Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 13 January 2016
Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 13 January 2016
3.00pm Great Malvern Room County Hall Worcester
Document Details: Status: V 0.1 Date: January 2016 Document Location: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/downloads/download/552/worcestershire_schools_forum_fra mework_downloads Contact: Andy McHale
Page | 1 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 13 January 2016
Contents
Agenda Minutes of the Meeting 13 January 2016 Minutes of the Previous Meeting 6 October 2015 Agenda Item 6 DfE Correspondence a) Schools Block DSG Guaranteed Unit of Funding (GUF) b) AP Free Schools Funding Agenda Item 7 Update on Commissioned Services a) Support for Underachieving Groups Babcock International PLC b) Business Support Services Liberata UK Ltd. Agenda Item 8 WSF Operational Issues a) Membership and Attendance b) New Member Induction Agenda Item 9 Provisional School Funding Settlement 2016-17 Agenda Item 10 The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2015 and DSG Conditions of Grant 2016-17 Agenda Item 11 Schools Block Allocations 2016-17 Authority Proforma Tool (APT) Agenda Item 12 High Needs Places Academic Year 2016-17 Agenda Item 13 Update on the National Fair Funding Formula (NFFF) a) Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) b) F40 Group Agenda Item 14 Early Years (EY) Update a) Take Up of 2 Year Old Funding b) DfE Benchmarking Tool Agenda Item 15 Proposed Amendments to the Worcestershire Fair Funding Scheme for Financing Maintained Schools
Date of Next Meeting: - Thursday 25th February 2016 at 2pm, Kidderminster Room, County Hall
Page | 2 www.worcestershire.gov.uk
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Wednesday 13th January 2016 In the Great Malvern Room, County Hall, Worcester
The meeting started at 3.00 pm
IN ATTENDANCE:
WSF Members
Clive Corbett (Chair) - Pershore High School Malcolm Richards (Vice Chair) - Governor, Bromsgrove (Until 4.45pm) Lawrence Gittins - St. John's CE Primary School Elizabeth Spencer - St. Richards CE First School Guy Shears - RSA Academy Arrow Vale (Until 4.45pm) Bryn Thomas - Wolverley CE Secondary School Frank Steel - Regency High School Sean Williams - The Forge Pupil Referral Unit Denise Phelps - PVI Sector Stephen Baker - Union Representative Sean Devlin - Archdiocese of Birmingham Val Houghton - Church of England Board of Education Alistair Thomas - Governor, Malvern Hills (Until 4.45pm) David McIntosh - Governor, Wyre Forest Peter Ingham - Governor, Wyre Forest Richard Taylor - Governor, Bromsgrove John Bateman - Governor Aspire Alternative Provision (AP) Free School Michael Kitcatt - 16-19 Providers (Until 5.15pm)
Local Authority (LA) Officers
Stephanie Simcox - Finance Sue Alexander - Finance Andy McHale - Children's Services Caroline Brand - Children's Services
1. APOLOGIES
Marian Gager - Evesham Nursery School Paul Kilgallon - St. Barnabas First and Middle School Vivienne Cranton - Hollymount Primary Jeff Robinson - Governor, Malvern Hills June Longmuir - Governor, Bromsgrove Tricia Wellings - PVI Sector
1 Councillor John Campion - Cabinet Member with Responsibility For Children and Families
2. FINANCE MANAGEMENT UPDATE
2.1 Steph advised the WSF that following a recent review of Finance Head of Service roles within WCC these are changing with effect from 1st April 2016.
2.2 Steph has been appointed to a new role of Head of Strategic Infrastructure Finance and Financial Recovery which would no longer be responsible for the management of the Children's Services finance function including WSF and school funding matters. These would become the responsibility of Sue Alexander as Head of Financial Management Adults Services, Children's Families and Communities.
2.3 The Chair welcomed Sue to her first WSF and on behalf of the WSF thanked Steph for all her hard work and support to the WSF and on school and LA funding matters.
3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
None declared.
4. DECLARATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS WITH ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
None declared.
5. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (6th October 2015)
Agreed.
6. MATTERS ARISING
6.1 The WSF noted Jane Long had retired as Headteacher Fort Royal Community Primary so a vacancy exists for a maintained special school Headteacher representative.
6.2 Under 7.6 Andy advised that the Cabinet report had included an Appendix as required summarising the discussions and decisions of the WSF from its meeting on 6th October 2015 on the funding issues for 2016-17.
7. UPDATE ON COMMISSIONED SERVICES
7.1 Babcock Update
(a) The Chair introduced and welcomed Liz Holt Regional Manager and Maria Dawes Head of School Effectiveness Babcock International PLC to the meeting.
(b) On the EAL service Liz advised: - Flyer documents had been sent to schools and have been included in the e-black bag. Regional meetings have been arranged together with workshops on 2nd/3rd February 2016. Help desk support and EAL health checks for schools are now available.
2 The service is keen to develop School Champions support. As the service is funded from de-delegated budgets it is free to maintained schools only and chargeable to academies.
(c) On the Babcock transfer Liz advised: - The service was now located in Woodbury Lane, Norton. The formal consultation on the structure is near completion. There is an e-store of services available with prices with accounts being created for schools. Schools and governors have been invited to twilight briefings on 23rd February and 3rd March 2016. Development of a School Improvement strategy to include commissioned and traded work.
(d) The Chair thanked Liz and Maria for their input and attendance.
Liz and Maria left the meeting at 3.20pm.
7.2 Business Support Services
(a) The Chair introduced and welcomed Sian Roberts from Liberata UK Ltd to the meeting.
(b) On the current position Sian advised: - The contract with WCC, following the due diligence period, had been signed on 22nd December 2015 with a start date of 1st February 2016. The WSF were provided with papers detailing information on Liberata, which is a UK company group. Staff will be accommodated under a lease arrangement in County Hall. There will be investment in 'Best of Breed' technology for HR/Payroll, schools finance and budgeting systems.
(c) Following questions from members of the WSF Sian further advised: - There is likely to be a new system in place of SAP and a transition programme is being looked at for implementation wef April 2017 to include historic data (current year plus previous two). Schools are currently already able to choose their own providers, and therefore systems. Training will be available on the change process, as well as employee self- service and a helpline. Liberata want to work with HTs and School Business Managers. In the short term staff will continue in their current roles and all in scope will transfer across under TUPE apart from one who has tendered their resignation. There are no redundancies planned but a move from SAP may necessitate a look at the structure at some stage. There are vacancies at the point of transfer so changes will be managed proactively. Liberata want to grow the business and can see opportunities to do so.
(d) The Chair thanked Sian for her input and attendance.
Sian left the meeting at 3.50pm.
3 8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS – DfE CORRESPONDENCE
8.1 Schools Block Guaranteed Unit of Funding (GUF)
(a) The WSF noted the reply and the Chair commented that it did not resolve the issue.
8.2 AP Free School Funding
(a) The WSF noted the reply and that it did not offer any solutions.
(b) A member of the WSF advised on a recent meeting with the DfE and confirmation in the DfE letter of the ability to register directly on the AP roll. Andy advised that these numbers are not included in the data set for Schools Block DSG funding.
(c) The DfE view is that any issues require a local solution within the current funding blocks. The Chair advised of current local discussions and work on progressing a comprehensive provision arrangement across the County. It is the view that the providers both PRU and AP Free schools are required to meet needs of both PEx and other AP.
(c) WSF members commented: - Funding is a key issue and with the pressures on the HN Block it may require consideration of transferring some Schools Block funding in the future. In the North East there is a lack of provision and equity with other areas. There needs to be standard provision for all areas. There is a key role for FAAP panels and protocols are not being followed by all schools. All secondary schools need to be on board and support the principles.
9. WSF OPERATIONAL ISSUES
9.1 Membership and Attendance
(a) The Chair introduced the report and reminded the WSF it had arisen from the self- evaluation exercise.
(b) On the attendance details it was noted this was generally very good but some categories had not been well represented. The experience of members of WSF was crucial given the complexity and pace of school funding changes.
(c) Andy requested the WSF to consider two issues – the need or not to change the WSF constitution to reflect whether non-attendance impacts on WSF membership and WSF members needing to nominate substitutes.
(d) On attendance some members felt there needed to be flexibility given busy schedules and putting limits on meetings attended might be too prescriptive and unworkable. The WSF felt it was better for the Chair in conjunction with the Clerk to monitor attendance and liaise directly with individual members if issues arise.
(e) On substitutes WSF were requested to provide the Clerk with relevant details. The Vice Chair confirmed that WAG substitutes would not necessarily come from the WAG Executive Committee.
4 RESOLVED –
WSF members to provide the Clerk with substitute member details as required.
9.2 New Member Induction
(a) The LA recognised the issues and noted the proposals. Some WSF members commented there was scope for improvement. The Chair offered to be involved in any training requirement.
(b) Given the complexity of the funding arrangements the WSF requested a glossary of terms be produced.
RESOLVED –
The Clerk to compile a glossary of the key funding terms for circulation
10. PROVISIONAL SCHOOL FUNDING SETTLEMENT 2016-17
10.1 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)
(a) Andy advised on the provisional DSG allocations for 2016-17 prior to the recoupment deduction for Academies compared to the 2015-16 DSG final settlement as follows: -
DSG Allocations 2015-16 2016-17 Pupil 2016-17 Final DSG GUF Numbers Provisional £'m Funding £ £'m Schools Block 298.661 4,318.28 70310 303.618
+ Holy Trinity Free 1.606 N/A School Total Schools Block 300.267 303.618 Early Years (EY) Block 16.487 3,229.56 5105 16.487 (+0.0%) + EY Pupil Premium 0.384 N/A N/A 0.384 + 2 Year Olds 3.543 3.543 Total EY Block 20.414 20.414 High Needs (HN) 44.510 N/A N/A 44.901 Block (Provisional) NQT 0.104 0.102 Total DSG Gross 365.295 369.035
(b) Andy confirmed the key issues: -
Schools Block Inclusion of Holy Trinity Academy Trust Free School now in the DSG pupil numbers and part of Schools Block GUF in 2016-17. There is an overall increase in pupil numbers between October 2014 and October 2015, which shows an increase in both the primary and secondary sectors reflecting the inclusion in 2016-17 only of the pupil numbers for Holy Trinity Free School. The pupil numbers are as follows: -
5 Phase 2015-16 % 2016-17 % Variance October 2014 October 2015 Census Census (excludes (includes Holy Trinity Holy Trinity Free School) Free School) Primary 41951 60.7 42878.5 61.0 927.5 Secondary 27418 39.7 27661.5 39.3 243.5 SEN Units Reduction (248) (0.4) (230) (0.3) 18 Total 69121 100.0 70310 100.0 1189
Holy Trinity 472 pupils included (291 Primary; 181 Secondary).
Early Years Block Currently there is no change to 2015-16 as this will be updated using the January 2016 pupil numbers.
High Needs Block The allocation of £44.901m includes adjustments for Post 16 Residency +£0.246m, Non Maintained Special Schools (NMSS) -£0.760m and High Needs Growth +£0.905m From the 2016-17 financial year place funding for pre 16 and post 16 pupils in NMSS will not be included in the HN Block. Place funding will no longer be included in the DSG baseline, nor will it be part of the place deductions process. This is reflected in a reduction in the estimated place deduction from the HN block for SEN units in academies, maintained post 16 and NMSS providers which has been reduced by £0.52m LAs were originally advised of flat cash for HN based upon the 2015-16 final DSG. However the LA has been allocated £0.905m to support: - General HN growth and funding issues. Deductions to be made from the DSG for places in AP free schools opened before September 2015 for which the EFA is currently collecting data. Currently this is only included at the 2015-16 level.
Other Statutory induction for NQTs included as in previous years of +£0.102m. Each LAs share of the cost of national copyright licenses as notified by the DfE to be top sliced of -£0.375m.
10.2 Pupil Premium Grant (PPG)
(a) There is no change to the PPG rates for 2016-17.
(b) These are confirmed as: -
6 Phase/Type 2015-16 2016-17 £ £ Primary 1,320 1,320 Secondary 935 935 Looked After Children (LAC) 1,900 1,900 Service Children 300 300 Early Years 300 Full Year 300 Full Year (£0.53 per (£0.53 per hour) hour)
10.3 Education Services Grant (ESG)
(a) The rates are confirmed as follows: - The ESG retained duties rate maintained at £15 per pupil in all state funded schools. The ESG general funding rate has been reduced to £77 (2015-16 £87) per pupil as a first step towards achieving the savings announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). These rates for AP academies and special academies are £288.75 (2015-16 £326.25) and £327.25 (2015-16 £369.75) per place respectively. Continued protection to limit reductions in academy budgets as a result of changes to the ESG for 2016-17.
(b) The report detailed those service areas covered by the retained and general duties parts of the ESG.
10.4 Andy advised on the Other Grant Funding areas as detailed. The WSF raised concerns on the withdrawal of summer schools funding and requested representation be made.
10.5 WSF members were concerned of the costs pressures in schools, particularly pay related costs. To support the challenge letters from Teacher Unions General Secretaries to the Government had been sent. The Vice Chair advised the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have estimated costs to schools will increase by at least 11.7% between 2014-15 and 2019-20 potentially increasing to at least 16% with the likely growth in public sector pay.
10.6 The WSF noted the provisional school funding settlement for 2016-17.
11. THE SCHOOL AND EARLY YEARS FINANCE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2015 AND DSG CONDITIONS OF GRANT 2016-17
11.1 Andy introduced the report which confirmed the already agreed funding changes and their impact on the funding regulations. The key aspects were included in the report.
11.2 The DfE have confirmed the existing DSG grant conditions will remain in 2016-17.
12. SCHOOLS BLOCK ALLOCATIONS 2016-17 AUTHORITY PROFRMA TOOL (APT)
12.1 Andy introduced the report which detailed the early January 2016 position on the APT.
7 12.2 The majority of the School Block DSG is delegated to mainstream schools through the approved local schools funding formula. This takes account of those services already approved to be centrally retained together with DfE prescribed and other permitted adjustments.
12.3 An analysis of the Schools Block funding, prior to de-delegation for maintained schools and after adjusting for centrally retained services detailing the estimated amount to be included in the Local Schools Funding Formula is as follows: -
DETAIL £'000 Schools Block Provisional Allocation 303,618 DfE Adjustments + NQT 102 = Notional Schools Block 2016-17 303,720
Centrally Retained Budgets (Previously Considered by Cabinet and Endorsed by the WSF) Contributions to Combined Services – Early Intervention Family Support (1,500) Co-ordinated School Admissions (696) Servicing of the Schools Forum (55) Termination of Employment/Redundancy Costs (200) Capital Expenditure Funded from Revenue (1,030) Pupil Growth Fund (Pre 16 Basic Need) (500)
DfE Designated Centrally Retained Budgets Licenses and Subscriptions (375)
= Estimated Amount Available for Local Schools Funding Formula 299,364 2016-17
12.4 This compares to the amount in 2015-16 of £295.827m (net). A comparison of the position is: -
DETAIL £'000 Local Schools Funding Formula 2015-16 (including Holy Trinity Free School but excluding one-off DSG Reserve of £1.8m) 295,827
Adjustments Additional Pupil Growth Fund Requirement (100) Falling Rolls Fund – No Provision 2016-17 185 Additional DSG for Overall Increase in Pupil Numbers including Holy Trinity Free School 3,351 Other Minor Adjustments 101 Sub Total 299,364 Falling Rolls Fund – Carry Forward 2015-16 185 = Estimated Amount Available for Local Schools Funding Formula 2016-17 (including Holy Trinity Free School but excluding one-off DSG Reserve of £1.8m) 299,549
12.5 Andy advised although this seems a significant increase it was expected due to the net increase in pupil numbers which will require funding in the formula.
8 12.6 The WSF were advised that the budgetary impact for each individual school will depend upon: - How their individual pupil numbers and all other data varies between October 2014 and October 2015. The Schools Block DSG increase between 2015-16 and 2016-17. The impact across all schools. The impact of the MFG requirement and associated capping level.
12.7 The WSF were reminded falling rolls means a budget reduction and vice versa. Also, with more DSG the cap could change as it can only be set to fund the cash requirement of the MFG.
12.8 Andy advised that further work had been undertaken on the APT and the latest version had been circulated with copies made available prior to the meeting as Appendices C, C1 and C2.
12.9 The WSF were requested to consider some key aspects for consideration as follows: -
(a) Schools Block Data Changes These were detailed in the report and were noted by the WSF. The key areas were pupil numbers where there are some significant changes (increases and reductions) for some schools, FSM reductions, IDACI changes (consequence of using the IMD 2015 across all bands), Low Prior Attainment (LPA) and EAL. On pupil numbers in particular there were increases in primary and KS3 but reductions in KS4. The Chair commented that schools should have been planning for these changes. On EAL a WSF member highlighted the potential impact of the increase on the amount for de-delegation. The WSF noted the LA has to use the prescribed DfE data in the APT and has no specific ownership and control of the changes between the years. It is not possible to change the data sets provided or use the LAs own estimated data sets instead. The WSF re-iterate its previous decision not to use estimated pupil number data in the formula for schools changing their age range and noted the EFA may adjust academy recoupment accordingly. Given this position, as in previous years it has been the policy and LAs recommendation endorsed by the WSF that as required by the DfE the updated data drives the formula. This will result in data changes for individual schools, pyramids and sectors some significant and some not so. The WSF noted to specifically mitigate changes for an individual school, pyramid or sector is not possible.
RESOLVED –
The WSF supported the requirement on the LA to use the formula prescribed DfE data sets and the potential impact on individual schools.
(b) Schools Block Funding Units of Resource The WSF noted the challenge is to seek to accommodate the new October 2015 data sets using the already approved October 2015 units of resource within the estimated Schools Block DSG available for 2016-17.
9 The WSF discussed the impact of potential changes to the already approved local schools formula units of resource for 2016-17. As in previous years it has been the policy and the LAs recommendation endorsed by the WSF to retain as far as possible the already approved local schools formula units of resource in the final APT submission. This rightly acknowledges the data changes will, when comparing 2015-16 to 2016-17, cause variations in individual school allocations and the overall funding split between pyramids and sectors. This approach is in keeping with the local schools formula over a number of years. The WSF concluded is not possible to change units of resource to moderate or lessen change for an individual school, pyramid or sector to reflect data variations and doing so would create more turbulence and be contrary to the workings of the local school's funding formula. The WSF were reminded of the formula stability model for 2016-17 previously approved, including the approved units of resource and noted this gave more certainty. So, unlike in 2015-16 where there was a new local school's funding formula, for 2016-17 the school variations will be solely due to data changes and any subsequent statutory MFG/Capping adjustments between October 2014 and 2015. The WSF were advised the DSG is 'flat cash' with a minor reduction in the Schools Block GUF rate between 2015-16 and 2016-17. So there is effectively no growth in the budget to support ongoing expenditure pressures. The WSF noted the potential changes to the approved AWPU rates for 2016-17 to reflect the second tranche of the one-off allocation from DSG Central Reserves (£1.8m) if approved by the DfE to be excluded from the MFG/Capping and the delegation of the former falling rolls fund not permitted to be excluded from the MFG/Capping. RESOLVED –
The WSF supported retaining as far as possible the already approved local schools formula units of resource in the final APT submission for 2016-17.
(c) Schools Block Overall Issues Andy advised that the Cabinet meeting on 15th October 2015 resolved to authorise the Director of Children's Services to make any subsequent submission by 21st January 2016, as a consequence of the impact of the October 2015 census, other data changes and the final Dedicated School Grant (DSG) for 2016-17. The WSF were reminded that the EFA re-calculate the MFG/Capping calculation for academies using their own formula and baseline so the APT does not reflect academies final position, which may also change if the EFA use estimated numbers for age range changes as advised above. The WSF were requested to consider the options when all of the data checking was completed if any Schools Block resource remains unallocated. The WSF were reminded within the Schools Block it is not permitted to: - Increase the majority of the central budgets as these are cash limited to existing approved budget levels. Hold this centrally and allocate to schools outside of the local schools funding formula to support school cost pressures, schools in deficit or in financial difficulty or reflect funding reductions in other funding streams such as post 16 and Education Services Grant (ESG). So the options, if any resource remains, are to allocate all/some: -
10 Into the local schools funding formula, where it has to be on one of the DfE prescribed formula factors, which cannot be excluded from the MFG/Capping as prescribed by the DfE). In previous years the policy has been to increase the AWPU rates. To the Pupil Growth Fund to support the increasing cost of funding basic need. This was supported by some members of the WSF. This could also support any budget pressure arising from schools changing their age range if the EFA instruct the LA to fund on estimated pupil numbers. This could include if the EFA recoup additional DSG for academies as detailed above. To allocate to the other blocks for Early Years and High Needs. Steph advised that in the past the policy had been to keep increases within the individual blocks and to allocate any additional Schools DSG Block into the AWPU to support all pupils differentiated by phase in order to reflect the different curriculum costs. Steph confirmed such an approach was supported by the Director of Children's Services. The WSF were advised in the past the national ratio of 1:1.27 had been used but the AWPU has a higher ratio of 1:1.46 (national 1:1.47 and upper tier 1:1.49). The WSF noted that any decision is for the LA but the opinion of the WSF was requested. The WSF commented as follows: - Some primary school representatives felt a straight per pupil allocation would be more appropriate. They felt this was supported by the analysis in the appendices although it was recognised primary has been allocated more resource due to the demographics. Other WSF members felt a differential be more appropriate on the overall funding ratio not the higher AWPU ratio. One WSF member suggested, given the demographics, re-visiting the decision not to operate a falling rolls fund from 2016-17 but was advised that could not be re-considered. The WSF noted any such allocation cannot be excluded from the MFG/Capping so not all schools will see a budget increase. Given the above issues the WSF were supportive of the final submission to include any unallocated SB DSG into the AWPU on a ratio of 1:1.27 primary to secondary as has been the case in previous years.
RESOLVED – For the LA to make the decision on any unallocated Schools Block DSG if available but the WSF support its allocation into the AWPU on a ratio of 1:1.27.
12.10 The WSF noted there will be further discussion on School Balances but some WSF members were concerned this was only in respect of maintained schools.
13. HIGH NEEDS PLACES ACADEMIC YEAR 2016/17
13.1 Andy introduced the report which detailed the proposed commissioned place numbers for the academic year 2016/17.
13.2 The report detailed these by provider and highlighted the changes. Andy advised the decision on changes for maintained schools were for the LA to make but for academies these required EFA approval. Andy confirmed any increases would be a call on the additional HN Block DSG allocation for 2016/17.
11 13.3 In response to a question from a member of the WSF Andy advised the EFA had yet to confirm their decisions for academies but given the changes had been agreed with the providers approval was anticipated.
13.4 The analysis included the current position for AP Free Schools but these places are yet to be confirmed by the EFA. In response to a question from a member of the WSF Andy advised the AP deductions would be made automatically by the EFA for both providers and this would have to be managed within the HN Block allocation for 2016/17 supported by the additional HN Block DSG.
14. UPDATE ON THE NATIONAL FAIR FUNDING FORMULA (NFFF)
14.1 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR)
(a) The WSF noted the issues from the CSR.
(b) On the NFFF the WSF noted that an announcement is due later this term with nothing ruled in or out at this stage. The indication was a new funding arrangement for 2017/18 possibly for the academic rather than financial year.
(c) Steph advised on the proposals announced by the Government to reduce the ESG by £600m. It is likely to impact on the general duties rate which has seen a £10 reduction in 2016-17. This will have a significant impact on maintained schools due to LAs have significantly less resource for such duties with schools potentially having to fund such services themselves and on academies directly whose budgets will reduce whilst still having to provide for these key areas. The DfE are currently reviewing the statutory functions that are funded via ESG.
14.2 F40 Group Update
(a) The WSF noted all the activity that had taken place and expressed its support. Caroline advised on the latest position on the Finance Managers Research Team on their work with the DfE.
(b) A member of the WSF although welcoming the £390m raised concerns on how it was distributed and felt this had not been challenged by the F40 Group. Steph referred the WSF to the F40 information provided which made it clear the extra DSG was a welcome step towards a NFFF and its baselining into 2016-17 but challenging the flawed methodology and that it did not allocate to all the least funded LAs.
15. EARLY YEARS UPDATE
15.1 Take Up of 2 Year Old Funding
The WSF noted the report and commented favourably on the increase in take up over the period November 2014 to September 2015.
15.2 DfE Benchmarking Tool
The WSF noted the availability of the data.
12 16. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE FAIR FUNDING SCHEME FOR FINANCING MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
16.1 Andy advised the WSF of two proposed changes to the Fair Funding Scheme for Financing Schools.
16.2 On the DfE change for the funding of admissions and admissions appeals the WSF noted its inclusion which did not affect existing practice or funding arrangements.
16.3 On the local change the WSF noted the recommendation arising from an Internal Audit report on budget setting. This proposed as maintained school budgets are issued a month earlier now by end February then budgets plans should be received by 1st May not 31st May. The WSF recommended this change be notified to maintained schools as soon as possible.
RESOLVED –
The WSF approved the changes to the Worcestershire Fair Funding Scheme for Financing Maintained Schools and the LA advises all maintained schools accordingly.
17. OTHER MATTER
17.1 A member of the WSF commented on the usefulness of the summary paper circulated prior to the WSF meeting. The Chair advised it was intended to improve communication for WSF members and their nominating groups and that there will be one prior to and after each WSF meeting.
The meeting closed at 5.30pm
Date of next meeting: -
Thursday 25th February 2016 at 2.00pm, Kidderminster Room, County Hall
13
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Tuesday 6th October 2015 In the Council Chamber, County Hall, Worcester
The meeting started at 2.05 pm
IN ATTENDANCE:
WSF Members
Clive Corbett (Chair) - Pershore High School Malcolm Richards (Vice Chair) - Governor, Bromsgrove Lawrence Gittins - St. John's CE Primary School Bryn Thomas - Wolverley CE Secondary School Tricia Wellings - PVI Sector Denise Phelps - PVI Sector Stephen Baker - Union Representative Sean Devlin - Archdiocese of Birmingham Val Houghton - Church of England Board of Education Alistair Thomas - Governor, Malvern Hills David McIntosh - Governor, Wyre Forest Peter Ingham - Governor, Wyre Forest Jeff Robinson - Governor, Malvern Hills Richard Taylor - Governor, Bromsgrove June Longmuir - Governor, Bromsgrove Rob Chadwick - Continu Plus Academy
Local Authority (LA) Member
Councillor John Campion - Cabinet Member with Responsibility For Children and Families
Local Authority (LA) Officers
Stephanie Simcox - Finance Andy McHale - Children's Services Caroline Brand - Children's Services
1. APOLOGIES AND WELCOME
The Chair welcomed Rob Chadwick to the meeting who was substituting for John Bateman in the AP Free Schools category.
Marian Gager - Evesham Nursery School Elizabeth Spencer - St. Richards CE First School Paul Kilgallon - St. Barnabas First and Middle School Vivienne Cranton - Hollymount Primary Guy Shears - RSA Academy Arrow Vale Frank Steel - Regency High School
1 Jane Long - Fort Royal Community Primary School Sean Williams - The Forge Pupil Referral Unit John Bateman - Governor Aspire Alternative Provision (AP) Free School Michael Kitcatt - 16-19 Providers
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
None declared.
3. DECLARATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS WITH ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
None declared.
4. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (9th September 2015)
Agreed.
5. MATTERS ARISING
5.1 Under 6 Steph advised the letter confirming the position on s106 would be circulated shortly.
5.2 Under 8 Andy confirmed a letter detailing concerns on the Holy Trinity Free School consolidation issue had been signed by the Chair and sent to the Government. WSF members re-iterated their concerns.
5.3 Under 12 Andy confirmed the revisions to the Fair Funding Scheme for Financing Maintained Schools had been circulated as required.
5.4 Under 14 the Chair thanked Steph for taking the WSF through the voting issues at the last meeting.
5.5 Schools Forum Self-Assessment Toolkit
(a) The Chair confirmed that 11 replies had been received and a summary report had been prepared.
(b) The feedback was positive and key issues were: - The address for the dedicated WSF web site confirmed: - http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/info/20063/worcestershire_schools_forum The volume and complexity of documents needed to be considered by the WSF. The need to consider an induction pack for new WSF members. How to canvass opinion of representative groups particularly for Governors. Need to look at an annual review of practice in line with DfE Operational Guidance updates.
5.6 The Chair confirmed the WSF Strategy Group had met on 29th September and the next meeting was 7th December at Pershore High School. A request was made for further HT representatives to be confirmed to the Chair. The WSF were also advised the national Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) will be reporting on 25th November 2015.
2 5.7 Falling Rolls Fund (FRF)
(a) A member of the WSF had circulated a note to the WSF raising issues on the consultation criteria for the FRF. He felt they did not readily reflect the issues discussed at the Strategic Group. However, as the consultation had not supported continuing the fund in 2016/17 the issue was dealt with except the member felt there was an expectation that the 2015/16 position could be reviewed.
(b) Steph advised the revised criteria proposed in the September 2015 consultation process, although not supported, were for 2016/17. The current criteria for 2015/16 were the existing ones previously approved and so could not change. The member of the WSF did not recall this being the case but accepted the position and considered the matter closed. The Chair confirmed that 2015/16 could not be reopened. It was noted that the Strategic Group could review again for 2017/18 if appropriate.
6. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
6.1 Babcock Update EAL Issues
(a) Andy confirmed that discussions had been ongoing with Babcock in terms of providing a service to support EAL. A proposal was tabled for consideration.
(b) Steph advised that there had been 6 months without a service and Babcock wanted to provide this service with immediate effect for the remainder of this financial year and for 2016-17. A member of the WSF raised the issue of School Champions but was advised despite best efforts this had not materialised and this could further delay the process.
(c) The Babcock contract includes de-delegated services as a separate issue and these have separate agreement and funding agreements. Steph indicated that in 2015-16 they could be allocated the 2015-16 de-delegated amount from October 2015 to March 2016 but no carry forward from 2014-15.
(d) It was noted the final level of de-delegation will depend on the decision of the maintained school members of the WSF and number of maintained schools in January 2016. The LA cannot delegate from Academies so any access by them will have to be a chargeable service. Also de-delegation is an annual decision at the moment prescribed by the DfE.
(e) The WSF requested Babcock to come to its next meeting on Wednesday 13th January 2016 to discuss both EAL and GRT in terms of proposed service delivery, specification, performance measures, etc.
RESOLVED –
The WSF requested the Clerk to invite Babcock to the January 2016 meeting.
6.2 LA Approach from BBC Hereford and Worcester
(a) Andy advised he had been approached to raise with the WSF an intended poetry competition for schools and read out a message as follows: -
3 “BBC Hereford and Worcester is launching a poetry competition in January – it will be themed and split into two categories for primary and secondary age pupils. We’re getting some high profile celebrities on board and looking for local schools to get involved right from the start. If any teachers or head teachers would like more information please contact the Breakfast Producer Julia Leonard - [email protected] or 07730 287151. Please note this has not been properly publicised as yet and is still in the planning stages. Thank you!”
(b) The WSF noted the issue.
6.3 WSF Attendance
(a) The Chair raised issues on some members' attendance and whether this needed to be re-assessed.
(b) Some members felt although important there needed to be flexibility given busy schedules and dates of meetings. The WSF were advised that all members should have nominated a substitute who can attend in their place.
RESOLVED –
WSF members' attendance issues to be discussed further at the January 2016 meeting.
7. SCHOOL FUNDING 2016-17 – OUTCOMES OF THE SCHOOLS CONSULTATION SEPTEMBER 2015
7.1 Andy introduced the item and confirmed the consultation had concluded at 5pm on 1st October 2015.
7.2 To support the WSF the following information had been provided prior to the WSF meeting by e-mail on 5th October 2014 with copies also available at the WSF meeting: - Summaries of the main issues received on the 5 consultation questions, the recommendation for stability in the local schools funding formula 2016-17, other issues and a number of responses – Agenda Item 7(a) and Appendix A. Outcomes and recommendations – Agenda Item 7(b).
7.3 Andy advised that all this feedback would be part of the Cabinet papers for their meeting on 15th October 2015.
7.4 Summary of the Consultation Responses October 2015
(a) The WSF noted the level of responses.
(b) Overall, the WSF were disappointed by the low level of responses (11%) compared to the previous year (48%), particularly in the primary sector and noted the variations between the sectors. However, the WSF concluded this was a consequence of their agreed policy for stability in 2016/17.
(c) On the 5 consultation questions the WSF noted the outcomes: - No support for changing the existing PFI subsidy factor. Support for revisions to the definition for Notional SEN.
4 Continuing with the existing arrangements in 2015-16 into 2016-17 as permitted by the DfE for the: - delegation and de-delegation of centrally retained DSG services for mainstream maintained schools. other centrally retained DSG services for all mainstream maintained schools and academies. Support for not having a small central Falling Rolls Fund and to withdraw the existing arrangements from 2016-17.
7.5 Summary of the Main Issues on the Consultation Issues
(a) Local Schools Funding Formula 2016-17
The WSF noted the support for stability in the 2016-17 local schools funding formula and the recommendation for no change in the local schools formula from 2015-16 in 2016-17. In considering the consultation outcomes, the WSF re-iterated their support for stability and noted it had been supported by the majority of schools responding. The WSF noted and discussed all the summaries of all the main issues made by schools. For the primary and middle school sectors the WSF noted the support for stability. For the secondary sector the WSF noted the overall support for stability but that a minority of schools supported change. Comments received on both issues were included in the summaries. The secondary WSF members advised the consultation outcomes in terms of stability supported their conversations with their schools. Steph advised that also a number of general comments had been received by secondary schools some of which related to Regulations technical matters and referred the WSF to the issues. Notes were included in the summaries to confirm the actual statutory position. Some secondary members of the WSF commented that the issues raised by some secondary schools were unfounded and had no basis. Following a discussion on small schools where there is no specific national definition, the WSF requested the LA look at the formula lump sum in comparison to other LAs.
(b) Consultation Questions 1 to 5
The WSF noted the summaries on the issues raised. For the PFI factor (consultation question 1) a member of the WSF advised on the difficulties currently being experienced. For the FRF (consultation question 5) some members of the WSF felt the consultation criteria were too restrictive and noted that some sectors were supportive of a fund.
(c) Other Issue
Some WSF members raised concerns on the proposed UTC and registered their opposition to it whereas other WSF members were supportive of the concept. Steph advised there will be a detailed consultation and there is likely to be a future need for additional secondary places. The DfE have current guidance on the funding arrangements on their web site.
5 7.6 Consideration of Recommended Actions
(a) Andy requested the WSF consider Agenda Item 7b) which provided a summary of the consultation outcomes and recommended actions. These would then form part of the appendices to the Cabinet report to inform the decisions required by the WCC Cabinet.
(b) The WSF were reminded that, apart from the delegation and de-delegation matters where maintained school members were the decision makers, the decisions were for the WCC Cabinet. The WSF were requested to approve or otherwise the recommended actions.
(c) Andy advised that the voting arrangements were as follows: - All School Members (Nursery, First, Primary, Secondary, High, Special and PRU's) – Funding formula and Other WSF business. Non School PVI Members – Funding formula and Other WSF business. Maintained Mainstream School Members Only – Delegation and de-delegation for their phase only. Non Schools Members – Other WSF Business.
(d) Local Schools Funding Formula 2016-17
On a show of hands the relevant WSF representatives approved (For 13 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 0 votes)
RESOLVED TO: -
Approve for 2016-17 formula stability and no formula change from 2015-16 as supported by the WSF and the consultation responses, with the estimated units of resource detailed below. Approve the following as the factors for inclusion in the local funding formula for 2016-17 for Worcestershire mainstream schools - maintained and academies – to be based upon required DfE data sets from the October 2015 census and other DfE sources, including any in year or prior year changes and the final DSG for 2016-17 when this is confirmed. Approve the model to contain, from April 2016, the following formula factors and estimated units of resource using the prescribed DfE data sets from the October 2015 census and estimated data as required for schools changing their age range from September 2016: - o AWPU: Primary £2,839.13; KS3 £3,886.05; KS4 £4,415.31. o Deprivation: Free School Meals (FSM) Annual: Primary £845.66; Secondary £1,008.66; Income Derivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) all bands 1 to 6: Primary £200.39, £249.29, £332.70, £404.61, £457.35, £662.53; Secondary £277.09, £363.39, £450.64, £531.18, £588.70, £785.26. o Low Cost/High Incidence SEN – Prior attainment: Primary £641.44 [Combination of Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) New % to be determined; Old 78 Points]; Secondary £901.27 [Not achieving level 4 KS2 English or Maths]. o English as an Additional Language (EAL) – maximum of 3 years: Primary £446.80; Secondary £1,083.44.
6 o Lump Sum for Every School: Primary £111,026.16; Secondary £119,998.61 (Middle Schools an average of these rates). o Sparsity based on a tapered approach: Primary £42,796.04; Middle £53,352.91; Secondary and All Through £63,909.77. o Split Site: An individual school cash sum allocated via the approved 2015-16 formula with schools having to meet the qualifying criteria. o Rates: Actual Costs individual to each school. o Private Funding Initiative (PFI): Agreed Costs for those schools in the PFI contract. o Exceptional Premises Costs: An individual school cash sum for those qualifying schools as approved by the EFA. o Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG): -1.5% per pupil as prescribed by the EFA. o Capping: At the relevant % level only to scale back gains for some schools to fund the MFG requirement only as prescribed by the DfE. This is currently estimated at +1.384% with the scaling factor of 100%. This will change with the impact of the revised data sets and 2016-17 DSG. Approve that the current estimated formula units of resource as detailed above and estimated capping % be adjusted in January 2016, as required, to take account of: - o October 2015 census data impact and requirements including use of estimated data for changes in school age ranges if required. o Other DfE prescribed data changes including those from prior years. o The final Schools Block DSG for 2016-17. o Statutory requirements relating to the MFG and/or the School and Early Years Finance Regulations. o Whether the LA is able to include another £1.8m of DSG reserve in the local funding formula for 2016-17.
(e) Consultation Question 1 – Proposed Changes to the PFI Factor
On a show of hands the relevant WSF representatives RESOLVED TO (For 12 votes; Against 1 vote; Abstentions 0 votes) approve there are no changes in 2016-17 to the existing PFI factor.
(f) Consultation Question 2 – Definition of Notional SEN
On a show of hands the relevant WSF representatives RESOLVED TO (For 12 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 1 vote) approve changes for 2016-17 to the definition for Schools Block Notional SEN as detailed [AWPU 5%, Deprivation FSM 50%, Deprivation IDACI 100%, Low Prior Attainment (LPA) 100% and Lump Sum 10%].
7 (g) Consultation Question 3 – Delegation and De-delegation of Centrally Retained DSG Services for Maintained Mainstream Schools
The WSF considered its statutory responsibilities in making decisions on the delegation or de-delegation of services currently centrally retained in the DSG. In line with the Schools Forum (England) Regulations 2012, the WSF maintained school members by phase considered these areas.
On a show of hands the WSF maintained school members by phase RESOLVED TO (Primary: For 4 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 0 votes; and Secondary: For 2 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 0 votes) approve: -
The continued initial delegation and transfer of the following centrally retained services for 2016-17 as in 2015-16 as follows: -
FORMULA FACTOR SERVICE Basic Per Pupil School Specific Contingencies (not early years) Support for Schools in Financial Difficulties 14-16 Practical Learning Options Insurance Staff Costs Supply Cover Licences and Subscriptions Deprivation FSM Eligibility EAL Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils Low Cost High Incidence SEN Support for Underachieving Groups Prior Attainment Behaviour Support Services
The delegation or de-delegation of these areas by reducing the formula amounts for maintained mainstream schools as follows: -
Phase/Service Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Delegation De- Delegation De- delegation delegation School Specific No Yes No Yes Contingency (SSC) Support for Schools in Yes No Yes No Financial Difficulty 14-16 Practical Learning N/A N/A Yes No Options Behaviour Support N/A N/A Yes No Services Schools Insurance Yes No Yes No Licenses and No Yes No Yes Subscriptions (DfE Prescribed) Support for Minority No Yes No Yes Ethnic Pupils or Underachieving Groups – EMAG Support for Minority No Yes No Yes Ethnic Pupils or Underachieving Groups –
8 Travellers Children Free School Meal No Yes No Yes Eligibility Staff Costs Supply Cover No Yes No Yes – Civic Duties Staff Costs Supply Cover No Yes No Yes – Trade Union Duties Staff Costs Supply Cover No Yes No Yes – HR Related Duties
(h) Consultation Question 4 – Centrally Retained DSG Services
The WSF also considered its statutory responsibilities in making decisions on other centrally retained DSG services.
On a show of hands the WSF members RESOLVED TO (For 16 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstention 0 votes) approve the continued central retention in 2016-17 of the following services to as detailed limited to the 2015-16 budget level, WSF decision or further DfE prescription (indicative budgets are shown) for: - Funding for significant pre-16 pupil growth to meet basic need and to enable all schools to meet the infant class size requirement i.e. pupil growth fund – £0.5m. Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) and Music Publishers Association (MPA) licences – subject to DfE prescription. Contributions to Combined Services – the Early Intervention Family Support (EIFS) service budget – £1.5m. Capital Expenditure Funded from Revenue (CERA) – £1.030m. Termination of Employment/Redundancy Costs – £0.2m. Co-ordinated admissions scheme – £0.846m. Servicing of the Schools Forum – £0.055m. Carbon Reduction Commitment – subject to DfE top slice from DSG.
(i) Consultation Question 5 Falling Rolls Fund (FRF)
On a show of hands the relevant WSF representatives RESOLVED TO (For 13 votes; Against 3 votes; Abstentions 0 votes) approve to no longer operate a Falling Rolls Fund from 2016-17
(j) Other issues
The WSF noted that: - The final units of resource and cap for 2016-17 are subject to final confirmation with the EFA and change when the impact of the October 2015 census, other 2015 and prior year data changes and the final Schools Block DSG for 2016-17 are confirmed. As in previous years the formula model for 2015-16 will continue not to include factors for: - Pupil Mobility – not deemed to be a significant issue. Looked After Children (LAC) – funded through the significant LAC Pupil Premium. Post-16 top up – not permitted as not a pre-2013 formula factor. Higher Teacher Costs – only applies to London fringe LAs.
9 (k) The WSF considered the need to exercise its responsibilities to inform the County Council Cabinet of the issues discussed and decisions for the 2016-17 funding formula, the consultation questions and in its WSF decisions on delegation/de-delegation for maintained schools.
RESOLVED –
The WSF agreed that all these above decisions be communicated to the County Council Cabinet as required.
8. DfE APPLICATION REQUESTS TO DISAPPLY THE SCHOOLS AND EARLY YEARS FUNDING REGULATIONS
8.1 Andy advised the two applications requested at the September 2015 WSF meeting had been made to the DfE.
8.2 The WSF were reminded that the designated estimated one-off reserve was £3.6m. For the first allocation of £1.8m (50%) allocated in 2015-16, Andy confirmed the Secretary of State had approved the exemption from the 2015-16 MFG baseline in the 2016-17 APT.
8.3 On the other application to disapply the proposed second allocation of the £1.8m (50%) to be made in 2016-17 from the 2016-17 MFG baseline in the 2016-17 APT Andy reported the Secretary of State had advised an intention to approve. However, this would not be confirmed until the revised Regulations were laid in January 2016. If approved this will allow the 2015-16 Schools Block baseline to be protected in 2016-17
8.4 Given this position the first draft 2016-17 APT submission by 30th October 2015 will exclude the second allocation meaning a reduction of £1.8m in the Schools Block. Upon receipt of formal approval this will be included in the final 2016-17 APT submission by 21st January 2016 re-instating the 2015-16 baseline level.
9. F40 GROUP UPDATE
9.1 Caroline reported on her meeting with the DfE on 9th September 2015. The DfE in reviewing the work of the f40 Group asked some challenging questions. For example, they challenged assumptions on small schools and Steph advised there is no national prescription on this. It was clear any additional funding to support a revised DSG model would not be available. A further meeting was programmed for December.
9.2 Steph updated on the recent f40 Executive Group on 19th September 2015. This had discussed a range of issues including the DfE proposals for funding AP Free Schools from the third year. The WSF were advised of f40 needing to target main principles and to keep the campaign simple and relevant to Fair Funding and not to continue to challenge the allocation methodology of the additional £390m.
9.3 The WSF were alerted to the issues on Parliamentary Petitions and the continuing parental campaign for Fair Pupil Funding.
10 10. SCHOOLS AND EARLY YEARS FINANCE REGULATIONS DfE CONSULTATON 2015 REGULATIONS
10.1 The WSF noted the consultation and that the proposed issues would not have a major impact.
10.2 The WSF requested the LA raised the issue of the unfairness in the funding of the MFG where more well-funded LAs are able to use DSG and not cap gaining schools.
11. DfE HIGH NEEDS (HN) FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS 2016/17
11.1 SEN Places
(a) Andy advised on the current position and this was noted by the WSF. In summary: - LAs have the flexibility to make changes to the number of pre-16 places funded in maintained schools and PRUs. LAs will be able to make changes to the pre 16 place numbers in Academies and post 16 place numbers at FE colleges in their area. These changes will be reflected in the institutions’ EFA allocation for the academic year and will have to be agreed by the institutions. There is no additional HN funding to meet any increased costs incurred by any proposed changes, so any changes to place numbers will need to be managed within the 2015-16 HN budget allocation.
(b) A member of the WSF raised concerns on the ongoing impact on HN pupils in Special Schools particularly the lack of opportunity and provision for post 16. This was supported from another WSF member in respect of FE providers. It was noted all these matters will result in increasing pressures on the HN Block.
11.2 Alternative Provision (AP) Places
(a) The WSF were advised on the ongoing discussions with the DfE relating to the impact of their intended policy for the funding of AP places from the third year.
(b) A member of the WSF confirmed that for the two such providers in WCC this could be a funding pressure of over £1.5m in a full year and was clearly a cost passing exercise from the DfE to LAs.
(c) Andy confirmed this had been discussed at a regional finance meeting with the EFA who did not give any indication of a relevant funding adjustment.
(d) The WSF were requested to consider a draft letter compiled by the recent working party raising relevant issues with the DfE.
RESOLVED –
The WSF to send a letter to the DfE as detailed.
11.3 Non Maintained Special Schools (NMSS) and Specialist Post 16 Institutions (SPI)
The WSF noted the issues as detailed.
11 12. DfE s251 BENCHMARKING TABLES 2015-16
12.1 The WSF noted the availability of the tables and that it excluded the City of London.
13. ACADEMY UPDATE
13.1 The WSF noted the current list of Academies in WCC.
The meeting closed at 3.55pm
Date of next meeting: -
Wednesday 13th January 2016 at 2.00pm, Great Malvern Room, County Hall
12
Sam Gyimah MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Childcare and Education
Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street Westminster London SW1P 3BT tel: 0370 000 2288 www.education.gov.uk/help/contactus
AGENDA ITEM 6b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
2015-0046041POSG
Mr Clive Corbett Headteacher, Pershore High School Chair of Worcestershire Schools Forum Station Road Pershore WR10 2BX
October 2015
Dear Mr Corbett,
Thank you for your letter of 9 October, addressed to the Secretary of State, about funding for Alternative Provision Free Schools I am replying as the minister responsible for school funding policy area.
I am aware that this has been an ongoing area of concern for Worcestershire County Council and that departmental officials have spoken with Council officers and others in Worcestershire on several occasions to try and work out an acceptable way forward. Indeed, I have been advised that the chair of governors at ContinU Plus Academy is currently in touch with the department regarding the same issue, and my officials are ready to offer further advice to address some of the more detailed points in your letter, if needed.
I can appreciate the concerns about the level of funding allocated for the local authority’s high needs, and your wish that funding used to support Aspire in its first 2 years should be transferred to Worcestershire Council’s dedicated schools grant going forward. However, the funding available directly from the department to free schools in their first years of operation is to ensure that they have a chance to get established; it is not to support the ongoing running costs of the school outside the normal high needs funding arrangements. I am therefore unable to agree that extra high needs funding for this specific purpose should be given to the Council.
You may be interested to note that the Education Funding Agency has recently published a suite of publications that set out the high needs funding arrangements for 2016 to 2017. These are available on GOV.UK web pages. In particular, there is guidance that explains how the funding for alternative provision (AP), including in free schools, is intended to operate. We are working from the principle that a local authority and its schools and academies should meet the costs of the AP that they decide is needed in the area, including places in free schools established to meet schools’ demand for AP, without recourse to ongoing extra central funding. Worcestershire Council, working with its schools and academies, will therefore need to work out how the local AP is to be funded from the dedicated schools grant funding they receive. However, I do understand that Worcestershire Council is one of the lowest funded local authorities and I hope that our commitment to make funding fairer will have a positive impact for that local authority in future.
Turning to the issue of places for pupils who have been permanently excluded, I understand the benefits of sole registering a pupil to an AP institution if the AP curriculum is better suited to their needs. Indeed, if there is agreement between the schools that the pupil in AP should be sole registered in that provision, they can be deleted from the referring school’s roll. Given that the pupil would not have been permanently excluded from the school, their parents can apply for them to be re-admitted to a mainstream school in due course, if required.
Thank you for writing on this important matter.
Yours sincerely,
Sam Gyimah MP AGENDA ITEM 8a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) WSF ISSUES MEMBERSHIP AND ATTENDANCE
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the current issues relating to WSF membership and attendance.
1.2 To request the WSF consider any change to the WSF constitution to formalise WSF members' attendance arrangements.
2. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
2.1 At its last meeting on 6th October 2015 the WSF requested that these issues be discussed at the next WSF meeting.
2.2 The LA understands there are often competing priorities for WSF members and is extremely appreciative of the work and support of WSF members. However WSF members are elected to represent their nominating groups.
2.3 To support WSF members in programming their attendance WSF meetings are: - Held 6 times per year. Set in advance for the next academic year in July each year. Programmed to follow an annual pattern – early September, early October, mid-January, end February, late May and early July to endeavour to comply with the national and local consultation requirements.
2.4 Even though WSF members are required to have a named substitute to attend in their place not many WSF members have nominated as such.
2.5 To support the discussion WSF recent attendance and current membership terms are attached at Appendix A.
2.6 This shows the WSF currently carries a lot of experienced members which is crucial given the complexity of the issues for discussion and decision. However, there is a concern in certain categories that attendance is not at a high level or non-existent. This means those groups are not represented in discussions and decision making.
2.7 In looking at any changes to membership rules the LA is aware that some WSF members feel although attendance is extremely important there needed to be flexibility given busy schedules and dates of meetings.
2.8 The WSF are requested to look at the WSF Constitution whether or there needs to be provision on WSF non-attendance. For example, would a specified number of meetings not attended either consecutively or over the course of the academic year not covered by a named substitute member or without apology result in WSF membership being revoked? A copy of the current WSF Constitution is attached for information at Appendix B.
2.9 Also, the LA is requesting that WSF members endeavour to provide a named substitute per the WSF constitution.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The WSF notes and comments on the current position.
3.2 The WSF agrees and any proposed changes to the current WSF constitution as required.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 APPENDIX A WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) MEMBERSHIP ATTENDANCE DETAILED MEMBERSHIP MEETING DATES
CATEGORY/NUMBER/NAME TERM RE-ELECTION Sept Oct Jan Feb May July Sept Oct DATE 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
FIRST/PRIMARY SCHOOLS (7) HEADTEACHERS (4) Marian Gager 2nd 31st March 2016 A A A A A Elizabeth Spencer 4th 30th November 2017 A A A A A Lawrence Gittins 2nd 31st October 2016 A A Vivienne Cranton @ 1st 31st March 2017 X X X X A A A GOVERNORS (3) Malcolm Richards V/Chair 1/9/14 5th 31st March 2016 Alistair Thomas 1st 31st August 2016 Peter Ingham 3rd 31st January 2016 A MIDDLE SCHOOLS (2) HEADTEACHERS (1) Paul Kilgallon 2nd 31st March 2016 A A A A A A GOVERNORS (1) Vacancy @ V V V V V V V V SECONDARY/HIGH (6) HEADTEACHERS (3) Guy Shears @ 1st 31st August 2016 A A A Clive Corbett @ Chair 1/9/14 2nd 30th September 2017 Bryn Thomas 1st 31st January 2017 X X X A GOVERNORS (3) Jeff Robinson 2nd 31st October 2016 A David McIntosh 5th 31st August 2017 A Richard Taylor 2nd 30th September 2017 A
Page 1 of 3 APPENDIX A WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) MEMBERSHIP ATTENDANCE DETAILED MEMBERSHIP MEETING DATES
CATEGORY/NUMBER/NAME TERM RE-ELECTION Sept Oct Jan Feb May July Sept Oct DATE 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
SPECIAL (3) HEADTEACHER (2) Jane Long 2nd 31st August 2016 A A A A A Frank Steel @ 1st 31st August 2017 X X X X X X A GOVERNOR (1) June Longmuir 5th 31st March 2016 A PUPIL REFERRAL UNITS (PRU)/ALTERNATIVE PROVISION (AP) (2) HEADTEACHER (1) Sean Williams 1st 31st August 2015 A A A A A A A A GOVERNOR (1) John Bateman @ 1st 28th February 2017 X X X X A NON SCHOOL (6) UNION REPRESENTATIVE (1) Steve Baker 5th 31st August 2017 ARCHDIOCESE OF BIRMINGHAM SCHOOLS COMMISSION (1) Sean Devlin 6th 31st August 2017 A A CHURCH OF ENGLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION (1) Val Houghton 2nd 31st March 2017 A
Page 2 of 3 APPENDIX A WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) MEMBERSHIP ATTENDANCE DETAILED MEMBERSHIP MEETING DATES
CATEGORY/NUMBER/NAME TERM RE-ELECTION Sept Oct Jan Feb May July Sept Oct DATE 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
PRIVATE, VOLUNTARY AND INDEPENDENT (PVI) (2) Tricia Wellings 2nd 31st October 2016 A A A Denise Phelps 1st 30th April 2017 X X X X 16-19 PROVIDER (1) Michael Kitcatt 1st 31st December 2016 A A OTHER No Longer WSF Members Julie Reilly A A X X X X X David Hargreaves A X X X X X X Ann Starr X X X X X Vicky Dunn A A A X X X X WSF Substitutes Rob Chadwick TOTAL ATTENDANCE NOS. = 15 15 12 18 20 17 20 16 TOTAL MEMBERSHIP = 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 TOTAL ATTENDANCE % 58 58 46 69 77 65 77 62 (QUORUM 40% = 10)
= Attended; A = Apologies; X = Not a member at that point; V = Vacancy
@ Representatives from the Academy Sector; Plus 1 Observer Seat Education Funding Agency (EFA) representative.
Page 3 of 3 Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
Document Details: Status: V0.1 Date: January 2015 Document Location: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/downloads/download/552/worcestershire_schools_forum_fra mework_downloads Contact: Andy McHale
Page | 1 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
Contents Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015...... 1 Contents ...... 2 1. Name and Standing ...... 3 2. Functions ...... 3 3. Membership ...... 4 4. Meetings of the Forum ...... 6 5. Chairperson and Vice Chairperson ...... 7 6. Voting ...... 7 7. Declarations of Interest ...... 8 8. Working Groups ...... 8 9. The Clerk to the Forum ...... 8 10. Expenses ...... 9
Page | 2 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
1. Name and Standing
1.1 The Organisation shall be called the Worcestershire Schools Forum (‘the Forum’).
1.2 The effective date for the introduction of the provisions within the Constitution is 1st January 2015.
1.3 The Constitution provisions adhere to the legislative requirements within the Schools Forum (England) Regulations 2012 (‘the Regulations’).
1.4 The Constitution will be amended: - as required by virtue of amendments to the Regulations or the issue of new Regulations and/or DfE Guidance; and as agreed by the Forum providing they continue to meet the statutory provisions within the Regulations.
2. Functions
2.1 The Forum shall provide a formal channel of communication between the Local Authority (the LA) and schools and shall serve as a mechanism for consultation in respect of the matters at 2.2 to 2.4 below and on other matters as the LA sees fit.
2.2 The Forum shall be consulted on any proposed changes to the LA school funding formula and the LA shall consult the Forum in sufficient time to allow the views expressed to be taken into account in determination of the LA’s formula and in the initial determination of the schools budget share before the beginning of the financial year.
2.3 The Forum shall be consulted on the terms of any proposed contract for supplies or services being a contract paid or to be paid out of the schools budget where the estimated value of that contract is not less than the thresholds pursuant to regulation 8 of the Public Services Contracts Regulations 2006.
2.4 There shall be annual consultation in respect of the LA’s functions relating to the schools budget in connection with the following: -
the arrangements to be made for the education of pupils with special educational needs; arrangements for the use of pupil referral units and the education of children otherwise than at school; arrangements for early years education;
Page | 3 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
administrative arrangements for the allocation of central government grants paid to schools via the relevant authority.
2.5 The Forum shall as soon as reasonably possible and by relevant means, inform governing bodies of maintained schools of all Forum business and consultations carried out under the provisions of this section 2.
2.6 The LA and Forum shall exercise their respective powers and responsibilities as prescribed and detailed in the Regulations and the DfE Schools Forum: Operational and Good Practice Guidance.
3. Membership
3.1 In setting these arrangements the Forum shall, as far as is practicable, have membership from Head Teachers and Governors, which represent the school phases and geographical areas of the County Council.
3.2 Membership of the Forum shall not exceed 26 and shall comprise of: -
3.2.1 20 School Members
4 Nursery School/First School/Primary School Head Teacher representatives. 3 Nursery School/First School/Primary School Governor representatives. 1 Middle School Head Teacher representative. 1 Middle School Governor representative. 3 Secondary School/High School Head Teacher representatives. 3 Secondary School/High School Governor representatives. 2 Special School Head Teacher representatives. 1 Special School Governor representative. 1 Pupil Referral Unit/Alternative Provision Headteacher representative. 1 Pupil Referral Unit/Alternative Provision Governor representative.
3.2.2 6 Non School Members
1 Teacher Associations representative. 1 Archdiocese of Birmingham Schools Commission representative. 1 Church of England Board of Education representative. 2 Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) sector representatives. 1 16-19 Providers representative.
3.2.3 1 Observer Member
Page | 4 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
1 Education Funding Agency (EFA) representative.
3.3 Membership Stipulations
3.3.1 School Members
There shall be one representative from a Nursery School. The representation from First, Primary, Middle, Secondary and High School Sectors must be broadly proportionately represented on the Forum between Maintained Schools and Academies, having regard to the total number of pupils registered. Where there is at least one maintained secondary school at least one school member must be a representative of a secondary school. The representation from Special Schools must include a Special Academy or Free School. The representation from Pupil Referral Units (PRU) and Alternative Provision (AP) must include an AP Academy or Free School. Head Teacher representatives shall be nominated by the Head Teacher representative groups. Governor representatives shall be nominated by the Worcestershire Association of Governors. Academy sector representatives can also be nominated by the proprietors of the academies in the LA area.
3.3.2 Non School Members shall be nominated by their retrospective managing Groups, Governing Bodies, Committees or Organisations.
3.4 Each individual Forum member is able to nominate a named substitute who will be able to attend meetings in their absence. Substitute members are bound by the provisions in the Constitution and will have full membership rights and powers for any meetings they attend as a substitute.
3.5 Each Member shall be appointed for a period not exceeding 2 years (one ‘term of office’) and shall remain in office until: -
they cease to hold the office by virtue of which they became eligible for appointment to the Forum; or their term of office comes to an end; or they resign their office.
3.6 Upon completion of one term of office each member can seek re-nomination up to the limit detailed in section 3.7
Page | 5 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
3.7 Each member can be nominated for a maximum of 3 terms of office only (i.e. 6 years) after which they must stand down unless the nominating group approves that membership is continued for further terms. In agreeing this, the nominating groups must consider the potential implications in arriving at their decision.
3.8 Membership seats are for categories so a change in membership category for an existing Forum member means they are able to serve further terms of office as detailed in paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 in the new category.
3.9 Each member is required to give one school terms notice of resignation from the Forum.
3.10 Within two months of the appointment of any non-schools member the LA shall inform schools of the name of the Member and the appointing body.
4. Meetings of the Forum
4.1 The Forum shall meet at least four times during each year and reserves the right to convene meetings as required. Depending upon the timing of national funding proposals the Forum may wish to agree an annual cycle of meetings.
4.2 At least 14 days' notice of a non-scheduled meeting of the Forum shall be given in writing addressed to Forum Members and the Observer.
4.3 The agenda of a meeting of the Forum shall be circulated to Members and the Observer of the Forum at least 7 days prior to the date of a meeting of the Forum.
4.4 The business of the Forum shall be conducted in public but this does not extend to public participation which is not permitted. Specific representation to the Forum has to be made by Forum members on behalf of the groups they represent.
4.5 Agendas, supporting papers and decisions for meetings of the Forum shall be made available on the public area of the Worcestershire County Council website.
4.6 Persons who may speak at meetings of the Forum, even though they are not members of the Forum, are as detailed in the Regulations.
4.7 The quorum of the Forum shall be 40% of the total membership.
Page | 6 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
4.8 If prior to the start of any Forum meeting the Forum is inquorate the members present will decide by a simple majority whether to proceed with the meeting. In the event of an inquorate Forum proceeding to consider the business on the agenda the record of the meeting should be received as notes and not minutes of the meeting and any advice given to the LA as a result of such a meeting does not have to be taken into account by the LA.
4.9 Forum members and their named substitutes can attend the same Forum meeting but the substitute will attend in an observer and non-voting capacity only.
5. Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
5.1 The business of the first meeting of the Forum at the start of the academic year shall include, if required, the election of a Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson to preside over meetings of the Forum.
5.2 The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected either for a period of two years or to the expiry of their term of office (if sooner).
5.3 The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson will be required to resign the office prior to the end of their term of office if they cease to hold the office by virtue of which they became eligible for appointment to the Forum.
5.4 Elections for Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be held at the next meeting of the Forum following the expiry of the term of office or date of resignation.
6. Voting
6.1 Decisions of the Forum shall be made by a simple majority of the Members present and voting, subject to the provision in 6.2.
6.2 Non School members, other than those who represent early years providers, must not vote on matters relating to the formulae to be used by the LA to determine the amounts to be allocated to schools and early years providers.
6.3 In the event of an equality of votes the Chairperson shall have a casting vote.
6.4 Any amendment to this Constitution shall only be considered at a meeting for which at least 28 days' notice has been given and shall be passed only on the approval of 50% of the Members present and voting.
Page | 7 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
7. Declarations of Interest
7.1 Any Member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the Forum at which the matter is considered must disclose to the meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of the meeting or at such time as the interest becomes apparent.
7.2 Any Member should regard him or herself as having a personal interest in any matter if a decision upon it might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well-being or financial position of him or herself, a relative or a friend, or any employment or business carried on by such persons.
7.3 In these cases the Member may be asked to leave the meeting whilst the Forum considers specific items.
8. Working Groups
8.1 The Forum may appoint such Working Groups as it deems necessary for the consideration of specific matters and shall decide upon the terms of reference for such groups as appropriate.
8.2 The Forum may invite Members of the Forum and other persons as it deems necessary to take part in such Working Groups.
8.3 The Forum shall consider the work of such Working Groups and shall make recommendations to the LA as appropriate.
9. The Clerk to the Forum
9.1 The minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of the Forum shall be drawn up by the Clerk.
9.2 The minutes will be distributed to all Forum members within 14 days of the last Forum meeting.
Page | 8 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
9.3 The Clerk shall record the names of all those persons present at any meeting of the Forum including Forum Members, Forum Member substitutes, LA members, LA officers and any other attendees.
9.4 The Clerk shall record the names of those persons arriving after the business has commenced or leaving prior to the business being completed.
9.5 The Clerk shall record the names of those persons leaving the room for relevant items.
9.6 Forum members are required to notify the Clerk of: -
their named substitute; their apologies for nonattendance at any Forum meeting; the attendance of their substitute at any Forum meeting; and any change to their membership status including resignation.
9.7 Notices of appointments, resignations or removals from the Forum shall be given in writing to the Clerk.
9.8 The Clerk shall write accordingly confirming relevant status issues to: -
Forum members resigning their office; New Forum members; and Forum members whose term of office is due to expire.
10. Expenses
10.1 All expenses of the Forum shall be met by the LA and charged to the Schools Budget.
10.2 Within the provisions of 10.1 above the LA shall reimburse all reasonable expenses of members in connection with attendance at meetings of the Forum in accordance with the appropriate guidelines issued by the Director of Children’s Services from time to time.
Page | 9 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Constitution of the Worcestershire Schools Forum January 2015
Page | 10 www.worcestershire.gov.uk AGENDA ITEM 8b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) WSF ISSUES NEW MEMBER INDUCTION
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on a proposal for new member induction.
2. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
2.1 At its last meeting on 6th October 2015 the WSF discussed the self-assessment outcomes.
2.2 One area that was felt needed further consideration was in respect of induction of new WSF members.
2.3 Currently when new WSF members are nominated the Clerk will contact and provide details on WSF Membership and Constitution. Information is also provided about the WSF web site and meeting schedules.
2.4 To support new further the LA is proposing to formalise the induction by offering to meet with new members to discuss WSF aspects including: - Membership Constitution Meeting Cycles DfE Statutory Framework DfE Schools Forums Operational Guidance The Schools Forums (England) Regulations Roles and responsibilities for the LA and WSF members. Decision making processes
2.5 For existing members any update and training requirements will continue to be dealt with during the programmed WSF meetings. This will include any reviews of the DfE Operational Guidance whenever it is changed by the DfE normally on an annual basis.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The WSF notes and comments on the above issues.
3.2 The WSF agrees to the above proposals.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 AGENDA ITEM 9 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) PROVISIONAL SCHOOL FUNDING SETTLEMENT 2016-17
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the provisional School Funding Settlement for 2016-17.
2. PROVISIONAL SCHOOL FUNDING SETTLEMENT 2016-17
2.1 On 17th December 2015 the Secretary of State announced details of the provisional School Funding Settlement 2016-17 for the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), the Pupil Premium Grant (PPG) rates and the Education Services Grant (ESG). Summary details can be found on the following link: - https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/schools-revenue-funding-settlement-for-2016- to-2017?utm_source=EFA%20e-bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=e- bulletin&mxmroi=2305-30964-37257-0
3. DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) 2016-17
3.1 The DSG settlement includes: - The DSG schools block allocated on the basis of the schools block units of funding 2016-17 announced in July 2015. A continued Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) of -1.5% per pupil. The High Needs (HN) Block increased by £92.5m above the 2015-6 baseline. The rates per child for the DSG Early Years Block maintained at their 2015-16 levels.
3.2 The 2016-17 provisional allocation is detailed in Table 1 under the notional DSG blocks. This is prior to the recoupment deduction for Academies and non-LA maintained specialist providers. It also compares the provisional allocations to the 2015-16 DSG final settlement.
Table 1: Provisional DSG Gross Settlement 2016-17
DSG Allocations 2015-16 2016-17 Pupil 2016-17 Note Final DSG GUF Numbers Provisional £'m Funding £ £'m Schools Block 298.661 4,318.28 70310 303.618
+ Holy Trinity Free 1.606 N/A 1 School Total Schools Block 300.267 303.618 Early Years (EY) Block 16.487 3,229.56 5105 16.487 (+0.0%) + EY Pupil Premium 0.384 N/A N/A 0.384 + 2 Year Olds 3.543 3.543 Total EY Block 20.414 20.414 High Needs (HN) 44.510 N/A N/A 44.901 Block (Provisional) NQT 0.104 0.102 Total DSG Gross 365.295 369.035
Note 1 – Inclusion of Holy Trinity Academy Trust Free School now in the DSG pupil numbers and part of Schools Block GUF in 2016-17.
3.3 The main aspects of each block are as follows: -
3.3.1 Schools Block
There is an overall increase in pupil numbers between October 2014 and October 2015, which shows an increase in both the primary and secondary sectors reflecting the inclusion in 2016-17 only of the pupil numbers for Holy Trinity Free School. This is detailed in Table 2. The budgetary impact for each school will depend on: - How their individual pupil numbers and other data varies between October 2014 and October 2015. The impact across all schools and the MFG and capping. The amount of Schools Block Funding to be allocated in the local schools funding formula (this is discussed further under Agenda Item 11).
Table 2: Pupil Number Variation 2015-16 and 2016-17
Phase 2015-16 % 2016-17 % Variance October 2014 October 2015 Census Census (excludes (includes Holy Trinity Holy Trinity Free School) Free School – Note 1) Primary 41951 60.7 42878.5 61.0 927.5 Secondary 27418 39.7 27661.5 39.3 243.5 SEN Units Reduction (248) (0.4) (230) (0.3) 18 Total 69121 100.0 70310 100.0 1189
Note 1 – Holy Trinity 472 pupils included (291 Primary; 181 Secondary).
3.3.2 Early Years Block
For 3 and 4 year olds the DSG Guaranteed Unit of Funding (GUF) is the same as 2015-16 i.e. flat cash per pupil based upon the January 2015 census. The numbers for 2, 3 and 4 year olds will be updated during 2016-17 for the January 2016 and 2017 census returns. There is also a continued allocation of £0.384m to support the EYPP.
3.3.3 High Needs Block
The allocation of £44.901m is made up as follows as shown in Table 3: -
Table 3: High Needs Allocation
DETAIL £'m Note 2015-16 Baseline 44.510 + Post 16 Residency Adjustment 0.246 - EFA Direct Non Maintained Special Schools (NMSS) -0.760 1 + Additional High Needs Top Up +0.905 2 TOTAL 44.901 3
Note 1 – From the 2016-17 financial year place funding for pre 16 and post 16 pupils in NMSS will not be included in the HN Block. Place funding will no longer be included in the DSG baseline, nor will it be part of the place deductions process. This is reflected in a reduction in the estimated place deduction from the HN block for SEN units in academies, maintained post 16 and NMSS providers. This is detailed in Table 4.
Table 4: Estimated HN Place Deductions
DETAIL 2015-16 2016-17 Variance Final Provisional £'m £'m £'m SEN Units Academies (1.04) (0.99) 0.05 Special Academies Pre and Post (4.60) (4.68) (0.08) 16 Alternative Provision (0.91) (0.89) 0.02 Special Maintained Post 16 (0.81) (0.81) - Mainstream Maintained Post 16 - - - NMSS (0.53) - 0.53 TOTAL (7.89) (7.37) 0.52
Note 2 – LAs were originally advised of flat cash for HN based upon the 2015-16 final DSG. However the LA has been allocated £0.905m to support general HN growth and funding pressures together with the consequence of the place change process for academies managed by the DfE in November 2015.
Note 3 – The HN Block DSG Net after recoupment by the EFA for direct funding of HN places is detailed in Table 5: -
Table 5: HN Block DSG Gross to Net
Detail 2015-16 Final 2016-17 Provisional Variance £'m £'m £'m DSG HN Gross 44.51 44.90 0.39 EFA Place Recoupment (7.89) (7.37) 0.52 DSG HN Net 36.62 37.53 0.91
As well as supporting general HN growth in 2016-17 this net increase will also have to support deductions to be made from the DSG for places in AP free schools opened before September 2015 for which the EFA is currently collecting data. Currently this is only included at the 2015-16 level (see Table 4 above) and does not reflect further adjustments to be made for the full year effect of September 2015 AP places deductions and new AP place deductions from September 2016. So, there will still be a budget pressure in 2016/17 and subsequent years, with this additional HN DSG supporting all the HN pressures both the EFA AP change and the further HN places commissioned from other non AP specialist providers.
3.3.4 Other Funding Adjustments
Statutory induction for NQTs included as in previous years of +£0.102m. Each LAs share of the cost of national copyright licenses as notified by the DfE to be top sliced of -£0.375m.
3.4 The next steps in terms of the DSG notification are detailed in Table 6.
Table 6: Next Steps Timetable
Date Action 17 December 2015 2016-17 Schools Block 2016-17 Provisional Early Years Block 2016-17 High Needs Block all announced by DfE 31 December 2015 Deadline for final exceptional circumstances requests by LAs to the DfE Mid-January 2016 Further consideration by LAs on the 2016- 17 Schools Block local schools funding formula 21 January 2016 LAs submit final APT for Schools Block local schools funding formula 2016-17 February 2016 EFA publication of 2016-17 HN places at institution level 29 February 2016 Deadline for LAs to confirm School Budget Shares to maintained schools 31 March 2016 Deadline for EFA to confirm General Annual Grant (GAG) to academies open by 9 January 2016 April 2016 EFA confirms 2016-17 DSG to be paid to LAs: after recoupment for academies and deductions for high needs places in academies and other non-maintained settings. June 2016 Early Years Block updated for January 2016 Early Years pupil numbers June 2017 Early Years Block updated for January 2017 Early Years pupil numbers
4. PUPIL PREMIUM GRANT (PPG)
4.1 For 2016-17, the PPG will continue to be allocated as in 2015-16
4.2 Also in 2016-17, the LAC pupil premium will continue to include those pupils who have been in care for one day or more, as compared with the six months in care currently required as well as those who have been registered on the school census as having been adopted from care or leaving care under a special guardianship or residence order. The data for this will be sourced from the January 2016 census.
4.3 The service premium will continue to include any pupil in reception to year 11 who has been flagged as a service child since 2013 will continue to receive the premium (‘Ever 4’ measure).
4.4 A summary of the PP funding rates is shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Summary of PP Funding Rates
Phase/Type 2015-16 2016-17 £ £ Primary 1,320 1,320 Secondary 935 935 Looked After Children (LAC) 1,900 1,900 Service Children 300 300
4.5 There continues to be a national Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP) of £0.53 per hour (£300 in a full year 15 hours for 38 weeks) for eligible children.
4.6 The conditions of grant for 2016-17 have been published on the attached link: - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-conditions-of-grant-2016-to- 2017?utm_source=EFA%20e-bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=e- bulletin&mxmroi=2305-30964-37265-0
5. EDUCATION SERVICES GRANT (ESG)
5.1 The ESG settlement includes: - The ESG retained duties rate maintained at £15 per pupil in all state funded schools. The ESG general funding rate has been reduced to £77 (2015-16 £87) per pupil as a first step towards achieving the savings announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). These rates for AP academies and special academies are £288.75 (2015-16 £326.25) and £327.25 (2015-16 £369.75) per place respectively. Continued protection to limit reductions in academy budgets as a result of changes to the ESG for 2016-17.
5.2 The provisional allocation to Worcestershire in 2016/17 is detailed in Table 8. This will change depending on the number of in year academy conversions.
Table 8: ESG Provisional Allocations 2016-17
Detail Pupil Numbers Rate £ ESG Allocated FY 2015-16 £'000 ESG General Maintained Mainstream Pupils 3 41663 77 3,207 to 19
Special Maintained School Places 762 327.25 248
Maintained PRU Planned Places 87 288.75 25 TOTAL £'000 3,480 ESG Retained Duties Maintained and Academies Mainstream Pupils 3 to 19 76054 15 1,141
Special Maintained and Academies School Places 1230 15 19
Maintained PRU and AP Academies Planned Places 350 15 5 TOTAL £'000 1,165 TOTAL ESG £'000 4,645
5.3 As announced in the CSR, savings of around £600m will be made on the ESG, including phasing out the additional funding academies receive through the ESG. The government have indicated they will reduce the LA role in running schools and remove a number of statutory duties. The government will consult on policy and funding proposals in 2016.
5.4 The DfE deducts ESG from the County Council when an academy converts and passes this funding direct to the academy. Some of the services provided by the LA have a large element of fixed cost associated with them, as such a reduction in grant does not necessarily equal a reduction in spend. The same will apply for the reduction in £10 per pupil in the ESG general rate between 2015-16 and 2016-17.
5.5 The full impact of the future government proposals will not be fully understood until LAs receive the consultation and further information as to how maintained schools are expected to deliver (or have delivered for them) the duties currently undertaken by the LA and how funding for this will be allocated to them (if at all).
5.6 This will be the focus of the consultation led by the Government and when this is launched the LA will ensure schools have the information they need to make their responses to the consultation meaningful. The LA will continue to keep the WSF appraised of the information and its potential impact as soon as it is known. Further information is detailed in Appendix A.
6. OTHER GRANT FUNDING
6.1 Further announcements are as follows: - The meal rate for universal infant free school meals (UIFSM) stays at £2.30 for the 2016/17 academic year. Further details will be available in the New Year. The year 7 catch-up premium continues in 2016-17. The DfE will confirm the per pupil rate early in 2016. Summer schools funding will not continue in 2016. The primary PE and sport premium continues in 2016-17. Further details will be announced in the New Year. As part of the government’s commitment to improving outcomes for vulnerable children, the special educational needs and disability (SEND) implementation grant will continue at an increased level in 2016-17. This is to support English LAs in the transition to the new SEND system. Further details will be announced in the New Year. The grant for extended rights to home to school transport grant will continue in 2016-17. The DfE will confirm allocations in early 2016.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 The WSF notes and discusses the above allocations as detailed.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 APPENDIX A
SUMMARY CURRENT ESG FUNCTIONS
Statutory Duties (for which the council receives £15/pupil – for all pupils)
When delivering their school improvement function, local authorities must have regard to the Schools Causing Concern statutory guidance
Strategy A local authority must: appoint a Director of Children’s Services (section 18, Children Act 2004); and strategically plan for its education service (sections 13 to 15B, Education Act 1996).
Finance A local authority must: prepare revenue budgets: information on income and expenditure relating to education, for incorporation into the authority's annual statement of accounts; and the external audit of grant claims and returns relating to education (Local Government Act 1972); and perform internal audit and other tasks necessary for the discharge of the authority’s chief finance officer’s responsibilities under section 151, Local Government Act 1972.
Information A local authority must: provide information to or at the request of the Secretary of State (section 29, Education Act 1996).
Attendance A local authority must: make arrangements to identify children not receiving education (section 436A, Education Act 1996); send a written notice to a parent whose child of compulsory school age is not receiving suitable education, followed by a school attendance order if they do not comply with the notice (section 437, Education Act 1996); if exercising its power to prosecute a parent for a child’s non-attendance (section 446) the local authority must consider whether to apply for an education supervision order (section 447); publish a code for penalty notices to address poor attendance and administer the penalty notice regime according to the Education (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2007 and subsequent amendments; improve attendance where schools report absence to them according to the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006; investigate the whereabouts of pupils who have poor attendance and are at risk of being deleted from the schools’ admission register (Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006); and comply with all its statutory obligations under the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006.
Child performance and employment A local authority has responsibility for administering and enforcing requirements and protections for those below compulsory school leaving age taking part in employment or performances
Asset Management Local authorities have a general landlord duty for all buildings which they let to academies (under the relevant academy lease), and for all community school buildings, and overall responsibility for capital strategy including basic need, which applies to all pupils (section 14, Education Act 1996).
Therapies The Children and Families Act 2014 places a statutory duty on local authorities and local health bodies to commission services jointly to support disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs, including those who need therapy support.
General Duties – Additional funds academy schools receive and LAs receive on behalf of maintained schools (£87/pupil reducing to £77/pupil)
Items in italics are nil in WCC
Items highlighted are required by statute at present
School Improvement. Music and Arts Education. Education Welfare above the statutory level. Strategic management: - Monitoring compliance with the scheme. Power to withdraw delegation implies a duty on the local authority to monitor a governing body’s budget management. CFR return. Health and Safety at Work. Supervisory authority of school companies formed by governing bodies. Comply with the public sector equality duty. Set up a Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE). Provision and administration of clothing grants where such expenditure is not supported by grant. Outdoor education including environmental and field studies. A local authority must manage the risk from asbestos in community school buildings landlord for community schools, a local authority has a duty to ensure that school buildings are fit etc. A local authority must fund redundancy costs unless there is a good reason not to fund them centrally. Monitoring national curriculum assessment: - Moderate the teacher assessments carried out at the end of key stage 1. Appoint a person to complete the assessment moderations who has recent experience of provision of the National Curriculum in primary schools. Item which used to be statutory, but isn't referred to as such in the current guidance – negotiation and management of private finance transactions and contracts (including academies which have converted since the contracts were signed). AGENDA ITEM 10 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) THE SCHOOL AND EARLY YEARS FINANCE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2015 AND DSG CONDITIONS OF GRANT 2016-17
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the changes to the above regulations and DSG conditions of grant for 2016-17.
2. THE SCHOOL AND EARLY YEARS FINANCE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2015
2.1 On 17th December 2015 the DfE published their response to the consultation on the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2015. The link to the detail is as follows: - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/school-and-early-years-finance-england- regulations-2015?utm_source=EFA%20e- bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=e-bulletin&mxmroi=2305-30964-37267-0
2.2 They considered the responses received to their consultation, which closed on 13th November 2015 and confirmed they will be proceeding in the final regulations with all changes consulted upon.
2.3 The final Regulations will then be laid before Parliament as required and will come into force on 7th January 2016.
2.4 The minor changes contained within the revised regulations for 2016-17 are as follows: - Ability of LAs to carry forward any unspent falling rolls fund or new schools fund. Ability of LAs to use place-based funding for 2 year olds. Definition of amalgamated schools. Budgets of closed and amalgamated schools. Expenditure a LA can incur from their non-schools education budget. Authorised expenditure in respect of Children and Young People with High Needs.
3. DSG CONDITIONS OF GRANT
3.1 The dates in the conditions of grant will be updated by one year so that they relate to the financial year 2016-17.
3.2 The DfE have confirmed that there will be no other changes to these.
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The WSF notes the issues as detailed.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 AGENDA ITEM 11 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) SCHOOLS BLOCK ALLOCATIONS 2016-17 AUTHORITY PROFORMA TOOL
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To update the WSF on the current position for the completion of the final Schools Block Authority Proforma Tool (APT) for 2016-17.
1.2 For the WSF to support the submission of the final APT for 2016-17.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The LA submitted the provisional APT for 2016-17 to the DfE by the due date of 30th October 2015 following the Autumn Term 2015 consultation.
2.2 This was based upon the APT provided by the DfE at that time using the 2014 data sets.
2.3 At its meeting on 15th October 2015, the Worcestershire County Council Cabinet approved the 2016-17 local schools formula based upon no change and stability from 2015-16. Cabinet also resolved to authorise the Director of Children's Services to make any subsequent submission to the EFA by 21st January 2016 as a consequence of the impact of the October 2015 census, other data changes and the final 2016-17 Dedicated School Grant (DSG).
3. APT CURRENT POSITION
3.1 Now that the DfE have updated all the data sets for October 2015 and issued provisional DSG allocations for 2016-17 LAs are required to submit their final APT by 21st January 2016.
3.2 The initial revised APT was issued by the DfE on 10th December 2015 with the final information issued on 17th December 2015.
3.3 The LA has been working on the APT to endeavour to submit by the deadline of 21st January 2016.
3.4 The overall analysis of the DSG was provided at Agenda Item 9. An analysis of the overall Schools Block DSG is detailed in Appendix A.
3.5 The existing APT analysis and submission made in October 2015 is attached at Appendix B with a comparison to 2015-16 in Appendix B1. This is based upon the units of resource and data sets agreed by the Autumn Term consultation and County Council Cabinet on 15th October 2015.
3.6 An analysis of the Schools Block funding detailing the estimated amount to be included in the Local Schools Funding Formula for mainstream schools is detailed in Table 1. This is prior to de-delegation for maintained schools and after adjusting for centrally retained services and functions already agreed and those prescribed by the DfE.
Table 1: Analysis of Schools Block 2016-17
DETAIL £'000 Schools Block Provisional Allocation 303,618 DfE Adjustments + NQT 102 = Notional Schools Block 2016-17 303,720
Centrally Retained Budgets (Previously Considered by Cabinet and Endorsed by the WSF) Contributions to Combined Services – Early Intervention Family Support (1,500) Co-ordinated School Admissions (696) Servicing of the Schools Forum (55) Termination of Employment/Redundancy Costs (200) Capital Expenditure Funded from Revenue (1,030) Pupil Growth Fund (Pre 16 Basic Need) (500)
DfE Designated Centrally Retained Budgets Licenses and Subscriptions (375)
= Estimated Amount Available for Local Schools Funding Formula 299,364 2016-17
3.7 This compares to the amount in 2015-16 of £295.827m (net). A comparison of the position is detailed in Table 2: -
Table 2: Comparison of Local Schools Funding Formula Actual 2015-16 and Estimated 2016-17
DETAIL £'000 Local Schools Funding Formula 2015-16 (including Holy Trinity Free School but excluding one-off DSG Reserve of £1.8m) 295,827
Adjustments Additional Pupil Growth Fund Requirement (100) Falling Rolls Fund – No Provision 2016-17 185 Additional DSG for Overall Increase in Pupil Numbers including Holy Trinity Free School 3,351 Other Minor Adjustments 101 Sub Total 299,364 Falling Rolls Fund – Carry Forward 2015-16 185 = Estimated Amount Available for Local Schools Funding Formula 2016-17 (including Holy Trinity Free School but excluding one-off DSG Reserve of £1.8m) 299,549
3.8 The actual amount allocated in the local schools funding formula in 2015-16 was £297.627m reflecting the one-off reserve of £1.8m. If the DfE agree this again in 2016-17 then the above amount will be increased accordingly.
3.9 Although this seems a significant increase the majority was expected. The net increase in pupil numbers will require funding in the formula together with adjustments for not operating a falling rolls fund from 2016-17.
3.10 The additional requirement for pupil growth funding is due to LA requirements for Primary basic need places due to increasing numbers. This will need closer consideration as this will require more DSG top slice in future years as these numbers feed through to the middle and secondary phases. Also there is a need to estimate for national licences and subscriptions yet to be advised by the DfE.
3.11 The WSF are reminded that the budgetary impact for each individual school will depend upon: - How their individual pupil numbers and all other data varies between October 2014 and October 2015. The Schools Block DSG increase between 2015-16 and 2016-17. The impact across all schools. The impact of the MFG requirement and associated capping level.
3.12 The WSF are further reminded falling rolls means a budget reduction. Also, with more DSG the cap could rise as it can only be set to fund the cash requirement of the MFG.
3.13 As the Schools Block DSG is expected to vary with pupil number changes and the October 2015 units of resource were set on that basis it is proposed to endeavour to retain the approved October 2015 APT rates as far as is practicable. The WSF are requested to consider this principle.
3.14 Given the DSG settlement and the APT were confirmed just prior to the end of the Autumn Term 2015 assessment and the impact on the submitted APT of all the above together with the data changes for 2015 is currently being made. The results of the impact of the revised DSG and new data sets will be shared at the WSF meeting as to enable final submission to the DfE by 21st January 2016 as required.
3.16 At the time of writing this report the DfE have yet to make their decision on the second tranche of £1.8m from DSG Reserves excluded from the MFG/Capping to protect the 2015-16 baseline. If the DfE agree, it is proposed to allocate from DSG reserves the second £1.8m on a straight per pupil basis as in 2015-16 excluded again from the MFG/Capping. If agreed this will change the APT approved AWPU rates as required. The WSF are again requested to consider this principle. If this is implemented it will be necessary to advise all schools that it is again a one-off merely protecting the 2015-16 baseline and not to plan for it in 2017-18.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 The WSF notes the issues detailed and the estimated amount available for the Local Schools Funding Formula from the Schools Block Funding for 2016-17.
4.2 The WSF considers the issues detailed for the APT Units of Resource (paragraphs 3.13 and 3.14) and the potential for the second tranche allocation from DSG reserves (paragraph 3.16).
4.3 The WSF supports the submission of the revised APT final Schools Block Funding 2016-17 to the DfE by 21st January 2016 as required.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 APPENDIX A
SCHOOLS BLOCK DSG ANALYSIS 2015-16 TO 2016-17
£'000
Schools Block DSG Allocated 2015-16
Pupil Numbers October 2014 69121 Excludes Holy Trinity Free School Original GUF £ £ 4,320.84
Base Allocation 298,661
Non Recoupment Academy Holy Trinity Free School 1,606
Allocation 2015-16 300,267
Schools Block DSG Allocated 2016-17
Pupil Numbers October 2015 70310 Includes Holy Trinity Free School Revised GUF £ £ 4,318.28
Allocation 303,618
Additional Schools Block DSG Allocated 3,351
Represented By: -
Pupil Numbers October 2014 69121 Change in GUF £ -£ 2.56 -177
Non Recoupment Academy Holy Trinity Free School -1,606
Increase in Pupil Numbers Between October 2014 and October 2015 1189 Includes Holy Trinity Free School Revised GUF £ £ 4,318.28 5,134
Additional Schools Block DSG Allocated 3,351 Local Authority Funding Reform Proforma
LA Name: Worcestershire LA Number: 885
Pupil Led Factors Reception uplift Yes Pupil Units 70.00
Proportion of total pre MFG Description Amount per pupil Pupil Units Sub Total Total Notional SEN (%) funding (%) 1) Basic Entitlement £2,839.13 42,107.00 40.40% 5.00% Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) Primary (Years R-6) £119,547,247
Key Stage 3 (Years 7-9) £3,886.05 16,321.00 £63,424,222 £232,250,744 21.43% 5.00%
Key Stage 4 (Years 10-11) £4,415.31 11,161.00 £49,279,275 16.65% 5.00%
Primary Secondary Primary amount Secondary amount Eligible proportion Eligible proportion Proportion of total pre MFG Description Sub Total Total Notional SEN Notional SEN per pupil per pupil of primary NOR of secondary NOR funding (%) (%) (%)
FSM % Primary £845.66 5,424.21 £4,587,035 50.00%
FSM % Secondary £1,008.66 3,163.94 £3,191,338 50.00%
IDACI Band 1 £200.39 £277.09 3,659.23 2,104.74 £1,316,475 100.00% 100.00%
IDACI Band 2 £249.29 £363.39 2,417.44 1,373.03 £1,101,589 100.00% 100.00% 2) Deprivation £15,301,777 5.17% IDACI Band 3 £332.70 £450.64 4,732.05 2,831.00 £2,850,116 100.00% 100.00%
IDACI Band 4 £404.61 £531.18 1,249.30 786.19 £923,086 100.00% 100.00%
IDACI Band 5 £457.35 £588.70 1,152.56 675.17 £924,597 100.00% 100.00%
IDACI Band 6 £662.53 £785.26 352.74 221.38 £407,541 100.00% 100.00%
Primary Secondary Primary amount Secondary amount Eligible proportion Eligible proportion Proportion of total pre MFG Description Sub Total Total Notional SEN Notional SEN per pupil per pupil of primary NOR of secondary NOR funding (%) (%) (%)
3) Looked After Children (LAC) LAC X March 14 £0.00 445.47 £0 0.00% 0.00%
EAL 3 Primary £446.80 0.00% 4) English as an Additional 2,123.83 £948,928 £1,196,648 0.40% Language (EAL) EAL 3 Secondary £1,083.44 228.64 £247,719 0.00% Pupils starting school outside of 5) Mobility £0.00 £0.00 676.88 168.40 £0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% normal entry dates
Eligible proportion Percentage of Primary Secondary of primary and Proportion of total pre MFG Description Weighting Amount per pupil eligible Y1-2 and Y3- Sub Total Total Notional SEN Notional SEN secondary NOR funding (%) 6 NOR respectively (%) (%) respectively
Low Attainment % new EFSP 100.00% 45.93% £641.44 12,744.12 £8,174,589 100.00% 6) Prior attainment Low Attainment % old FSP 78 21.93% £14,353,724 4.85% Secondary pupils not achieving (KS2 £901.27 6,856.03 £6,179,135 100.00% level 4 English or Maths)
Other Factors
Lump Sum per Lump Sum per Lump Sum per Lump Sum per All- Proportion of total pre MFG Factor Secondary School Total (£) Notional SEN (%) Primary School (£) Middle School (£) through School (£) funding (%) (£)
7) Lump Sum £111,026.16 £119,998.61 £25,445,950 8.60% 10.00% 10.00%
8) Sparsity factor £42,796.04 £63,909.77 £53,352.91 £63,909.77 £280,343 0.09% 0.00% 0.00%
Please provide alternative distance and pupil number thresholds for the sparsity factor below. Please leave blank if you want to use the default thresholds. Also specify whether you want to use a tapered lump sum for one or both of the phases.
Primary pupil number average year Primary distance threshold (miles) 2.00 21.40 Fixed or tapered sparsity primary lump sum? Tapered group threshold Secondary distance threshold Secondary pupil number average year 3.00 120.00 Fixed or tapered sparsity secondary lump sum? Tapered (miles) group threshold Middle schools distance threshold Middle school pupil number average 2.00 69.20 Fixed or tapered sparsity middle school lump sum? Tapered (miles) year group threshold All-through schools distance All-through pupil number average 2.00 62.50 Fixed or tapered sparsity all-through lump sum? Tapered threshold (miles) year group threshold
9) Fringe Payments £0 0.00%
10) Split Sites £481,632 0.16% 0.00%
11) Rates £3,980,419 1.35% 0.00%
12) PFI funding £2,249,112 0.76% 0.00%
13) Sixth Form £0 0.00% 0.00%
14 ) Exceptional circumstances (can only be used with prior agreement of EFA)
Proportion of total pre MFG Circumstance Total (£) Notional SEN (%) funding (%)
Additional lump sum for schools amalgamated during FY15-16 £0 0.00% 10.00% 10.00%
Additional sparsity lump sum for small schools £0 0.00% 0.00%
Exceptional Premises £369,441 0.12% 0.00%
Exceptional Circumstance4 £0 0.00% 0.00%
Exceptional Circumstance5 £0 0.00% 0.00%
Exceptional Circumstance6 £0 0.00% 0.00%
Total Funding for Schools Block Formula (excluding MFG Funding Total) (£) £295,909,790 100.00% £39,923,447
15) Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG is set at -1.5%) £1,252,037
Apply capping and scaling factors? (gains may be capped above a specific ceiling and/or scaled) Yes
Capping Factor (%) 1.38% Scaling Factor (%) 100.00%
Total deduction if capping and scaling factors are applied -£1,251,677
Proportion of Total Total (£) funding(%)
MFG Net Total Funding (MFG + deduction from capping and scaling) £361 0.00%
High Needs threshold (only fill in if, exceptionally, a high needs threshold different from £6,000 has been approved) £0.00
Additional funding from the high needs budget £200,000.00
Growth fund (if applicable) £500,000.00
Falling rolls fund (if applicable) £0.00
Total Funding For Schools Block Formula £295,910,150
% Distributed through Basic Entitlement 78.49%
% Pupil Led Funding 88.91%
Primary: Secondary Ratio 1 : 1.26 APT COMPARATOR JANUARY 2015 TO OCTOBER 2015 APPENDIX B1
UNIT OF OCT 2014 JAN 2015 UNIT OF OCT 2014 OCT 2015 VARIANCE VARIANCE VARIANCE RESOURCE DATA ALLOCATION RESOURCE DATA ALLOCATION DATA ALLOCATION % 2015-16 FINAL 2016-17 INITIAL £ £ % £ £ % £ %
FORMULA COMPONENT
Primary AWPU 2,865.00 42108.00 120,639,420 40.53% 2,839.13 42107.00 119,547,247 40.40% -1.00 -1,092,173 -0.13% KS3 AWPU 3,911.92 16322.00 63,850,358 21.45% 3,886.05 16321.00 63,424,222 21.43% -1.00 -426,136 -0.02% KS4 AWPU 4,441.18 11162.00 49,572,451 16.66% 4,415.31 11161.00 49,279,275 16.65% -1.00 -293,176 0.00%
S-T 69592.00 234,062,229 78.64% 69589.00 232,250,744 78.49% -3.00 -1,811,486 -0.61% One Off Funding £1.8m excluded
Primary FSM 845.66 5424.46 4,587,245 1.54% No Change 5424.21 4,587,035 1.55% -0.25 -210 0.01% Roundings Secondary FSM 1,008.66 3164.12 3,191,522 1.07% No Change 3163.94 3,191,338 1.08% -0.18 -184 0.01% Roundings
Primary IDACI Band 1 200.39 3659.68 733,363 0.25% No Change 3659.23 733,273 0.25% -0.45 -90 0.00% Roundings Primary IDACI Band 2 249.29 2417.69 602,706 0.20% No Change 2417.44 602,644 0.20% -0.25 -62 0.00% Roundings Primary IDACI Band 3 332.70 4732.13 1,574,380 0.53% No Change 4732.05 1,574,353 0.53% -0.08 -27 0.00% Roundings Primary IDACI Band 4 404.61 1249.35 505,500 0.17% No Change 1249.30 505,479 0.17% -0.05 -20 0.00% Roundings Primary IDACI Band 5 457.35 1152.59 527,137 0.18% No Change 1152.56 527,123 0.18% -0.03 -14 0.00% Roundings Primary IDACI Band 6 662.53 352.74 233,701 0.08% No Change 352.74 233,701 0.08% 0.00 0 0.00% Roundings
Secondary IDACI Band 1 277.09 2104.84 583,230 0.20% No Change 2104.74 583,202 0.20% -0.10 -28 0.00% Roundings Secondary IDACI Band 2 363.39 1373.03 498,945 0.17% No Change 1373.03 498,945 0.17% 0.00 0 0.00% Roundings Secondary IDACI Band 3 450.64 2831.01 1,275,766 0.43% No Change 2831.00 1,275,762 0.43% -0.01 -5 0.00% Roundings Secondary IDACI Band 4 531.18 786.19 417,608 0.14% No Change 786.19 417,608 0.14% 0.00 0 0.00% Roundings Secondary IDACI Band 5 588.70 675.17 397,473 0.13% No Change 675.17 397,473 0.13% 0.00 0 0.00% Roundings Secondary IDACI Band 6 785.26 221.38 173,841 0.06% No Change 221.38 173,841 0.06% 0.00 0 0.00% Roundings
S-T 15,302,417 5.14% 15,301,777 5.17% -640 0.00%
Primary Low Prior Attainment 641.44 12744.54 8,174,855 2.75% No Change 12744.12 8,174,589 2.76% -0.41 -266 0.02% Roundings Secondary Low Prior Attainment 901.27 6856.52 6,179,574 2.08% No Change 6856.03 6,179,135 2.09% -0.49 -439 0.01% Roundings
Primary EAL 446.80 2123.90 948,959 0.32% No Change 2123.84 948,929 0.32% -0.07 -29 0.00% Roundings Secondary EAL 1,083.44 228.65 247,725 0.08% No Change 228.64 247,719 0.08% -0.01 -6 0.00% Roundings
S-T 15,551,112 5.23% 15,550,372 5.26% -740 0.00%
Lump Sum N/A 25,333,802 8.51% 25,445,950 8.60% 0.00 112,148 0.09% School Reorganisation Sparsity N/A 280,343 0.09% 280,343 0.09% 0.00 0 0.00% Split Site N/A 481,632 0.16% 481,632 0.16% 0.00 0 0.00% Rates N/A 3,912,237 1.31% 3,980,419 1.35% 0.00 68,182 0.03% Actual Changes PFI N/A 2,249,112 0.76% 2,249,112 0.76% 0.00 0 0.00% Additional Lump Sum N/A 83,999 0.03% 0 0.00% 0.00 -83,999 -0.03% One Year Allocation Exceptional Circumstances N/A 369,441 0.12% 369,441 0.12% 0.00 0 0.00%
S-T 32,710,566 10.99% 32,806,897 11.09% 96,331 0.03%
TOTAL 297,626,325 100.00% 295,909,790 100.00% -1,716,534 -0.58%
MFG -1.500% 1,874,966 0.63% -1.500% 1,252,037 0.42% -622,929 MFG From 2015-16 Baseline Capping 6.200% -1,874,674 -0.63% 1.380% -1,251,677 -0.42% 622,997
S-T 292 0.00% 360 0.00% 68 0.00%
GRAND TOTAL 297,626,617 100.00% 295,910,150 100.00% -1,716,466 -0.58% APPENDIX C
BRIEFING NOTE FOR THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM UPDATE ON THE APT FOR THE SCHOOLS BLOCK FUNDING 2016-17
In support of Agenda Item 11 the following provides an update of the current position on the APT submission for 2016-17.
The WSF are advised that the LA will continue to work on the APT prior to the due submission date of 21st January 2016.
1. Current Position
1.1 An initial draft APT 2016-17 to include all the prescribed revised data provided by the DfE from the October 2015 census and other data seta has now been compiled.
1.2 This work assumed the same units of resource approved in October 2015 for all areas i.e. AWPU, FSM, IDACI, Low Prior Attainment, etc together with those where data changes for specific allocations e.g. rates, etc.
1.3 This position reflects all the pupil data and other DfE prescribed data changes for October 2015 as supplied by the DfE in the APT.
2. Issues for Consideration
2.1 Data Changes
(a) As expected there are significant changes overall and for a number of individual schools.
(b) The impact for each school will depend on the changes to their own data sets, the effect of this across all schools and any impact of the statutory MFG and final capping rate required to finance this requirement.
(c) The following are the main data change issues: -
Numbers on Roll (School Census Returns) – changes by sector (primary +667; KS3 +309; KS4 -212). The WSF are advised that there are significant pupil number changes for some schools including substantial reductions.
[Note – the WSF are reminded of their previous discussions and decision in September 2015 not to use estimated numbers in the formula for schools, specifically academies, changing their age range from the Academic Year 2016/17. This was on the basis it is extremely difficult and unreliable to estimate the potential effect. So such schools, in line with all other schools are included in the APT 2016/17 using the October 2015 pupil numbers. However, the EFA have informed the LA that they will reserve the right to adjust academy allocations to reflect this if they feel the October 2015 census will understate the school's projected pupil number position and recoup this amount from the LA in the normal way] FSM numbers – a decrease in both sectors (primary -266; secondary -176). IDACI numbers – a decrease overall in both sectors (primary -375; secondary -132) with reductions in IDACI bands 1, 2, 3 and 5 but an increase in IDACI band 4 (primary +945; secondary +445). These changes are a direct consequence of the IDACI data previously being based upon the 2010 national index being updated to use the 2015 national index from 2016-17. The primary LPA factor uses the DfE prescribed measure in the October 2015 APT by targeting funding to all pupils who achieved fewer than 78 points in the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) at the full 100% weighting. This has increased the qualifying number of pupils by +547. The number of qualifying pupils in the secondary LPA factor has reduced by -231. EAL qualifying pupils have increased in both sectors (primary +212; secondary +44). The impact of all the data changes and the revised MFG requirement is likely to change the estimated capping rate of 1.38% (scaling factor 100%).
(d) The WSF are requested to discuss and consider the impact of the data changes. The LA has to use the prescribed DfE data in the APT and has no specific ownership and control of the changes between the years. It is not possible to change the data sets provided or use the LAs own estimated data sets instead.
(e) Given this position, as in previous years it has been the policy and LAs recommendation endorsed by the WSF that as required by the DfE the updated data drives the formula. This will result in data changes for individual schools, pyramids and sectors some significant and some not so. To specifically mitigate changes for an individual school, pyramid or sector is not possible.
(f) The current draft of overall impact of the changes in the data sets between October 2014 and October 2015 is detailed in Appendix C1, which details the 2016-17 Initial (October 2015) and 2016-17 Current (January 2016). For information Appendix C2 shows a comparison between 2015-16 Final (January 2015) and 2016-17 Current (January 2016).
2.2 Units of Resource
(a) The challenge is to seek to accommodate the new October 2015 data sets using the already approved October 2015 units of resource within the estimated Schools Block DSG available for 2016-17.
(b) The WSF are requested to discuss and consider the impact of potential changes to the already approved local schools formula units of resource for 2016-17.
(c) As in previous years it has been the policy and the LAs recommendation endorsed by the WSF to retain as far as possible the already approved local schools formula units of resource in the final APT submission. This rightly acknowledges the data changes will, when comparing 2015-16 to 2016-17, cause variations in individual school allocations and the overall funding split between pyramids and sectors. This approach is in keeping with the local schools formula over a number of years.
(d) To endeavour to change units of resource to moderate or lessen change for an individual school, pyramid or sector to reflect data variations would be nigh on impossible and contrary to the workings of the local school's funding formula. For example, to support a school with less pupils there could be consideration of increasing the relevant sector AWPU. However, the increased AWPU has to apply to all schools in the sector thereby increasing the allocation for schools with rising rolls in the sector, creating even more turbulence and having to resource this increased budget requirement. Similarly reflecting data changes by cash limiting formula factors and changing all units of resource accordingly would also result in further instability.
(e) The WSF are reminded of the formula stability model for 2016-17 previously approved, including the approved units of resource. So, unlike in 2015-16 where there was a new local school's funding formula, for 2016-17 the school variations will be solely due to data changes and any subsequent statutory MFG/Capping adjustments between October 2014 and 2015.
(f) The WSF are advised the DSG is 'flat cash' with a minor reduction in the Schools Block GUF rate between 2015-16 and 2016-17. So there is effectively no growth in the budget to support ongoing expenditure pressures.
(g) The WSF are requested to note change is anticipated to the current approved AWPU rates for 2016-17 as follows: - The second tranche of the one-off allocation from DSG Central Reserves (£1.8m) if approved by the DfE (£25.87 per pupil excluded from the MFG/Capping). The delegation of the former falling rolls fund including the underspend from 2015-16 (approximately £5 per pupil not excluded from the MFG/Capping).
(h) As advised, the formula data will be subject to detailed further checks prior to final submission of the final APT 2016-17 and on the current workings it is anticipated the October 2015 approved units of resource can be accommodated within the estimated Schools Block DSG available for 2016-17. However, variations between 2015-16 and 2016- 17 will be in place from schools due to the data changes between the years.
(i) The WSF are requested to consider the options when all of the checking is complete if any Schools Block resource remains. Within the Schools Block it is not permitted to: - Increase the majority of the central budgets as these are cash limited to existing approved budget levels. Hold this centrally and allocate to schools outside of the local schools funding formula to support school cost pressures, schools in deficit or in financial difficulty or reflect funding reductions in other funding streams such as post 16 and Education Services Grant (ESG).
(j) So the options, if any resource remains, are to allocate all/some: - Into the local schools funding formula, where it has to be on one of the DfE prescribed formula factors, which cannot be excluded from the MFG/Capping as prescribed by the DfE). In previous years the policy has been to increase the AWPU rates. To the Pupil Growth Fund to support the increasing cost of funding basic need. This could also support any budget pressure arising from schools changing their age range if the EFA instruct the LA to fund on estimated pupil numbers. This could include if the EFA recoup additional DSG for academies as detailed above.
[Note – there are 5 schools (1 maintained; 4 academies) with approval to change their age ranges from September 2016. Currently it is anticipated that 2 schools could possibly require further funding to support the change during 2016/17]
(k) The WSF are reminded that the EFA re-calculate the MFG/Capping calculation for academies using their own formula and baseline so the APT does not reflect academies final position, which may also change if the EFA use estimated numbers for age range changes as advised above.
3. Individual School Impact
3.1 As advised in the Autumn Term 2015 Statutory Consultation not surprisingly all of these conflicting issues will affect the allocations for individual schools when comparing 2015-16 Final (January 2015), 2016-17 Initial (October 2015) and 2016-17 Final (January 2016).
3.2 This is particularly evident for schools with significant data changes between October 2014 and October 2915: - Rising rolls (resulting in an increased allocation). Falling rolls (resulting in a decreased allocation). Other e.g. deprivation both FSM and IDACI , LPA, EAL, etc.
3.3 All schools will have data changes and so will experience budget variations between 2015-16 and 2016-17. The extent of the variation will depend upon the data change but e.g. if a schools sees a reduction of 25 pupils at KS4 say then the budget will reduce by over £100,000. However, the stability in the methodology in local schools formula between the years including the units of resource have provided all schools with the ability to forward plan financially given schools provide the census data.
4. Discussions Required
4.1 The Cabinet meeting on 15th October 2015 resolved to authorise the Director of Children's Services to make any subsequent submission by 21st January 2016, as a consequence of the impact of the October 2015 census, other data changes and the final Dedicated School Grant (DSG) for 2016-17.
4.2 The WSF are requested, as detailed in this briefing note, to: - Consider and discuss the impact of the current data position (section 2.1(d) and units of resource (section 2.2(c). Discuss and advise on the options proposed for any remaining Schools Block DSG (section 2.2(g) (h) and (i). Endorse the above principles for the final APT submission for 2016-17.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 APT COMPARATOR OCTOBER 2015 TO JANUARY 2016 APPENDIX C1
UNIT OF OCT 2014 OCT 2015 UNIT OF OCT 2015 JAN 2016 VARIANCE VARIANCE VARIANCE VARIANCE RESOURCE DATA ALLOCATION RESOURCE DATA ALLOCATION UNIT OF DATA ALLOCATION % 2016-17 INITIAL 2016-17 CURRENT RESOURCE £ £ % £ £ % £ %
FORMULA COMPONENT
Primary AWPU 2,839.13 42107.00 119,547,247 40.40% 2,839.13 42774.00 121,440,947 40.76% 0.00 667.00 1,893,700 0.37% KS3 AWPU 3,886.05 16321.00 63,424,222 21.43% 3,886.05 16630.00 64,625,012 21.69% 0.00 309.00 1,200,789 0.26% KS4 AWPU 4,415.31 11161.00 49,279,275 16.65% 4,415.31 10949.00 48,343,229 16.23% 0.00 -212.00 -936,046 -0.43%
S-T 69589.00 232,250,744 78.49% 70353.00 234,409,187 78.69% 764.00 2,158,443 0.73%
Primary FSM 845.66 5424.21 4,587,035 1.55% 845.66 5158.17 4,362,058 1.46% 0.00 -266.04 -224,977 -0.09% Secondary FSM 1,008.66 3163.94 3,191,338 1.08% 1,008.66 2988.27 3,014,153 1.01% 0.00 -175.66 -177,185 -0.07%
Primary IDACI Band 1 200.39 3659.23 733,273 0.25% 200.39 3549.09 711,202 0.24% 0.00 -110.14 -22,071 -0.01% Primary IDACI Band 2 249.29 2417.44 602,644 0.20% 249.29 2136.54 532,618 0.18% 0.00 -280.90 -70,026 -0.02% Primary IDACI Band 3 332.70 4732.05 1,574,353 0.53% 332.70 4445.02 1,478,858 0.50% 0.00 -287.03 -95,495 -0.04% Primary IDACI Band 4 404.61 1249.30 505,479 0.17% 404.61 2194.73 888,010 0.30% 0.00 945.43 382,530 0.13% Primary IDACI Band 5 457.35 1152.56 527,123 0.18% 457.35 445.93 203,946 0.07% 0.00 -706.63 -323,177 -0.11% Primary IDACI Band 6 662.53 352.74 233,701 0.08% 662.53 417.23 276,427 0.09% 0.00 64.49 42,727 0.01%
Secondary IDACI Band 1 277.09 2104.74 583,202 0.20% 277.09 2149.12 595,500 0.20% 0.00 44.38 12,297 0.00% Secondary IDACI Band 2 363.39 1373.03 498,945 0.17% 363.39 1262.42 458,751 0.15% 0.00 -110.61 -40,195 -0.01% Secondary IDACI Band 3 450.64 2831.00 1,275,762 0.43% 450.64 2653.89 1,195,949 0.40% 0.00 -177.11 -79,813 -0.03% Secondary IDACI Band 4 531.18 786.19 417,608 0.14% 531.18 1231.54 654,169 0.22% 0.00 445.35 236,561 0.08% Secondary IDACI Band 5 588.70 675.17 397,473 0.13% 588.70 341.65 201,129 0.07% 0.00 -333.52 -196,343 -0.07% Secondary IDACI Band 6 785.26 221.38 173,841 0.06% 785.26 221.03 173,566 0.06% 0.00 -0.35 -275 0.00%
S-T 15,301,777 5.17% 14,746,337 4.95% -555,440 -0.19%
Primary Low Prior Attainment 641.44 12744.12 8,174,589 2.76% 641.44 13291.56 8,525,738 2.86% 0.00 547.44 351,149 0.10% Secondary Low Prior Attainment 901.27 6856.03 6,179,135 2.09% 901.27 6625.00 5,970,915 2.00% 0.00 -231.03 -208,220 -0.08%
Primary EAL 446.80 2123.84 948,929 0.32% 446.80 2335.47 1,043,489 0.35% 0.00 211.64 94,560 0.03% Secondary EAL 1,083.44 228.64 247,719 0.08% 1,083.44 272.50 295,239 0.10% 0.00 43.86 47,520 0.02%
S-T 15,550,372 5.26% 15,835,381 5.32% 285,009 0.10%
Lump Sum N/A N/A 25,445,950 8.60% N/A N/A 25,445,950 8.54% N/A N/A 0 -0.06% Sparsity N/A N/A 280,343 0.09% N/A N/A 267,695 0.09% N/A N/A -12,648 0.00% Split Site N/A N/A 481,632 0.16% N/A N/A 481,632 0.16% N/A N/A 0 0.00% Rates N/A N/A 3,980,419 1.35% N/A N/A 3,985,959 1.34% N/A N/A 5,540 -0.01% PFI N/A N/A 2,249,112 0.76% N/A N/A 2,249,112 0.75% N/A N/A 0 -0.01% Additional Lump Sum N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% Exceptional Circumstances N/A N/A 369,441 0.12% N/A N/A 369,441 0.12% N/A N/A 0 0.00%
S-T 32,806,897 11.09% 32,799,789 11.01% -7,108 0.00%
TOTAL 295,909,790 100.00% 297,790,694 99.96% 1,880,904 0.64%
MFG -1.500% 1,252,037 0.42% -1.500% 1,747,984 0.59% 495,947 Capping 1.380% -1,251,677 -0.42% 1.380% -1,633,644 -0.55% -381,967
S-T 360 0.00% 114,340 0.04% 113,980 0.04%
GRAND TOTAL 295,910,150 100.00% 297,905,034 100.00% 1,994,884 0.67%
Includes One-Off £1.8m Excludes One- Off £1.8m Excludes FRF £0.37m Excludes FRF £0.37m APT COMPARATOR JANUARY 2015 TO JANUARY 2016 APPENDIX C2
UNIT OF OCT 2014 JAN 2015 UNIT OF OCT 2015 JAN 2016 VARIANCE VARIANCE VARIANCE VARIANCE RESOURCE DATA ALLOCATION RESOURCE DATA ALLOCATION UNIT OF DATA ALLOCATION % 2015-16 FINAL 2016-17 CURRENT RESOURCE £ £ % £ £ % £ %
FORMULA COMPONENT
Primary AWPU 2,865.00 42108.00 120,639,420 40.53% 2,839.13 42774.00 121,440,947 40.76% -25.87 666.00 801,527 0.23% KS3 AWPU 3,911.92 16322.00 63,850,358 21.45% 3,886.05 16630.00 64,625,012 21.69% -25.87 308.00 774,653 0.24% KS4 AWPU 4,441.18 11162.00 49,572,451 16.66% 4,415.31 10949.00 48,343,229 16.23% -25.87 -213.00 -1,229,222 -0.43%
S-T 69592.00 234,062,229 78.64% 70353.00 234,409,187 78.69% 761.00 346,958 0.12%
Primary FSM 845.66 5424.46 4,587,245 1.54% 845.66 5158.17 4,362,058 1.46% 0.00 -266.29 -225,187 -0.08% Secondary FSM 1,008.66 3164.12 3,191,522 1.07% 1,008.66 2988.27 3,014,153 1.01% 0.00 -175.85 -177,369 -0.06%
Primary IDACI Band 1 200.39 3659.68 733,363 0.25% 200.39 3549.09 711,202 0.24% 0.00 -110.59 -22,161 -0.01% Primary IDACI Band 2 249.29 2417.69 602,706 0.20% 249.29 2136.54 532,618 0.18% 0.00 -281.15 -70,088 -0.02% Primary IDACI Band 3 332.70 4732.13 1,574,380 0.53% 332.70 4445.02 1,478,858 0.50% 0.00 -287.11 -95,521 -0.03% Primary IDACI Band 4 404.61 1249.35 505,500 0.17% 404.61 2194.73 888,010 0.30% 0.00 945.38 382,510 0.13% Primary IDACI Band 5 457.35 1152.59 527,137 0.18% 457.35 445.93 203,946 0.07% 0.00 -706.66 -323,191 -0.11% Primary IDACI Band 6 662.53 352.74 233,701 0.08% 662.53 417.23 276,427 0.09% 0.00 64.49 42,727 0.01%
Secondary IDACI Band 1 277.09 2104.84 583,230 0.20% 277.09 2149.12 595,500 0.20% 0.00 44.28 12,270 0.00% Secondary IDACI Band 2 363.39 1373.03 498,945 0.17% 363.39 1262.42 458,751 0.15% 0.00 -110.61 -40,195 -0.01% Secondary IDACI Band 3 450.64 2831.01 1,275,766 0.43% 450.64 2653.89 1,195,949 0.40% 0.00 -177.12 -79,817 -0.03% Secondary IDACI Band 4 531.18 786.19 417,608 0.14% 531.18 1231.54 654,169 0.22% 0.00 445.35 236,561 0.08% Secondary IDACI Band 5 588.70 675.17 397,473 0.13% 588.70 341.65 201,129 0.07% 0.00 -333.52 -196,343 -0.07% Secondary IDACI Band 6 785.26 221.38 173,841 0.06% 785.26 221.03 173,566 0.06% 0.00 -0.35 -275 0.00%
S-T 15,302,417 5.14% 14,746,337 4.95% -556,080 -0.19%
Primary Low Prior Attainment 641.44 12744.54 8,174,855 2.75% 641.44 13291.56 8,525,738 2.86% 0.00 547.02 350,883 0.12% Secondary Low Prior Attainment 901.27 6856.52 6,179,574 2.08% 901.27 6625.00 5,970,915 2.00% 0.00 -231.52 -208,659 -0.07%
Primary EAL 446.80 2123.90 948,959 0.32% 446.80 2335.47 1,043,489 0.35% 0.00 211.57 94,530 0.03% Secondary EAL 1,083.44 228.65 247,725 0.08% 1,083.44 272.50 295,239 0.10% 0.00 43.85 47,514 0.02%
S-T 15,551,112 5.23% 15,835,381 5.32% 284,269 0.10%
Lump Sum N/A N/A 25,333,802 8.51% N/A N/A 25,445,950 8.54% N/A N/A 112,148 0.03% Sparsity N/A N/A 280,343 0.09% N/A N/A 267,695 0.09% N/A N/A -12,648 0.00% Split Site N/A N/A 481,632 0.16% N/A N/A 481,632 0.16% N/A N/A 0 0.00% Rates N/A N/A 3,912,237 1.31% N/A N/A 3,985,959 1.34% N/A N/A 73,722 0.02% PFI N/A N/A 2,249,112 0.76% N/A N/A 2,249,112 0.75% N/A N/A 0 0.00% Additional Lump Sum N/A N/A 83,999 0.03% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A -83,999 -0.03% Exceptional Circumstances N/A N/A 369,441 0.12% N/A N/A 369,441 0.12% N/A N/A 0 0.00%
S-T 32,710,566 10.99% 32,799,789 11.01% 89,223 0.03%
TOTAL 297,626,325 100.00% 297,790,694 99.96% 164,370 0.06%
MFG -1.500% 1,874,966 0.63% -1.500% 1,747,984 0.59% -126,982 Capping 6.200% -1,874,674 -0.63% 1.380% -1,633,644 -0.55% 241,030
S-T 292 0.00% 114,340 0.04% 114,048 0.04%
GRAND TOTAL 297,626,617 100.00% 297,905,034 100.00% 278,418 0.09%
Includes One-Off £1.8m Excludes One- Off £1.8m Excludes FRF £0.37m Excludes FRF £0.37m AGENDA ITEM 12 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) HIGH NEEDS PLACES ACADEMIC YEAR 2016/17
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the proposed number of High Needs (HN) places by the LA for specialist providers for the academic year 2016/17.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 At its meeting on 6th October 2015 the WSF received a report confirming the national HN funding place arrangements for the academic year 2016/17.
2.2 In summary: - LAs have the flexibility to make changes to the number of pre-16 places funded in maintained schools and PRUs. LAs will be able to make changes to the pre 16 place numbers in Academies and post 16 place numbers at FE colleges in their area. These changes will be reflected in the institutions’ EFA allocation for the academic year, will have to be agreed by the institutions and confirmed by the EFA. There is no additional HN funding to meet any increased costs incurred by any proposed changes, so any changes to place numbers will need to be managed within the 2015-16 HN budget allocation.
2.3 In terms of funding adjustments LAs were told to assume: - There will be no additional HN funding in 2016/17. The full year 2016/17 HN Block will be based on the 2015/16 place numbers No change to the remainder of the HN Block for 2015/16. Changes to place numbers will need to be managed within this budget.
2.4 LAs are obliged to discuss with the WSF on this issue and take account of any views expressed. It is the LA that decides on allocated places apart from AP Free schools where the DfE determine the LA funded share.
3. CURRENT POSITION
3.1 The LA has reviewed the places across all such providers.
3.2 There has been increasing demand for HN places during 2015/16 and the LA has had to temporarily increase place numbers to avoid in some cases higher cost out County provision.
3.3 Given this demand, particularly in Special Schools, it is proposed to change place numbers for some providers. For four academy providers the LA had to submit an application to the DfE by 16th November 2015 for changes in places agreed with the individual schools. The DfE have yet to confirm their agreement to these proposed changes.
3.4 The proposed place numbers for the academic year 2016/17 are attached at Appendix A comparing to the previous year. Any additional places numbers and associated top up will have to be managed within the revised provisional HN Block DSG 2016-17, which now includes an element for HN growth.
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The WSF notes and comments on the issues as detailed.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 COMMISSIONED PLACES APPENDIX A 2015/16 2016/17 In Year Total Change Total Pre 16 Post 16 Pre 16 2015/16 Pre 16 Post 16 Pre 16 2016/17 Pupil Referral Units (PRU) School Name DfE Number Academy Variance Comments Perryfield 1103 N 14 - - 14 14 - - 14 - No change The Beacon 1105 N 25 - - 25 25 - - 25 - No change Newbridge 1120 Y 68 - - 68 68 - - 68 - No change The Forge 1121 N 48 - - 48 48 - - 48 - No change
155 - - 155 155 - - 155
Special Schools
Chadsgrove 7015 N 99 22 - 121 99 22 9 130 9 New accommodation HN pressures - LA decision Rigby Hall 7001 N 100 16 - 116 100 16 10 126 10 New accommodation HN pressures - LA decision Wyre Forest 7026 N 201 25 8 234 209 25 - 8 226 - 8 Reviewing boarding places - LA decision The Kingfisher 7000 Y 70 - - 70 70 - - 70 - No change Pitcheroak 7009 N 116 18 9 143 125 18 - 143 - No change - Demographic pressures 2015/16 baselined - LA decision Vale of Evesham 7011 Y 143 29 - 172 143 29 - 172 - All day places 15 boarding allocated all through top up Fort Royal 7025 N 165 - 10 175 175 - - 175 - No change - Demographic pressures 2015/16 baselined - LA decision Regency 7024 Y 125 33 - 158 125 33 12 170 12 Demographic pressures 2016/17 - EFA Approved Riversides 7003 Y 68 - - 68 68 - - 68 - No change
Total 1,087 143 27 1,257 1,114 143 23 1,280 23 Resource Base Non-EY
Meadows First / Parkside Middle 2019 N 12 - - 12 12 - - 12 - No change Lickey Hills Primary 2901 N 21 - - 21 21 - - 21 - No change Sutton Park Primary 3369 N 10 - - 10 10 - - 10 - No change Great Malvern Primary 2105 Y 10 - - 10 10 - - 10 - Possible in year de-commissioning to be confirmed Cherry Orchard First 2121 N 8 - - 8 8 - - 8 - No change Matchborough First 2919 Y 10 - 1 11 11 - - 11 - No change Burlish Park Primary 2903 N 10 - - 10 10 - - 10 - No change Oldbury Park Primary 2202 N 8 - - 8 8 - - 8 - No change Abbey Park Middle 2906 N 10 - - 10 10 - - 10 - No change Beaconside Primary 2197 N 9 - - 9 9 - - 9 - No change Walkwood CE Middle 4579 Y 10 - - 10 10 - - 2 8 -2 Reduction 2016/17 - EFA Approved North Bromsgrove 4002 N 8 - 3 11 11 - 1 12 1 Demographic pressures 2015/16 ongoing - LA decision King Charles 1 4501 Y 28 - 3 31 28 - - 28 -3 Demographic pressures 2015/16 temporary Dyson Perrins 4801 Y 10 2 - 12 10 2 - 12 - No change Pershore 4030 Y 12 - - 12 12 - 2 14 2 Demographic pressures 2016/17 - EFA Approved Tudor Grange (Redditch) 4438 Y 8 2 2 12 8 2 - 10 -2 Demographic pressures 2015/16 temporary Waseley Hills High 4044 Y 8 - 2 10 8 - 2 10 - Demographic pressures 2015/16 ongoing - EFA Approved
Total 192 4 11 207 196 4 3 203 -4
Alternative Provision (AP) Free Schools
Continu 1108 Y 46 - 4 50 50 - - 50 - Assumed same EFA deduction as 2015/16 yet to be advised Aspire 1110 Y ------Unknown but potential EFA deduction in 2016/17 yet to be advised
Total 46 - 4 50 50 - - 50 -
Grand Total 1,480 147 42 1,669 1,515 147 26 1,688 19
FE Providers Heart of Worcestershire College N/A 159 159 159 159 - No change South Worcestershire College N/A 22 22 22 22 - No change Worcestershire 6th Form College N/A 10 10 10 10 - No change
FE Total 191 191 191 191 - AGENDA ITEM 13a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) UPDATE ON NATIONAL FAIR FUNDING FORMULA (NFFF) – COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW (CSR)
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the headlines in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) announcement in November 2015.
2. CURRENT ISSUES
2.1 On 25th November 2015 the Chancellor announced the outcomes of the Government's CSR.
2.2 This included details on the impact of this for the DfE. An extract from the full HM Treasury document is attached at Appendix A.
2.3 The link to the DfE press release is as follows: - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/department-for-educations-settlement-at-the- spending-review-2015
2.4 The impact of the DfE and on the areas within its responsibility will be very wide ranging for early years, mainstream schools and post 16.
2.5 In particular the commitment to the first ever national funding formula for schools, high needs and early years is to be welcomed. The long campaigns by the County Council and its schools in partnership with the F40 Group have been a significant influence in determining this new national policy direction.
2.6 The Government are committed to launching a consultation in 2016 on the proposed details for this and will implement the new formulae from 2017-18. They have indicated there will be a transitional phase to help smooth the implementation of the new schools formula. This consultation will also include proposals for managing the significant reduction of £600m in the Education Services Grant (ESG).
2.7 At the time of writing this report there are no further details but the LA continues to be extremely active in the F40 Group. This is in both the Executive Committee and the Finance Managers Research Team, with the latter continuing to engage on an operational basis with DfE officials.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 The WSF notes and comments on the current position.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy January 2016 APPENDIX A
EXTRACT FROM HM TREASURY SPENDING REVIEW DOCUMENTS
Giving children the best start in life
Childcare
1.160 From 2019-20, the government will spend over £6 billion a year supporting parents with their childcare costs. This includes doubling the free childcare entitlement from 15 hours to 30 hours a week for working families with three and four year olds from September 2017, worth up to £5,000 per child. It also includes introducing Tax-Free Childcare from early 2017, providing up to £2,000 a year per child to help working parents with their childcare costs. This means that, starting from 2017, a family with two children can begin to claim childcare support worth up to £40,000 through free hours and Tax-Free Childcare by the time both children are at school. The Autumn Statement and Spending Review sets an upper income limit per parent of £100,000 and a minimum weekly income level per parent equivalent to 16 hours (worked at the National Living Wage) to the extended free childcare entitlement and Tax-Free Childcare. This saves £215 million by 2020-21.
1.161 The government has also undertaken a review of the cost of childcare provision, and from 2017-18 will invest £300 million to increase the average hourly rate childcare providers receive, and at least £50 million of capital funding to create additional places in nurseries. This will be delivered alongside the introduction of a national early years funding formula and other reforms, to ensure funding is fairly allocated.
Children’s services
1.162 The government will maintain in cash terms the Department for Education’s central children’s services budget at over £300 million per year, to help drive up social care workforce standards to improve support for vulnerable children.
Schools
1.163 The Spending Review protects the core schools budget in real terms, enabling the per pupil rate for the Dedicated Schools Grant to be protected in cash terms, including £390 million of additional funding given to the least fairly funded areas in 2015-16. The pupil premium will also be protected at current rates.
1.164 Funding for universal infant free school meals will also be maintained, saving families around £400 for every infant each year. 66 Department for Education and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills data, HM Treasury Internal Calculations, 2015.45Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015
1.165 The government will introduce the first ever national funding formula for schools, high needs and early years, so that funding is transparently and fairly linked to children’s needs. This will end the unfair system where a child from a disadvantaged background in one school attracts half as much funding as a child in identical circumstances in another school, simply because of where they live.
1.166 This reform will give schools more certainty over future budgets, empowering head teachers to take decisions for the long term. The government will launch a detailed consultation in 2016 and implement the new formulae from 2017-18. There will be a transitional period to help smooth the implementation of the new formula.
1.167 The government is investing £23 billion in school buildings, opening 500 new free schools, creating 600,000 school places, rebuilding and refurbishing over 500 schools and addressing essential maintenance needs. The government is also investing in new school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
1.168 The Spending Review and Autumn Statement represents the next step towards the government’s goal of ending local authorities’ role in running schools and all schools becoming an academy. This will accelerate the government’s ambitious reform programme, giving more power to teachers.
1.169 The Spending Review and Autumn Statement provides investment of over £1.3 billion up to 2019-20 to attract new teachers into the profession, particularly into Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects and to deliver the English Baccalaureate (EBacc), to raise educational standards for young people. AGENDA ITEM 13b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) UPDATE ON NATIONAL FAIR FUNDING FORMULA (NFFF) – F40 GROUP
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the current position relating to the F40 Group on the NFFF.
2. CURRENT ISSUES
2.1 Petition 21st October 2015 111 MPs petition Prime Minister demanding fairer school funding – Appendices A to D.
2.2 Finance Managers Research Team 28th October 2015 Notes of meeting – Appendix E.
2.3 Education Select Committee Correspondence 28th October 2015 – Appendices F and G.
2.4 Letter 2nd November 2015 F40 to Secretary of State and reply 23rd November 2015 – Appendices H and H1.
2.5 News Release 5th November 2015 Westminster Fair Funding Debate – Appendix I.
2.6 Letter 5th November 2015 Response from Prime Minister – Appendix J.
2.7 Minutes F40 Executive Committee 5th December 2015 – Appendix K.
2.8 Notes F40 meeting with Department for Education 9th December 2015 – Appendix L.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 The WSF notes and comments on the current position.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 APPENDIX A
NEWS RELEASE
21 October 2015
111 MPs petition Prime Minister demanding fairer school funding
One hundred and eleven Members of Parliament have signed a letter to the Prime Minister demanding that he sticks to his pledge to introduce a new national funding formula in the near future.
The letter, which was masterminded by f40 Vice Chair, Graham Stuart MP, was handed over today in the House of Commons. It calls on the government to implement a fairer funding formula along the lines of proposals prepared by f40 which, from 2017-18, would see funding geared towards improving educational standards rather than perpetuating an inequitable system.
Under the current system, the ten best funded areas of England will receive an average grant of £6,297 per pupil this year, compared to an average of just £4,208 per pupil in the ten most poorly funded areas. f40 Chairman, Ivan Ould said: “This irrational and unfair allocation arrangement has to change. School funding has become more and more unfair over time, and the inconsistencies in funding for individual schools with similar characteristics across the country are too great.
“f40, which represents the lowest funded authorities in England, wants to see the introduction of a new national funding formula. This would be a transformative achievement for pupils in low funded authorities and that is why f40 is maintaining the pressure on the government to deliver what it has promised.
“In recent months, f40’s financial team has developed proposals and discussed them with experts in the Department for Education. This joint working has been extremely productive and there is significant agreement about what needs to be done…and by when.
“We welcome the Prime Minister’s fulfilment of his promise to baseline the £390m extra cash given to some of the worst funded local authorities to boost school budgets in 2015-16, and this will now be included in future years budgeting. That has always been viewed by f40 members and the government as merely a down-payment to help narrow the funding gap whilst a new national funding formula was agreed and implemented. We now need a commitment for the start of the introduction of that new formula.”
Graham Stuart added “The fact that so many MPs have signed this letter on a cross-party basis shows the strength of feeling in favour of school funding reform. This is about bringing an end to an arbitrary and unfair system – it’s not about rural versus urban, or Conservative vs Labour, it’s about bringing order from chaos. The Government deserves credit for promising to act and now is the time to deliver a rational, needs-based funding settlement. “At a time when the Department for Education is considering its options, we want the Government to be in no doubt that our constituents deserve swift and comprehensive funding reform to deliver fairness for their children.
“The f40 group has campaigned tirelessly to raise the profile of this issue and has made sensible suggestions about how a new funding formula could be introduced. In the meantime our campaign is continuing with Parliamentary petitions being coordinated by f40 MPs with the help of local authorities and schools to let people have their say. We won’t rest until we have delivered fair funding for English schools.”
ENDS
Issued by Doug Allan, Secretary of the f40 Group. For further comment or information please call 07785 223707 or email [email protected]
There’s more detail about f40 on the Group’s website – www.f40.org.uk
Notes
1. The MPs’ letter and a full list of the signatories is attached to this news release.
2. f40 is a cross-party group which has the support of MPs, councillors, education directors, governors, head teachers, parents and teaching union representatives. The group has 38 member authorities representing over 2.5 million pupils (33% of the total in England) in over 8,100 schools.
3. The members are: Bedford Borough, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Central Bedfordshire, Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, Derbyshire, Devon, Dorset, East Riding of Yorkshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Herefordshire, Kent, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Solihull, Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Staffordshire, Stockport, Suffolk, Swindon, Torbay, Trafford, Wakefield, Warrington, Warwickshire, Wigan, Worcestershire and York.
Graham Stuart MP Member of Parliament Working Hard for Beverley & Holderness
APPENDIX C
NEWS RELEASE 21 October 2015 Release: Immediate
Over 100 MPs write to the Prime Minister to demand Fair School Funding
111 MPs have written an open letter to David Cameron calling on the Government to deliver school funding reform. The MPs, working on a cross-party basis, ask the Prime Minister to implement the funding formula proposed by the F40 campaign group, which would ensure fair funding based on pupil need.
Under the current system, the ten best funded areas of England will receive an average grant of £6,297 per pupil this year, compared to an average of just £4,208 per pupil in the ten most poorly funded areas.
In their letter, the MPs say:
“It is widely acknowledged that the existing school funding model is a muddle and that funding for individual schools with similar pupil characteristics is arbitrary and unfair.
“At a time of spending restraint it is more important than ever that funding is allocated based on need. F40 has come up with a formula which would see the funding cake shared much more fairly.
“We believe this formula can help deliver a solution. We want the children in our schools to continue to have a broad range of subjects to study, good resources to use, well maintained buildings, reasonably sized classes and excellent pastoral support. Fairer funding is integral to all of this, and we urge you to deliver it.”
Those who have signed the letter include former Cabinet ministers Dominic Grieve, Caroline Spelman and Cheryl Gillan (Conservative) and Ben Bradshaw and Andrew Smith (Labour), Education Committee Chairman Neil Carmichael and Commons Speaker John Bercow, in his capacity as MP for Buckingham.
The MPs’ letter was coordinated by F40 Vice Chairman Graham Stuart MP, who chaired Parliament’s Education Select Committee 2010-2015. Graham said:
“The fact that so many MPs have signed this letter on a cross-party basis shows the strength of feeling in favour of school funding reform. This is about bringing an end to an arbitrary and unfair system – it’s not about rural versus urban, or Conservative vs Labour, it’s about bringing order from chaos. The Government deserves credit for promising to act and now is the time to deliver a rational, needs-based funding settlement.
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Tel: 0207 219 4848 Email: [email protected] Website: www.grahamstuart.com
Graham Stuart MP Member of Parliament Working Hard for Beverley & Holderness
“At a time when the Department for Education is considering its options, we want the Government to be in no doubt that our constituents deserve swift and comprehensive funding reform to deliver fairness for their children.
“The F40 group has campaigned tirelessly to raise the profile of this issue and has made sensible suggestions about how a new funding formula could be introduced. In the meantime our campaign is continuing with Parliamentary petitions being coordinated by F40 MPs with the help of local authorities and schools to let people have their say. We won’t rest until we have delivered fair funding for English schools.”
F40 Chairman Councillor Ivan Ould welcomed the MPs’ letter. Councillor Ould said:
“The campaign for Fair School funding is at a critical stage. I hope the Government will note this very substantial support for a fairer system and would urge all MPs who represent the 40 lowest funded authorities to keep up the pressure for change.”
Notes for Editors
1. The F40 campaign represents a group of the lowest funded education authorities in England where government-set cash allocations for primary and secondary pupils are the lowest in the country. As the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ remains and in some cases continues to widen, F40 is campaigning to change the way the government allocates funding to local authorities and schools.
2. The F40 campaign has support from MPs, councillors, education directors, governors, head teachers and parents. Teaching unions including the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) both support a new national funding formula.
3. Graham Stuart has served as Vice Chairman of the F40 campaign since May 2015, when he succeeded Robin Walker MP, now PPS to the Education Secretary.
4. The MPs’ letter and a full list of the signatories is attached to this news release.
5. F40’s proposals would deliver fairness to areas which have been underfunded for far too long. Barnsley would see the largest funding gain of any local authority, adding an extra £460 per pupil per year.
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Tel: 0207 219 4848 Email: [email protected] Website: www.grahamstuart.com
Graham Stuart MP Member of Parliament Working Hard for Beverley & Holderness
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Tel: 0207 219 4848 Email: [email protected] Website: www.grahamstuart.com
APPENDIX D
Right Honourable David Cameron MP 10 Downing Street Westminster SW1A 2AA
20 October 2015
Dear Prime Minister,
Fair School Funding Campaign
We write as MPs supporting the f40 group to call for urgent action to deliver fairer schools funding.
It is widely acknowledged that the existing school funding model is a muddle and that funding for individual schools with similar pupil characteristics is arbitrary and unfair. As a result, schools around the country that are similar can get very different budgets and children with the same needs can receive very different levels of financial support depending on where they go to school.
The ten best funded areas will receive an average grant of £6,297 per pupil this year, compared to an average of just £4,208 per pupil in the ten most poorly funded areas.
F40, a group made up of poorly funded local authorities, of which all the signatories to this letter are supporters, has been making the case for a fairer funding system for nearly two decades and the arguments they make for greater equity are overwhelming.
Ministers have recognised the problem and promised to address it. We welcome this, together with your confirmation that the additional £390 million awarded in 2015/16 as a “down payment” towards fairer funding will be included in the funding baseline for future years.
We are now looking to the Government to deliver a truly fair funding settlement.
At a time of spending restraint it is more important than ever that funding is allocated based on need. F40 has come up with a formula which would see the funding cake shared much more fairly. This has received a positive response from funding experts at the Department for Education.
The f40 proposals would:
• introduce a new national formula, based on a clear rationale and geared towards improving educational standards across the country;
• include core entitlement at a pupil level, reflecting different needs and costs at various key stages;
• use factors to reflect pupil level needs beyond the core entitlement, including deprivation and special educational needs, and reflect the needs of small schools that are necessary in a local authority’s structure; and
• continue to use Dedicated Schools Grant, with blocks for mainstream schools, high needs and early years. Local authorities would be free to move funding between the blocks.
We believe this formula can help deliver a solution. We want the children in our schools to continue to have a broad range of subjects to study, good resources to use, well maintained buildings, reasonably sized classes and excellent pastoral support. Fairer funding is integral to all of this, and we urge you to deliver it.
We would be grateful for the opportunity to meet you to discuss this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Stuart
And 111 others:
1. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) 2. Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbott) 3. Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) 4. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) 5. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) 6. Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) 7. Rebecca Pow (Taunton) 8. Karen Lumley (Redditch) 9. Paul Farrelly (Newcastle under Lyme) 10. Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) 11. Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) 12. David Mackintosh (Northampton South) 13. James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) 14. David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) 15. Kevin Foster (Torbay) 16. Steve Brine (Winchester) 17. Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) 18. John Howell (Henley) 19. Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) 20. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) 21. Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) 22. Simon Hoare (Dorset North) 23. Lucy Frazer (Cambridgeshire South East) 24. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) 25. Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) 26. Andrew Bingham (High Peak) 27. Sarah Wollaston (Totnes)
28. Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) 29. Sir William Cash (Stone) 30. Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) 31. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) 32. Fiona Bruce (Congleton) 33. Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) 34. Helen Whateley (Faversham and Mid Kent) 35. David Mowat (Warrington South) 36. Rishi Sunak (Richmond Yorks) 37. Julian Knight (Solihull) 38. Heidi Allen (Cambridgeshire South) 39. James Heappey (Wells) 40. Victoria Prentis (North Oxfordshire) 41. Andrew Griffiths (Burton upon Trent) 42. Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) 43. Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) 44. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) 45. John Bercow (Buckingham) 46. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) 47. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) 48. Caroline Spelman (Meriden) 49. Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) 50. Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) 51. Julian Sturdy (York Outer) 52. Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) 53. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) 54. Robert Jenrick (Newark) 55. Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) 56. Steve Baker (Wycombe) 57. Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) 58. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) 59. Alan Mak (Havant) 60. Sir Roger Gale (Thanet North) 61. Richard Graham (Gloucester) 62. Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) 63. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) 64. Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) 65. Andrew Smith (Oxford East) 66. Peter Aldous (Waveney) 67. Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) 68. Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) 69. Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) 70. Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) 71. Richard Drax (Dorset South) 72. Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick upon Tweed) 73. Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) 74. Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) 75. James Gray (Wiltshire North)
76. Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) 77. Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) 78. Sir Edward Garnier (Market Harborough) 79. Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) 80. Mark Pawsey (Rugby) 81. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) 82. Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and Ipswich North) 83. Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) 84. Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) 85. Tim Loughton (Worthing East and Shoreham) 86. Jeremy Quin (Horsham) 87. Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) 88. Ed Argar (Charnwood) 89. John Glen (Salisbury) 90. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) 91. Neil Carmichael (Stroud) 92. Gavin Shuker (Luton South) 93. Ann Coffey (Stockport) 94. Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) 95. Scott Mann (North Cornwall) 96. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) 97. Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) 98. Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) 99. Rachael Maskell (York Central) 100. Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) 101. David Rutley (Macclesfield) 102. Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) 103. Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) 104. Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) 105. Tom Pursglove (Corby and East Northamptonshire) 106. Mary Robinson (Cheadle) 107. Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) 108. Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) 109. Helen Grant (Maidstone) 110. Damian Green (Ashford)
APPENDIX E Notes of meeting of f40’s Finance Managers Research Team Monday 28 October 2015 at LG House, Westminster Present: Martin Wade (Cambridgeshire); Margaret Judd (Dorset CC); Caroline Brand (Worcestershire CC); Anton Hodge (North Yorkshire CC); Karen Powlesland (Devon CC); Peter Hughes (Stockport Council); Malcolm Green (Herefordshire Council); John Huskinson (Buckinghamshire CC); Andrew Minall (Hampshire CC ); Simon Pleace (Kent CC) and Doug Allan, Secretary to f40. Apologies: Christine Atkinson (ERYC); Sara Haslam (Warwickshire CC); Karen Bowdler (Cheshire East & Chester Council); Gillian McKee (Oxfordshire CC); Lee Assiter (Staffordshire CC); John Holmes (Devon CC) William Wilkes (Staffordshire). DA reported that John Bloomer (Staffordshire) has now moved to Cornwall CC where he will encourage the LA to get involved with f40. He also reported that Phil Herd (Trafford) has now retired. The team thanked both for their excellent contribution to the work of FMRT. 1. Notes of FMRT meeting held 6 July 2015 The notes were agreed as an accurate record. PH asked if there had been any progress on creating a new league table but he was told this had proved more difficult than originally anticipated. See Section 11. PH also asked about the idea that case studies might be created, but was told that although asked for, LAs had not responded and other priorities had taken over. MG reported that his LA (Herefordshire) had done some work illustrating how deficits will impact on schools. It was acknowledged that there are significant unknowns around High Needs/ISOS report, and Early Years proposals for 30 hours, which DfE appear to be struggling with. 2. Notes of meeting with DfE 9 September 2015 F40 had presented its latest formula development proposals, based on Schools Block only. There had been a strong team fielded by the DfE, which was seen as a major positive by f40’s own team, suggesting that f40 is being taken extremely seriously. There was a very positive and open discussion, with challenging questions about our approach. The DfE made it clear that there is no extra cash on the table, so whilst it is reasonable for f40 to produce its own proposals based on increased funding, it might also wish to scale- back its proposals to existing funding. There were specific queries about sparsity and how some LAs applied it, whilst others did not. The f40 team had emphasised the importance of LAs continuing to have local flexibility and discretion in how funding is passed to schools. The DfE indicated that it was researching its options for the whole formula and suggested that it might be able to engage further with f40 in late October. Nothing has been heard from them. CB said that she had heard that the DfE would not be making any announcements until after the Annual Spending review, which is scheduled for 25 November. MW said the work with DfE had been invaluable and that he would like to see a further meeting with them once the current development work is completed – because of the Spending Review and Festive season, this might be early in New Year. DA reminded the team that f40 Chairman, Ivan Ould, had asked to attend. 3. Minutes of f40 Executive Committee meeting 19 September 2015
1
DA reported that the Executive Committee had been fully supportive of the direction of travel adopted by FMRT and had agreed that, as the DfE had suggested, that a proposal based on zero additional funding should be developed, alongside any other proposition. DA reported on the ideas put forward by Chris Chapman and indicated that he had assured the executive members that they would be considered by FMRT. See below. It was also agreed that FMRT should strengthen the position adopted with regard to flexibility and discretion. 4. Meeting with Neil Carmichael MP, Chair Education Select Committee 22 October 2015 DA had previously circulated his notes of a meeting held with the Chairman of the Education Select Committee. NC indicated that his committee was closely monitoring the Secretary of State’s position on fair funding and would be examining any proposals put forward. The timetable for change is critical and NC anticipated an announcement early in 2016 so that the necessary work could be done to see a new formula in 2017-18. F40 should be ready to contribute to any consultation and to present evidence to his Committee when it discusses fair funding. Timetabling to be sorted fairly soon. Finally NC had raised the possibility that the Chancellor will again offer a cash sum to bridge the funding gap for the poorest funded LAs. If that were to happen, f40 must be ready to present a realistic methodology for allocation – not on the Schools Block alone, but rather across all three blocks. 5. Consideration of specific comments on last set of proposals DA had circulated a set of comments received following publication of the last version of the f40 proposal and spreadsheet. It was agreed that those raised by Margaret Judd (Dorset) and Martin Wade (Cambridgeshire) would be dealt with elsewhere on this agenda as a new proposal is prepared. An outline of the views put forward by Chris Chapman, a member of the Executive Committee representing the Cheshires, was presented and discussed. It proved difficult to consider the detail in committee, so MW agreed he would analyse the points raised and get a response to DA, who will then pass them to CC at the earliest opportunity. Stewart King’s concerns about High Needs and a post-analysis of ISOS findings, will be dealt with when it is possible to take High Needs further. 6. Schools Block/ Scaling back the Factor Values By far the largest amount of time at this meeting was spent reassessing the proposals spreadsheet, discussing and agreeing new calculations and establishing fresh principles in the light of suggestions from member authorities and the DfE. In this note, it is impossible to reflect on all the adjustments made, but it was agreed that:
The detail in the revised spreadsheet and narrative must have a strong rationale. We need to be very clear about why we want local flexibility/discretion and spell out those areas that we feel it is particularly important (links to next bullet point) We must have regard to the fact that every LA has a different school structure and different methods of dealing with funding allocations. Free School Meals are currently set at £1,500 for both primary and secondary pupils. Discussion was held as to the evidence to support this value and the rationale for primary and secondary being the same. CB reported that at a previous meeting £2,500 was deemed to be the cost of supporting deprived pupils, but that these had initially been reduced by the Pupil Premium values of £1,000 secondary and £1,300 primary. This left a value of £1,500 for secondary fsm and £1,200 for primary fsm. However, on further discussion, the FMRT at the earlier meeting had agreed that these should both be £1,500 to support early intervention in the primary sector. All FMRT members to give immediate consideration to how best to deal with deprivation. All FMRT members to give immediate consideration to how best to deal with sparsity.
2
Consideration will be given to the issue of mainstreaming grants. Deprivation is important but if pupil premium were mainstreamed there may be some room for manoeuvre. Several formula options will be developed, including a range of scaled-back options presuming no increase in funding and others with realistic increases (in case the Chancellor considers the option to make another extra sum available). These options are: - Present final adjusted model as is (will obviously show a considerable funding gap) - Equal reduction on all factors (approx. 2.4%) & preferred option - Scale-back BE & Lump sum factors only - Scale-back all factors except BE and Lump sum MJ will complete adjustments on the spreadsheet and make as many changes as she can identify to the Proposals Narrative document, and circulate them to all FMRT members for their consideration All FMRT members are asked to give the two documents their attention and to respond to all other members by Friday 13 November 2015. 7. High Needs It had been thought that the DfE would have published further information in the light of the ISOS research, but nothing has been forthcoming. There is little that can be done until these fresh datasets are available. SP will take responsibility for further work in this area. He will endeavour to develop the approach via email with other team members, but if necessary will call a meeting of a few members. One member wondered out loud whether High Needs might one day be combined with the Schools Block. 8. Early Years MW has undertaken to examine Early Years when sufficient new data is available. Further work is “parked” until the position is clearer. 9. Impact of proposed formula on f40 members MJ will check the specific outcomes for all f40 members, particularly those that are shown as losers under any formula proposal. The details will be provided to DA in order that he can share the information with member authorities involved. 10. Narrative Document There was insufficient time to go through the document and, in any case, changes to the wording should be considered after adjustments are made to the spreadsheet. So it was agreed that MJ will have a first stab at updating the proposals in the light of her work on the formula and that then all FMRT members will be asked to check the details (indicating that they are content if they have no changes to make!). In particular, the Narrative will:
Be strengthened to reflect the importance of local flexibility and discretion to ensure that we are clear on what the DfE call “soft” and “hard” options. Include a reference to Capital Costs and the difficulties being experienced by most LAs. Be cross-checked to ensure it reflects the “sense” of the spreadsheet calculations. Ensure it provides clear detail of any “rationale” applied to help wider audience understand fully the model proposals. The comment about upcoming funding pressures needs to be strengthened. Consideration will be given to the issue of mainstreaming grants. There are a number of grants (Pupil Premium, Universal Infant Free School Meals, PE and Sports Premium, Year 7 catch up) which are calculated using a very similar basis to existing formula factors. It was recognised that deprivation is important but for example, if pupil premium were mainstreamed there may be some room for manoeuvre. 11. Developing a league table
3
DA referred to fact that historically there had always been an easy to understand league table which LAs and others could use to check where they stand in terms of funding compared to others. It has proved more difficult in recent times to set league positions as there has been many changes to the funding situation. DA said that there is continuing demand for information about league positions and he hoped that it would be possible to have a league again in due course. It was agreed that we will add league positions to the proposal spreadsheet. 12. Other matters
DA reported that the letter to the Prime Minister had been signed by 111 MPs and the publicity stemming from it being delivered had been extensive. The Parliamentary Petitions in circulation in all f40 constituencies appear to be going well, Over 50 petitions containing many thousands of names have already been returned to Graham Stuart’s office and it is known that many more will do so. The deadline for petitions being returned has been extended to 13 November 2015. DA has written to Lead Members, Directors and Chairs of Schools Forum to encourage them to do all they can to maximise numbers. The time and date of the Backbench debate in Westminster Hall has been set for 1.30pm on Thursday 5 November 2015. The Spending Review is scheduled for 25 November 2015 The next f40 Executive Committee is scheduled for Saturday, 5 December 2015. This is a critical date for FMRT as ideally the next version of the Formula Spreadsheet and Proposal Narrative should be completed in time for a presentation to Committee.
END F40/DA/28 October 2015
4
Education Committee House of Commons Westminster London SW1A 0AAA Tel 020 7219 1333 Fax 020 7219 0848 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/education-committee
Rt Hon Nicky Morgan MP Secretary of State for Education Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street Westminster London SW1P 3BT
16 September 2015
Fairer funding
Thank you for appearing before the Committee last week. We very much appreciated the opportunity to discuss a range of current issues relating to your responsibilities as Secretary of State for Education.
During the evidence session, we had an exchange on the subject of fairer funding. My Committee welcomes the Government’s commitment to address this very important area. Our current intention is to examine your department’s proposals for reform, once they have been issued for consultation and we will be seeking to arrange access to consultation responses to help us in our work.
At this stage, we should be grateful if you could confirm the likely publication date of the consultation. We also seek confirmation from you that funding for 16 to 18 year olds will be included in the proposals for reform.
We hope that we will see new proposals at an early date. The Committee may of course have to review its own course of action in relation to fairer funding if there is significant delay in publishing a new consultation.
NEIL CARMICHAEL MP CHAIR
APPENDIX H
The Rt. Hon. Nicky Morgan MP Secretary of State for Education Department for Education Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street London, SW1P 3BT 2 November 2015
Dear Secretary of State,
Fair funding for education
Following a recent meeting of f40’s Executive Committee I agreed to write to you again on the matter of fair funding for schools.
The Committee warmly welcomed the government’s announcement on the baselining of the extra £390million and it wants me to thank you for your role in getting that agreement through. It is seen as an invaluable step in the move towards a fair funding formula.
F40 would like to think it played at least a small part in achieving the extra funding and more generally in persuading the government that something more radical has to be done to change the formula used to allocate funding to our schools. Certainly we recognise that there has been a sea-change in attitude across government, with the many Members of Parliament representing poorly funded areas pushing hard for something positive to be done to put things right.
Like those Members, f40 thinks that there is a small window of opportunity for the government to take action in the early stages of this Parliament, hopefully introducing a new funding formula for 2017-18 at the latest. We recognise the considerable risk of not taking action now to ensure a satisfactory launch of a new formula in this timeframe. I am sure you are equally aware of the danger if matters are left to drift too long into the five-year administration.
As you know, in conjunction with our Vice Chair, Graham Stuart MP, we organised a letter to the Prime Minister which was signed by 111 Members from poorly funded areas. We are also involved in collecting thousands of signatures on Parliamentary Petitions which are in circulation in every f40 constituency. We are anticipating a massive response and will be organising a handover of petitions after the deadline of 13 November. These two actions clearly demonstrate the support across the country for change at an early date.
F40 has also continued to work on its own proposals for a new formula. We had a second meeting with your officials on 9 September, which went extremely well and was most constructive. We agreed to undertake further work, which is nearly complete and which will be presented to your department in early December. I personally would like to thank you for allowing an excellent working relationship to be established between f40 and your department. It has been one of the most practical and promising developments during this process.
There is a secondary issue that the Executive Committee asked me to raise. It is a significant concern that is growing about the lack of an effective joint strategy between the Department for Education and Department of Health regarding how funding operates for children’s health services at a local level.
Although there is now a requirement for health and education to make joint arrangements for education, health and care provision, increasingly we are finding that the health service doesn't always contribute its fair share to the cost of services to children, or that they introduce unrealistic budgets which are quickly used up and ignore the fact that children’s needs don't stop just because the budget is spent. Where this happens, schools end up taking on the responsibility of providing the health service and pick up the cost. They feel they must do this in order to ensure that the child is not further disadvantaged and can at least be given a reasonable opportunity to make progress.
The reality is that the schools are judged by Ofsted and others with the expectation that the identification of special educational needs leads to additional or different arrangements being made and a consequent improvement in progress. If health authorities don’t provide support, then schools take on the responsibility in order that they aren't judged poorly on outcomes for the child. Schools argue to Ofsted that health should be paying or providing a service, but that doesn’t wash with Ofsted, which simply states that if the child doesn't meet outcomes it is the schools fault and no-one else. This is very unfair and puts huge strain on school budgets.
I hope that this is something that you are prepared to look into and take action on.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Ivan Ould Chair of f40 ([email protected])
The Secretary, f40 Group, C/o DTW, Bank Chambers, Market Place, GUISBOROUGH, TS14 6BN ([email protected])
Graham Stuart MP Member of Parliament Working Hard for Beverley & Holderness
APPENDIX I
NEWS RELEASE 5 November 2015 Release: Immediate
Graham Stuart demands justice for underfunded children as Minister confirms major school funding reform is imminent
Graham Stuart has today led a Parliamentary debate calling for fairer funding for schools across England, in which over 30 MPs from both main parties took the opportunity to voice their support for funding reform. The Minister, Sam Gyimah, made a significant announcement when he told the House that the Government will bring forward proposals for consultation shortly after the Spending Review announcement by the Chancellor on 25 November.
In his speech, Graham referred to figures compiled by the Association of School and College Leaders, which show that the ten best funded areas will receive an average Schools Block grant of £6,300 per pupil this year, compared to an average of just £4,200 per pupil in the ten most poorly funded areas. For a typical secondary school of 920 students, this equates to a budget difference of £1.9 million between the best and worst funded areas, enough to pay the total costs – salaries and pension contributions – of 40 full-time teachers.
Graham pointed out that the funding gap cannot be explained by deprivation, pointing out that a deprived secondary school pupil in York who receives the pupil premium – worth fully £935 this year – still has less spent on his or her education than an equivalent pupil in Birmingham who isn’t eligible for the pupil premium. Meanwhile pupils in Graham’s own local authority of the East Riding, which contains pockets of real deprivation in coastal towns like Withernsea, receive the lowest funding per pupil of any council area.
Graham said, “The principle that pupils with similar characteristics and similar needs should receive similar funding, regardless of where they live, should be uncontroversial. It cannot be right that some authorities receive 70% higher funding than others. I was very pleased to hear the Minister’s announcement that we can expect proposals for consultation very shortly - schools in my home area of the East Riding have had to struggle with the consequences of the current unfair system for far too long.
“I will scrutinise the Government’s proposals very carefully, as I know MPs will from across the country, and hope they will deliver significant reform. Almost ten years on from when I first secured a debate in Parliament to raise this issue, today marks another step on the road to righting a historic injustice.” House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Tel: 0207 219 4848 Email: [email protected] Website: www.grahamstuart.com
Graham Stuart MP Member of Parliament Working Hard for Beverley & Holderness
Notes for Editors
1. Today’s debate was secured by Graham Stuart and Ben Bradshaw (Lab, Exeter) in a joint appearance before the Backbench Business Committee in October.
2. It followed a letter to the Prime Minister coordinated by Graham and signed by 111 MPs, calling for school funding reform.
3. The F40 campaign represents a group of the lowest funded education authorities in England where government-set cash allocations for primary and secondary pupils are the lowest in the country. As the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ remains and in some cases continues to widen, F40 is campaigning to change the way the government allocates funding to local authorities and schools.
4. The F40 campaign has support from MPs, councillors, education directors, governors, head teachers and parents. Teaching unions including the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) both support a new national funding formula.
5. Graham Stuart has served as Vice Chairman of the F40 campaign since May 2015, when he succeeded Robin Walker MP, now PPS to the Education Secretary.
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Tel: 0207 219 4848 Email: [email protected] Website: www.grahamstuart.com
APPENDIX K
f40 Executive Committee Meeting Saturday, 5 December 2015 at Amerton Farm, Staffordshire
1. Attendance and apologies Present: Ivan Ould, Leics (Chair); Doug Allan, (Secretary); Joe Jefferies, NASUWT, Notts; Margaret Judd, Dorset CC; Chris Chapman, Cheshire Schools Forums; Caroline Brand (Worcs CC); Bernadette Hunter, Staffs Headteacher; Zahir Mohammed (Bucks CC); Joe Tildersley (Solihull; Christine Atkinson, ERYC. Apologies: Graham Stuart MP for Beverley & Holderness (Vice Chair); Robin Walker MP, Worcester; Gillian Hayward, Gloucs Schools Forum; Steph Simcox, Worcs CC; Stewart King, Gloucs CC; Jon Pearsall, independent rep; Sally Bates, Notts NAHT & Headteacher; John Campion, Worcs CC; David Harty, Cambs CC; Gillian Allcroft, NGA; Tony Norton, North Lincs; Helen Donovan, independent rep; Edwina Grant, LGA; Eunice Finney, Staffs parent; ); Tom Crompton (Shaw Education Trust).
DA announced that Labour Vice Chair Nic Dakin MP had tendered his resignation due to his role as an education spokesman on the Opposition benches. He also reported that approaches had been made to several Labour MPs and that he hopes that City of Chester MP, Chris Matheson, may take on the role. IO expressed his and the Executive’s thanks to Nic Dakin for his support for fair funding. He also said that he hoped that Chris Matheson would take on the Vice Chairmanship as it is important to retain the cross-party nature of the campaign.
2. Minutes of the meeting held 19 September 2015 The minutes of were approved as a correct record of the meeting.
3. Activities since last Executive Committee to be noted 3.1 Letter to Prime Minister 20 October 2015 DA reported that Vice Chair Graham Stuart had worked extremely hard to encourage MPs to sign his joint letter to the PM. 111 had finally agreed to add their names. A news release was issued about the letter on 21 October, which received significant publicity. The PM replied on 5 November. NOTED 3.2 Meeting with Neil Carmichael, Chair of Education Select Committee – 22 October 2105 Notes of this very constructive meeting were circulated. NOTED DA had also circulated copies of correspondence between Neil Carmichael and the Secretary of State for Education. NOTED. DA indicated that the Education Select Committee would be considering the details of the fair funding consultation and seeking evidence from as many parties in education as possible, including f40. This is likely to require representatives of f40 attending the committee to explain the f40 campaign. IO suggested that attendance at these committees could be quite stressful and that f40 representatives might benefit from advice and coaching. It was suggested that our Vice Chair Stuart Graham might be prepared to help in this regard. 3.3 Meeting with NUT – 28 October 2015 As requested by the Executive Committee, a meeting was arranged with representatives of the NUT to discuss their position on fair funding and f40’s approach. Notes of the meeting were circulated in advance of today’s meeting. NOTED 3.4 Chairman’s letter to Secretary of State – 2 November 2015 As agreed at the last meeting of the Executive Committee, a letter had been sent to the Secretary of State about concerns relating to issues in connection with service delivery and
Minutes of Executive Committee 5 December 2015 Page 1
funding of education/health services in schools. The letter, together with the Secretary of State’s response had been circulated. NOTED 3.5 Westminster Hall Back Bench Debate – 5 November 2015 The debate, which was requested by Vice Chair Stuart Graham MP, and supported by Exeter MP, Ben Bradshaw, was an excellent opportunity to again present the fair funding case and achieve significant publicity. Many MPs from poorly funded areas spoke. NOTED 3.6 Autumn Spending Review 25 November 2015 a) DA reported that the promise of an early fair funding consultation was confirmed by the Chancellor, along with a range of other announcements impacting on education. IO welcomed the announcement as good news for our campaign, but suggested that the devil will be in the detail. He stated that he was disappointed with the threat to remove LAs from any involvement with school funding, but suggested that such a move would require primary legislation as there are over 200 statutory requirements. It could take at least two years to get through the legislative process. By then there will have been considerable pressure for schools to join multi-academy trusts and single ‘converters’ will no longer be allowed.
b) IO also suggested that the announcement signalled the beginning of a real national discussion about fair funding. The potential losers from redistribution are now fully aware of the proposed national funding formula and they will now be gearing up to respond. There are already examples of opposition and f40 must be ready to respond robustly.
c) BH expressed concern that if LAs lose powers in connection with school funding, there will be no local ‘middle tier’ to deal with issues. She fears that Regional Schools Commissioners may be lined up to take on the role and that would be a nightmare. MJ said that whilst it might be feasible for the government to announce per pupil funding from the centre, it would be difficult for a national distribution to take account of local complexities and requirements. CB said that a South West meeting, a DfE spokesperson had acknowledged the importance of LAs as the ‘middle tier’. There appears to be conflicting messages coming out.
d) IO expressed astonishment at the PM’s letter to Oxfordshire CC about its spending. It appeared to be extremely naïve and lacked an understanding of the LA’s work and budgeting. MJ said that it is important that the public understand that the problem is not just about per pupil funding, but also about other areas of education funding that are at risk. IO reminded everyone that misinformation is often the order of the day. He recalled that when Sir Michael Wiltshire was head of Ofsted cash for school improvement was taken away from LAs and given direct to schools, yet later he declared that LAs were still responsible for school improvement! So a similar situation is possible in the current debate about education funding and responsibilities.
e) CA suggested that whilst the School Block could potentially be handled nationally, it would be very difficult for Early Years and High Needs to be handled anywhere else other than locally.
AGREED that the issues raised here will also be raised at the meeting with DfE on 9 December.
3.7 Parliamentary Petitions – 1 December 2015 The petitions were organised by Vice Chair Stuart Graham MP and involved MPs in most poorly funded areas, but also a much wider collection of constituencies. The completed petitions were presented in the House on 1 December by around 50 MPs, with SG presenting on behalf of a further 30 MPs who couldn’t be present, and others making private arrangements to deliver theirs.
Minutes of Executive Committee 5 December 2015 Page 2
3.8 Total Politics Advertorial – July 2015 f40 has again taken a full-page advertorial in Total Politics. It will appear in the December edition. The copy reflect the outcomes of the Spending Review. A copy of the advertorial has been circulated to committee members.
4. f40’s funding formula proposals – update on FMRT work 4.1 Meeting of Finance Managers Research Team – 28 October 2015 The minutes of the meeting had previously been circulated and are available on the website. DA particularly drew attention to the fact that at its last meeting the Executive had agreed that ways of scaling back the formula should be examined. He also reminded members that the DfE had previously asked about “hard” and “soft” options, which effectively are about how much is done centrally and how much flexibility is given to local authorities to allocated school funding. The Chancellor’s comments about excluding LAs in the future suggests that a decision looks to have been made about this matter. 4.2 f40 Updated Funding Proposals MJ presented the changes that had been made as a result of discussions at the latest FMRT. Her presentation highlighted: Prior Attainment Now consistent across LAs and using FSP 78 and 100% Lump Sum simplified Removed link to element in AWPU AWPU added other staff more overtly Finance, mid day, technician, premises 4 scenarios created Original which includes requirement for additional funding Scenario 2: scaled back equally across all factors Scenario 3: scaled back using AWPU and lumps sum only Scenario 4: scaled back not using AWPU and lump sum FMRT identified a few conundrums: AWPU There is a view that maybe 19 as the average class size at KS4 is a little low, when evidence seems to suggest that it’s probably nearer 20-21. BUT raising KS4 from 19 to 20 and KS3 from 22 to 23 turns both Wigan and Wakefield from winners to losers in the full model. They both lose in scaling, but we don’t want to start with f40 losers in our preferred model. Lump Sum Primary and Secondary lump sum work slightly differently – is the justification real? Secondary has got a reduction where it shouldn’t have (cell G15 View that assistant heads are part of AWPU – (assume other leadership including TLRs are part of AWPU) If reduce secondary admin multiplier to 2 then lump is £167,065 (at this point in time in the calculations) Bucks view £125k adequate (but Bucks smallest school is 680’ish which is probably not small enough to be realistic for small schools of 600) Is the additional allowance for half primary class part of sparsity? Is sparsity developed enough to make this move? Would reduce Primary Lump sum to £74,320 (and make Wigan and Wakefield losers again!). There are still some outstanding issues: Our proposals are still only Schools Block
Minutes of Executive Committee 5 December 2015 Page 3
PFI (and Rates) – two schools of thought - take it out and have it dealt with nationally. Which leaves AWPUs etc so that they can be same nationally. When PFIs are paid up, the LAs that put that money into the national pot which the LA won’t get it back (unless the total is topsliced, not recouped, and the topslice is returned to the DSG pot). Less control, but fairer. Or, leave it in but some LAs have to cut formula values to pay for this first. But keeps money in the local area at the end of the PFI. Sparsity - currently goes to only 1/3rd LAs – based on MFLs (but those are based on individual LA decisions about use of the factor. Suggest taper for each pupil less than 60 (primary) or each 10 pupils less than 600 (secondary). Can’t be modelled as based on individual schools. Could be for necessary sparse schools – but need simpler definition of necessary (Net capacity assessment of this and surrounding schools). Should we consider alump to support sparse necessary schools with high cost teachers? Current Values for information Full proposal costs £524,375,079 AWPUs Primary £2,897 : Key Stage 3 £3,996 : Key Stage 4 £4,902 Lump sums: Primary £101,240 ; Secondary £167,065 Scaling levels Scenario 2: 98.37% ; Scenario 3: 98.05% ; Scenario 4; 89.92% Early Years Recent report says that the average rate for 3&4 year olds to be £4.88 and 2 year olds £5.39. Part of national fairer funding arrangements. Assume redistribution to meet these figures. New rates include pupil premium. Current averages £4.54 and £5.11 (excluding PP). High Needs Continuing uncertainty and lack of information.
Discussion
BH asked why TLR percentages for primary schools are so much lower than secondaries. Some primaries, like her own, are equivalent in size and operation to a secondary school, with significant structure to support. MJ accepted that large primary schools do tend towards similar structures to small secondary schools, but questioned whether there was a need for as much pastoral leadership in primary schools. Secondary schools are starting to deal with issues associated with growing independence and the hormonal teenage years, which affect primary schools less.
IO suggested that it would be inappropriate for the Executive to accept a proposal that would see any of its members lose out from its proposals. It was, therefore, AGREED that the accepted solution should not see any member authority lose out.
There was a discussion about the scaling options and which would be f40 preferred option. The FMRT members preferred Scenario 4 and it was AGREED that the DfE would be presented with the revised model showing only Scenario 4.
CC said that once our proposals are made public they will be available for others to make use of and build a case against our idea of fair funding. We must make it clear that we making our recommendations based on the best figures available to us, but in the end it will be the government that makes the final decisions.
There was some discussion about PFI and BH asked if f40 has access to all PFI information across English schools. MJ said not at present, though it is probably accessible on the internet. IO suggested that it is for the DfE to decide which way PFI is treated. His best guess would be that it will be handled nationally. CB added that there’s 9 PFI schools in Worcestershire and the idea of sharing the burden with other authorities has some appeal, but doesn’t seem fair. JT said there is massive
Minutes of Executive Committee 5 December 2015 Page 4 reliance on PFI in Solihull, though he was unsure of the affordability gap. He will check it out and communicate information to DA. In conclusion it was AGREED that this matter would again be raised with the DfE on 9 December.
The difficulty in dealing with sparsity was acknowledged. CC suggested it would be best to have a view to present to the DfE, but others said it was too difficult to determine. This is another subject that can be raised with DfE on 9 December to try to get some movement on it. BH pointed out that the move to Universal Credit will impact on Prior Attainment and she wondered how this will be determined. She asked if it is likely that pupil premium will eventually be merged into mainline funding. We have what appears to be duplication of deprivation funding at present. MJ and CB thought that the Pupil Premium and deprivation funding in the formula undertook some different functions and that there should be some deprivation funding in the formula.
There was a brief discussion on the Early Years announcement.
ZM pointed out that it looked as though Buckinghamshire CC would be the biggest losers from f40’s proposals for all blocks, but MJ said that FMRT had been unable to undertake any meaningful work in this area, so anything that ZM had seen previously should be discarded. Regardless, IO asked ZM to provide an assessment of Buckinghamshire CC’s position in terms of High Needs. IO again suggested that f40 wouldn’t wish to see its members lose out from f40 proposals, but MJ pointed out that it would be extremely difficult to ensure that all f40 members will be gainers in all three Blocks; it will depend upon the starting point for individual LAs proportion of DSG in each block. It was noted that we are unable to make any real progress on High Needs until more information is forthcoming from the DfE.
IO repeated his concern that the baselining of the extra £390m is limited to 2015-16 and 2016-17 only. Others suggested that it is baselined, full-stop. It was AGREED that this would be raised and clarification sought at the meeting with DfE on 9 December.
AGREED that MJ/DA will endeavour to take on-board comments made at today’s Executive Committee, update the Proposals Spreadsheet and Narrative accordingly and issue them to the DfE on Monday 7 December so that they can be prepared for the discussion on Wednesday 9 December. In addition it was AGREED that the Proposals Spreadsheet and Narrative will be published as soon as possible after Wednesday’s meeting on the website and copied to all members of f40, including MPs representing f40 areas.
5. Education Services Grant There was concern about the Chancellor’s announcement in the Autumn Statement that savings of around £600 million will be made on the ESG, including phasing out the additional funding schools receive through the ESG. As the ESG in total is around £800m, that’s a 75% cut! It is thought the biggest impact will be on the additional funding received by academies and separately by LAs for their respective duties,. MJ suggested academies should be ‘up-in-arms’ when they realise the impact. One member suggested that the £600m cut was the DfE’s contribution to the departmental cuts required by the Chancellor. IO repeated his earlier point that over 200 statutory responsibilities were tied in with ESG and LA role in education, so it won’t be a simple operation to remove LAs from the equation. He also suggested that he anticipated the annual announcement on LA funding would be made on 15 December (though some anticipate a delay to the New Year) when things may become a little clearer. MJ said that the DfE will be launching a separate consultation on ESG in the New Year. AGREED that a letter expressing f40’s concerns will be sent to the Secretary of State.
6. Proposition from Centre Forum
Minutes of Executive Committee 5 December 2015 Page 5
DA reported that he has been approached by the new think tank, Centre Forum about a collaboration on fair funding. It is looking at ways to influence the forthcoming fair funding consultation through its own modelling, research and policy proposals. It also intends to publish a booklet on school funding at the conclusion of the consultation. It requires funding and/or technical support to achieve these objectives and Centre Forum would like f40 to consider contributing.
IO suggested that as f40 is already well-advanced with its own modelling and policy proposals, it would be a duplication for it to fund similar work elsewhere, and other Executive Members concurred with this view. AGREED that no action be taken.
7. Westminster Education Forum – School Funding Conference - 3 March 2016 IO announced that he has accepted an invitation to speak at this conference.
8. f40 National Conference The idea of a national conference has been on the agenda for some time and DA wondered whether the Executive would like to consider organising a conference at some point. He suggested that it would be difficult to organise during the consultation period, so suggested that it be raised again at the next Executive meeting in March 2016. AGREED.
9. Website refresh DA reported that the refresh of the website, as approved at the last meeting, was progressing and he hoped to be able to show members the new-look design early in the New Year.
10. Membership Report and Finances DA reported that the group now has the ‘magic’ number of 40 members following the applications from Wiltshire. He had charged Wiltshire £500 subscription bearing in mind that the year is two- thirds over. His action was AGREED. All LAs (except Wiltshire) have now paid their 2015-16 subscription. DA still hopes that Norfolk and Surrey might join one day.
11. Any Other Business a) CA referred to ongoing cost pressure being faced by LAs and suggested that schools may mistakenly believe that achieving fair funding will be the answer to their problems – but it obviously will not be. Other members agreed that fair funding for schools was an important goal but that cuts in education spending will impact on all LAs and schools. It is important that a clear message is presented. b) CA raised the problem of schools moving out of MfG, but later being allowed to move back in. The Executive thought it wrong that this was possible. c) JJ suggested that in his opinion academies appear to be unable to properly deal with their budgets – it’s down to what he suggested is a lack of expertise. It is resulting in a terrible mess in some areas. IO said that in his area several studio school academies have closed. Generally, these schools must deliver or close – its sink or swim! d) JT reminded members that the Secretary of State had visited Solihull on 22 September. It was a useful visit and Nicky Morgan had been very complimentary and positive about f40 and its campaign. He added that Solihull particularly suffers from cross-border pupil drift and that it is having a significant impact on budgeting – about £7m overall – involving 7,000 pupils crossing in to Solihull (out of a total number of 50,000 in its schools). The LA has contacted Neil Carmichael, Chair of the Education Select Committee to suggest that his committee might examine the issue and he has indicated that it will. Solihull will be invited to present its
Minutes of Executive Committee 5 December 2015 Page 6
evidence. CA suggested that the cost to ERYC is around £3m and ZM said the cost to Buckinghamshire CC is in the region of £2m. AGREED that those members experiencing this problem should provide initial details to DA so that the scale of the problem can be assessed. This information will be complied as part of the evidence to be presented to the Education Select Committee. Details of the committee’s proceedings and how to get involved will be circulated when announced.
12. Dates of future Executive Committees The next meeting is scheduled for 11am on Saturday, 5 March 2016, though this may change depending on how the work on the fair funding consultation progresses. Dates for the remainder of 2016 are 25 June and 1 October and 10 December. Please note these dates in your diary.
Minutes of Executive Committee 5 December 2015 Page 7
APPENDIX L
F40 meeting with Department for Education, 9 December 2015. Held at Sanctuary Buildings, Westminster
DfE: Tony Foot, Tom Goldman, Russell Ewens (part)
F40: Ivan Ould (Chair of f40); Martin Wade (Cambs); Simon Pleace (Kent), Margaret Judd (Dorset), Caroline Brand (Worcs); Andrew Minall, (Hants) and Doug Allan (Secretary to f40)
1. Introductions
Both DfE and f40 representatives introduced themselves. F40’s team was made up of members of the LA finance managers research team (FMRT) that had worked on the funding formula proposals, and also Cllr Ivan Ould, chair of f40, who wanted to see first-hand the interaction between the two teams.
This meeting is the fourth this year at which f40 has presented its funding formula ideas: the previous meetings being held in February, June and September 2015. DA had previously supplied the DfE with the latest spreadsheet and narrative, plus minutes of f40’s Executive Committee meeting on 5 December, so that they could consider them in advance of the meeting.
TF outlined the main issues arising from the Chancellor’s Spending Review – real-term protection for school funding and pupil premium; ESG reduction; commitment to a national funding formula.
He said that whilst not being able to be too specific, he anticipated that the promised consultation would be launched February, with announcement of the outcome in the summer of 2016 and implementation commencing April 2017.
2. General Discussion of Issues of Concern
MW said the latest tranche of work included considerations of issues raised at the last meeting and in consequence of the Spending Review. Key points raised;
The consultation is expected to include a specific, fully argued, funding proposals plus outstanding questions for debate and determination. There will be many views on the best way to proceed. The department is considering both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ options (this relates to LA or non-LA involvement in school funding). Aware of f40’s preference, which is ‘soft’. There is not just a binary version – it could be flexible – mixture of soft and hard. The consultation will incorporate ESG. The DfE is aware of concerns about the immediacy of ESG cuts. There’ll be staggered cuts – with only limited savings in 2016-17, and then transition from 2017-18. The Chancellor flagged up idea that in future LAs would be less involved in schools. The consultation is expected to cover the range of LA responsibilities on education - who should have them, which could change and over what period. The role of Schools Forums is expected to be included. By definition, any consideration of the ‘hard’ option would require such that it should be so.
1 Notes of f40 meeting with DfE team, 9 December 2015 There was some discussion of the £390m extra funding for 2015-16, subsequently baselined for 2016-17. It was confirmed that the baselining is permanent. F40 has proposed a three year transition. Is that what the DfE will suggest? It’s a matter for discussion and a decision will be made post-consultation. There is already plenty of interesting national debate on this point. Dealing with the three blocks entirely independently would risk some strange outcomes. Individual elements cannot be dealt with separately: an overview is also required. The DfE aims to consult on the inter-action between the blocks and there will be an overview. Early Years – Does the DfE see Early Years as a standalone element? It would make sense to consult on the three elements together. Happy to arrange for f40 to meet the Early Years team (not part of same team at DfE). Will there be alignment between Schools Block and High Needs? That will be covered in consultation. The consultation is effectively about School, Early Years and High Needs funding – not wider LA funding. There will be a limit to the scope – no stretching of the parameters. F40 flagged up the danger of taking away LAs ESG funding and oversight, but continuing to make them responsible (changes to school improvement were cited as an example of where something similar occurred). There needs to be a clear connection of funding to responsibilities, or of removal to funding and the removal of responsibilities. The DfE wouldn’t wish to see such a mismatch develop and will bear the issue in mind. F40 asked how far the DfE had got in constructing the consultation and whether anything additional could be offered to help the process. DfE is pretty-well advanced, having being informed by many organisations, including f40. Nothing further f40 can do immediately. DFE confirmed that it is still developing its thinking on a few specific details, but these will be flagged up in the consultation. It is difficult to get balance 100% correct in some areas and DfE will want to see a full range of views. F40 stated that LAs are having to challenge schools to think differently. Ultimately the outcome on fair funding will impact on this thinking. It is also important to remember that often additional agencies are involved – that can make matters difficult to manage.
3. Presentation of f40’s latest Proposals
MJ talked through the current proposition, pointing out the differences/changes since the last meeting.
Prior Attainment Now consistent across LAs and using FSP 78 and 100% Lump Sum simplified Removed link to element in AWPU Values are £101,240 and £167,065 AWPU added other staff more overtly Finance, mid day, technician, premises 2 scenarios created Original which includes requirement for +£524,325,079 Scaled: scaled back by factors other than AWPU and lump sum (89.92%) (and premises factors that are at actual costs) Preferred Options
2 Notes of f40 meeting with DfE team, 9 December 2015
Outstanding issues Still basically only Schools Block PFI and Rates - Need more discussions with DfE on how these would/could be done Sparsity - Currently goes to only 1/3rd LAs – based on MFLs (but those are based on individual LA decisions about use of the factor. - Suggest taper for each pupil less than 60 (primary) or each 10 pupils less than 600 (secondary). - Can’t be modelled as based on individual schools. - Necessary sparse schools – but need simpler definition of necessary (Net capacity assessment)? - ? Lump to support sparse necessary schools with high cost teachers?
Early Years (first draft)
Recent report says that the average rate for 3&4 year olds to be £4.88 and 2 yr olds £5.39 Part of National fairer funding arrangements Assume redistribution to meet these figures New rates include pupil premium Current averages £4.54 and £5.11 (excluding PP) Amount looks less than current EY block?
High Needs (first draft)
Added High Needs, but it could easily remove anything the schools block does to narrow current funding gap.
3 Notes of f40 meeting with DfE team, 9 December 2015 Needs to be analysis against the old GUFs as well as by the separate blocks. Can’t be seen in isolation and can’t be divorced from Schools Block funding.
Discussion MJ said that one of the biggest struggles within the Schools Block was finding answers to sparsity and lump sum. Problems of ‘necessary’ schools – necessity almost becoming a substitute for sparsity! It’s very much a matter for local decision. But how do you find the quantum to effectively enable that? It’s the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ issue again.
PFI - if affordability gap is being met from DSG the cash is topsliced by LAs before funding is allocated to schools. The question is whether it is right (and fair) to deal with this at a local or national level. F40 tends to lean towards the existing arrangement. DfE acknowledged this is a very complicated and difficult issue. MJ pointed out that if the DfE chose the ‘hard’ approach, LAs would not have the wherewithal to manage PFI payments.
There was some discussion about whether DfE would be looking to expand the number of factors, but this is unlikely.
When asked about the outcome for f40 LAs from the two options, MJ indicated that the net gain is £375m and £260m respectively (Full and scaled).
RE joined the meeting to discuss High Needs. So far f40’s work on this has been limited, mostly as f40 has been waiting for the results of the ISOS research, but the group has created a tool to give an indication of what might be done. MW suggested that pupil numbers is increasingly looking like the best way forward: of all available factors it still gives the strongest overall correlation. But DLA also offers an interesting approach. SP suggested that pupil numbers has the advantage of being predictable and transparent.
DA asked where the DfE is and the response was that the department is basing its thinking on the outcomes of the ISOS study and responses to it.
MW added that the group has struggled with deprivation and prior attainment and RE asked why f40 had not looked at levels of attainment against SEN. AM said that the current low attainment indicator can be used effectively in the schools block and a link could be made between this and the first £6k of additional need a school may need to provide. For the HN block where need is often much higher, the indicator is of less use and importantly, given the formula is designed to distribute money from the DfE to the LA (not to individual schools), the propensity of children with HN is broadly similar nationally so pupil numbers seems the most sensible basis along with an element for DWA to cover the medical need. There was a suggestion that maybe lower levels of attainment should be examined. There was a discussion about the difference between using attainment levels in schools funding for mainstream pupils and attainment in the high needs block which includes a high proportion of pupils for whom attainment will be difficult
MW raised the growing problems relating to post-16 funding due to the increased number of young people with High Needs remaining in education, either in special schools or FE colleges. At present these increasing numbers and associated costs are not directly reflected in the High Needs Block allocations.
RE indicated that the DfE has looked at the proportion of pupils with health/education care plans. He was cautious about potential for rewarding LAs that increase these, but it did give an indication of the variation in the incidence of high needs and therefore the extent to which pupil numbers should
4 Notes of f40 meeting with DfE team, 9 December 2015 be used as part of the formula. He indicated that discussions were underway with the Department of Health on the ISOS proposals that concerned them. TG pointed out that transition will be more challenging than for other areas of funding: once health/care plans are in place for individual children it was important that funding reform did not undermine LAs’ ability to deliver.
IO asked about the increasing cost of High Needs provision and fact that funding does not automatically increase to cover the costs that LAs are having to carry. It is recognised that there are wide variance in cost of provision, even between LAs. This is where LA discretion and flexibility comes in to play. RE said that the DfE is looking to try and understand these differences. 4. Conclusion
TF thanked the f40 team for their further development work on proposals for a new funding formula. The conversation, as ever, was constructive and useful.
DA offered to provide a draft copy of these minutes for DfE approval as usual.
Whilst there won’t be a need or time for further meetings in advance of the consultation, TF would welcome any further contributions from f40, especially surrounding High Needs.
TF will make arrangements for f40 to have a meeting or email conversation with the Early Years team.
F40/DA/9 December 2015
5 Notes of f40 meeting with DfE team, 9 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 14a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) TAKE UP OF 2 YEAR OLD FUNDING
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the current position on the take up of 2 year funding.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Free early education for disadvantaged 2 year olds was first piloted in 2006. The offer aims to improve the 2 year olds social and cognitive outcomes so that by the age of 5 they are as school ready as their more advantaged peers.
2.2 In 2009 Worcestershire was required to fund 350 of our 20% most vulnerable families for 10 hours a week but in 2013 the coalition government announced the legal entitlement to 15 hours free early education for every disadvantaged 2 year old (disadvantage was economic based).
2.3 In September 2014 Worcestershire had a target of 2300 2 year olds to fund (40% of our 2 year olds). The two-year-old entitlement offers families and children unique opportunities to engage with services and offers benefits across a wide range of outcomes including: - Early learning outcomes. Early identification of needs e.g. speech and language. Safeguarding issues.
3. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
3.1 The following are the National Criteria for families: - Income Support. Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance. Income-related Employment and Support Allowance. Support through part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act. The guaranteed element of State Pension Credit. Child Tax Credits, with an annual household income of no more than £16,190. Working Tax Credits, with an annual household income of no more than £16,190.
3.2 Children are also entitled to a free place if: - They are looked after by Worcestershire County Council (WCC). They have a current Statement of Special Educational Needs or an Education, Health and Care Plan. They are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance. They have left care under a Special Guardianship Order, Child Arrangements Order or an Adoption Order.
3.3 WCC has discretionary funding for the following families: - GRT (Gypsy, Roma, Traveler) who work with the GRT Team. Children with a current Child Protection Plan (CPP).
3.4 In the Summer Term 2015 WCC funded 88 GRT families and 4 CPP although there were more applications from these groups but some were also eligible under economic criteria.
4. FUNDING RATE
4.1 WCC subsidises the £4.84 hourly rate received by the DfE for funded 2 year olds to pay providers £5.00 per hour.
4.2 This acknowledges that often these children need additional support and WCC needs to encourage providers to offer places. The average hourly rate for England is £5.09 ranging from £7.08 - £4.85.
5. TAKE UP DATA AND SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES
5.1 The trends are detailed in Table 1 below: -
Table 1: 2 year old Take Up
Date Department of Termly Funded %Take Up Work and Pensions (DWP) Data Nov 2014 2278 1339 59% Mar 2015 2287 1377 60% Aug 2015 2104 1450 70% Sept 2015 2030 1500 74% Provisional Jan 2016 2000 1550 78% Forecast
5.2 There is an upward trend and the LA has undertaken the following activities to support increase in take-up: -
(a) Attendance at 2 year old meetings and support from Hempsalls Hempsalls are commissioned by the DfE to support Local Authorities (LAs) and Babcock Prime officers (working on behalf of the LA). There are termly meetings facilitated by Hempsalls to provide challenge and support to move the project forward and ideal opportunities to network and share ideas with other LAs.
(b) Re-established Steering Group Regular steering group meetings are held to ensure WCC has engagement from a range of service areas including finance, sufficiency assessment, inclusion and children's centres (Early Help) working together to support the project.
(c) On-line Application Process In June 2015 the Tribal on-line application process finally went live. The launch was delayed as Tribal were unable to resolve system issues prior to June 2015. Families are able to create an account, enter their details and the system will check their eligibility, providing them with an automatic indicative result. Prior to June families had to complete and post a paper application. There has been a significant increase in applications through the on-line process.
(d) Early Help Contract Children's Centres (CCs) are judged by Ofsted on the take up of 2 year old funded children in their reach areas. The contract supports CCs to seek and find the families that are eligible for 2 year old funding. The CCs receive data from WCC with names and addresses of all families that are eligible, also those that have applied and those families that have applied but not taken up a place. Those that had applied but not taken up a place in January 2015 was 25% of those that had applied: this figure has now dropped to 12%. The CCs are expected to contact and support all those families on the DWP list that have not yet applied and those that have applied but not taken a place. They also help them to find suitable childcare. The LA (Babcock Prime) is currently collecting data on why families apply but delay their child's access to free nursery education.
(e) Engagement with Partners The Nursery Education Funding (NEF) team have been relentless in attending other meetings, such as social workers and CC Advisory Boards to raise awareness of the offer. In addition regular emails are sent to update partners on developments.
(f) Marketing In the Summer Term 2015 the new marketing materials were launched. They were changed to be simplified, attractively branded and recognisable. There are 3 different postcards that are sent to eligible families instead of a letter in an envelope with a county council franked mark. There are also credit card size advertising cards, banners and posters for settings and other establishments, plus pull-up banners and badges. A promotional DVD for childminding was made in Worcestershire along with a shortened version of an existing DVD (also based in Worcestershire) about the benefits of 2 year olds attending settings. Parents have commented positively on the improved materials.
(g) WCC Roadshows Three roadshows were held in September in Redditch, Kidderminster and Worcester where eligibility is highest. These roadshows raised public awareness of the funding and was supported by childcare providers and Early Help (CC) teams as well as Early Years and Childcare Service staff.
(h) Health Visitors (HV) Better links have been developed with HVs as they have regular face to face contact with parents of young children. The names of eligible families that have applied and not taken a place are shared with the HV district team so they can identify families that they are working with and support them accessing the offer. Some HVs continue to seek telephone support/advice from the NEF Outreach Worker. The NEF team continue to strengthen links with the wider workforce.
(i) DWP Lists WCC receive 7 lists a year with names of families that are claiming benefits. About 2000 Families are on each DWP list and receive a postcard signposting them to apply on-line. Families may receive another postcard after a month of their name appearing on the list if they do not apply after the first postcard. Those families that do apply but do not take up a place immediately also receive a specific postcard prompting them to look for a place. Some families claim not to have received the confirmation email that we send after a successful application and this postcard prompts the families to follow up the application. The lists are uploaded to Edulink so that the EH providers can contact the families on the list and encourage/support them to apply.
5.3 Capital and Trajectory Funding
(a) Funding allocated to the LA by the DfE has been: - Distributed to providers through an application process using robust criteria. Funding supported the development of additional places and the enhanced quality of existing provision for 2 year olds. Places have been created in areas where eligibility is highest.
(b) Any remaining funding will be used to create additional provision where future demand is unlikely to be met.
5.4 Sustainability and Quality of Provision
(a) The LA continues to maintain the hourly rate of £5.00 (subsidised by 16p per hour). A number of free courses are available to providers to assist them in business planning and to support them in delivering quality provision.
(b) A conference for providers about meeting the needs of 2 year olds was held with positive feedback. Ofsted results in WCC are above national levels of Good/Outstanding.
(c) Early Years Improvement Advisors continue to support providers through support visits to settings and briefings.
5.5 Priorities for the Future
(a) These include: - Addressing the sufficiency of provision rated good/outstanding in certain pockets of the County, through the development of a more sophisticated sufficiency assessment, which identifies where priority places need to be developed. Supporting childminders to become 'funded' providers. There are regular workshops for childminders who currently do not offer free nursery education provision to support them in understanding the requirement and encourage them to sign-up. Engaging schools by looking at what nursery provision is under used in maintained nursery classes and working with Heads to meet any unmet need for 2 year old provision in their area. Regularly re-visiting the parents' journey from knowing about the offer to taking a place and ensure that it is as seamless and concise as possible. This involves gaining feedback from parents. Further development of the On-line application process – getting permissions for Babcock Prime and batch processing to ensure the transition to Babcock Prime for the EYCS does not create and system delays. Ensuring everyone knows about the offer (professionals and parents) and understands it is a collective responsibility. Ensuring take-up continues to increase and stays in-line with National data.
6. RECOMMENDATION
6.1 The WSF notes and comments on the issues.
Cath Ellicott Early Years and Childcare Manager
January 2016 AGENDA ITEM 14b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) EARLY YEARS (EY) UPDATE – DfE BENCHMARKING TOOL
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the DfE publication of the annual Early Years (EY) benchmarking tool.
2. CURRENT ISSUES
2.1 On 23rd November 2015 the DfE published an updated EY benchmarking tool for 2015-16.
2.2 The link to the DfE web site is as follows: - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-benchmarking-tool
2.3 It contains a range of comparative data on: - Early Years Table – funding rates. Take Up – 2, 3 and 4 year olds. Staff Qualifications. Child Development – Early Years Foundation Stage Profile including FSM comparators.
2.4 It is anticipated the DfE will refer to this in formulating their EY policy direction in 2016 for 2017-18.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 The WSF notes and comments as required.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 AGENDA ITEM 15 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13th JANUARY 2016
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE FAIR FUNDING SCHEME FOR FINANCING MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on further proposed amendments to the Worcestershire Fair Funding scheme for Financing Maintained Schools.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Worcestershire Scheme for Financing Maintained Schools sets out the financial relationship and rules between the LA and the schools it maintains.
2.2 The DfE prescribe the issues that the Scheme needs to provide for within the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations and accompanying Scheme statutory guidance.
2.3 Proposed changes to Schemes are either directed revisions from the DfE or local matters from the LA. It is the responsibility of the LA to propose and consult upon changes which then have to be approved by the maintained school members of the WSF.
3. PROPOSED CHANGES
3.1 DfE Further Revision
(a) On 5th November 2015 the DfE launched a consultation on a proposed directed revision for LA Financing Schemes. The details are contained on the attached link: - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/funding-for-school-admission-appeals
(b) The DfE is proposing to make a change to section 6.2 of the Scheme for financing schools guidance, to include admission appeals as one of the services in which a LA can charge school budgets for agreed services.
(c) The context for the change includes: - Paragraph 1.14 of the School Admission Appeals Code states that: “Local authorities must allocate reasonable funds to governing bodies of maintained schools which are admission authorities to meet admission appeals costs.” Therefore, LAs currently have a duty to support maintained schools (Voluntary Aided, Foundation and Trust schools) which are admission authorities. This is in addition to LAs responsibilities where they as act as the admissions authority for maintained Community and Voluntary Controlled schools. However, the 2013-14 funding reforms removed the ability of LAs to specifically allocate funding for own admissions authority schools and ended the separate grant paid to academies for admissions. The reforms also restricted LAs ability to increase the amount of budget retained centrally for admissions, to ensure that as much money as possible was allocated to schools.
(d) The DfE proposed changes are: - For schools for which the LA is the admission authority, and for which the LA therefore must provide an appeals service, the additional flexibility the Scheme for Financing Schools will allow LAs to use their powers under the Financial Management Scheme to charge those schools. All other schools and academies would be responsible for their own admission appeals, with funding for this function included in their delegated budgets. No separate funding will be available to help cover the costs of providing this service. The LA could offer a traded service, which schools and academies which are their own admissions authorities would be free to decide whether to use individually. If a LA wished to make use of this additional flexibility, a change to the local scheme would be needed. Should they wish to do so, LAs will be able to use this approach to admission appeal arrangements for 2016-17. Schools would be protected, as a LA cannot act unreasonably in the exercise of any power given by the scheme, or it may be the subject of a direction under s.496 of the Education Act 1996. Furthermore, for each of the circumstances in which a LA can charge a school, the LA has to be able to demonstrate that the LA had necessarily incurred the expenditure now charged to the budget share. The existing option whereby a LA, in agreement with its schools forum, can retain funding centrally to cover admission appeals for all types of schools and academies remains, should a LA and its school forum desire and agree to use this approach.
(e) The issues in Worcestershire are: - Where the LA is the Admissions Authority (Community and VC schools) the LA has retained the budget centrally for all admissions activities including arranging appeals. The LA uses Democratic Services for independent appeals and they charge the LA for this service. This forms part of the centrally retained admissions budget. Prior to 2013-14 where the maintained school was their own admissions authority (VA and Foundation) or an academy their delegated budget included amounts for both admissions and admissions appeals. So resource is already delegated historically for such schools to arrange their own appeals. So even though the funding model changed in 2013-14 the LA has not changed its practice.
(f) On this basis the proposed DfE change does not readily impact in Worcestershire but it is recommended it is included as follows to facilitate any future changes: -
'Costs incurred by the authority in administering admissions appeals, where the local authority is the admissions authority and the funding for admission appeals has been delegated to all schools as part of their formula allocation.'
(g) On 17th December 2015 the DfE published the outcomes of their consultation on this issue. The details are contained in the attached link: - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/funding-for-school-admission- appeals?utm_source=EFA%20e-bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=e- bulletin&mxmroi=2305-30964-37271-0
3.2 LA Proposed Revision
(a) The LA has recently been subject to an Internal Audit on its framework for budgetary planning and approval for its maintained schools.
(b) The current Scheme contains provision for Governing Body approved budget plans for the new financial year to be submitted to the LA by 31st May. This is a longstanding arrangement introduced timescale when budgets were not required to be notified to schools until 31st March.
(c) Now that the requirement is for school budgets allocations to be notified by end February the Internal Audit recommendation is that approved budget plans from 2016-17 be required by 1st May.
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The WSF notes and comments on the issues as detailed.
4.2 The WSF requests the LA consults and advices all maintained schools on these proposals and changes it existing Scheme to accommodate the changes.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
January 2016 Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 13 January 2016
Page | 3 www.worcestershire.gov.uk