g. in deciding on top-up funding rates for the pupils it will place in special schools maintained by the Authority and Special Academies formerly maintained by the authority, the authority must ensure that the rates for each school are set no lower than at such a rate or rates that, if all the pupils in the school or Academy were placed by the authority, and the total number and type of places remained the same in the two financial years, the school or Academy’s budget would reduce by no more than 1.5% in cash between 2013 to 2014 and 2014-15;”

This reference to a £160,000 deficit can however be read as a reference to Lyndale School’s budget for 2015-16. The government is currently running a consultation on schools funding (which ends on 30th April 2014) called Fairer Schools Funding 2015-16. One of the consultation documents as part of the consultation has this to state on the minimum funding guarantee.

“We will retain the Minimum Funding Guarantee, which has been in place over many years and which dictates that for the vast majority of schools, funding per pupil cannot drop by more than 1.5% per year*”

“*Some funding is excluded from the calculation of the Minimum Funding Guarantee. Details of this are in 2014-15 Revenue Funding Arrangements: Operational Information for Local Authorities.”

The latter document specifies a number of exclusions to the Minimum Funding Guarantee, which don’t apply to Lyndale School. Although the government has committed to a minimum funding guarantee for 2015/16 it hasn’t specified what level it will be at as this is dependant on a spending review that has yet to take place. However using Lyndale’s 2013-14 budget as a guide (£761,733), £160,000 represents a massive drop of 21%.

2015 is a General Election year, do you think the government would really set the minimum funding guarantee for 2015-16 low enough to cause the kind of huge deficit that would lead to many schools across the country closing in the months leading to a General Election? Personally I don’t think it would.

3. But what about “Place plus”?

The rationale behind the £160,000 mentioned in reason 2 was that for each place Wirral Council receives £10,000. Lyndale School at the time of writing the Cabinet report had sixteen empty places (16 * £10,000), therefore if the funding Wirral Council receives is based on pupils at Lyndale rather than places Lyndale would lose out due to the empty places.

As mentioned earlier, the minimum funding guarantee doesn’t make this an issue in 2014-15. The way the minimum funding guarantee is calculated for 2014-15 for a special school doesn’t take account of the numbers of pupils or empty places at a school. As the legislation on how to calculate the minimum funding guarantee for 2014-15 quite clearly states:

“references to the number of pupils exclude those funded by a sixth form grant and those in places which the local authority have reserved for children with special educational needs;”

As referred to at the end of reason 2, it’s a General Election year next year, will the government really change how the minimum funding guarantee for special schools is calculated for 2015-16 from a formula based on the total budget of the school to a pupil based formula causing some special schools to close in the lead up to the General Election? I haven’t got a crystal ball, but I doubt they would. Even if the funding formula changes to a more pupil based funding, the minimum funding guarantee for 2015-16 (at whatever level it is set at) should protect schools like Lyndale School from large changes to their budget.

So what do you think? Have I got something wrong? If there is no financial reason to close down Lyndale what’s the real reason? I’d be delighted to read your opinion and you can have your say (even anonymously) by leaving a comment.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.