Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 12 October 2017
Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 12 October 2017
2.00pm Council Chamber County Hall Worcester WR5 2NP
Document Details: Status: V 0.1 Date: October 2017 Document Location: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/downloads/download/552/worcestershire_schools_forum_fra mework_downloads Contact: Andy McHale
Contents
Page | 1 www.worcestershire.gov.uk Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Agenda 12 October 2017
Agenda Agenda Item 4 Ambition School Leadership Briefing Agenda Item 5 Minutes of the Previous Meeting 7 September 2017 Agenda Item 6 Matters Arising - a) Mercury Project HR, Payroll and Finance Solutions Update Agenda Item 7 Any Other Business a) Westminster Education Forum 16 January 2018 Agenda Item 8 School Funding Update 2018-19 a) Education Secretary Announcement 14 September 2017 b) F40 Group Issues c) Schools Block Local Consultation Issues for 2018-19 and 2019-20 Agenda Item 9 Schools Forum Operational and Good Practice Guidance Agenda Item 10 High Needs Funding 2018 to 2019 Operational Guidance Agenda Item 11 DfE s251 Benchmarking Tables 2017-18 Agenda Item 12 Academies Update
Dates of Next Programmed Meetings: -
Wednesday 29 November 2017 at 2pm Lake View Room County Hall Worcester
Tuesday 16 January 2018 at 2pm Kidderminster Room County Hall Worcester
Page | 2 www.worcestershire.gov.uk
MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Thursday 12th October 2017 at 2.00pm Council Chamber, County Hall, Worcester
A G E N D A
1. Apologies
2. Declaration of Interests
3. Declaration of Potential Conflict of Interests With Items on the Agenda
4. Ambition School Leadership Briefing (Brett Roberts School Partnership Manager West Midlands Region in attendance)
5. Minutes of the Last Meeting 7th September 2017 (attached)
6. Matters Arising a) Mercury Project HR, Payroll and Finance Solutions Update
Sue Alexander 7. Any Other Business Head of Financial a) Westminster Education Forum Management 16th January 2018 (attached)
Adults, Children, Families and Communities 8. School Funding Update 2018-19
PO Box 73 a) Education Secretary Announcement on the County Hall National Funding Formula (NFF) Spetchley Road th Worcester 14 September 2017 (attached) WR5 2YA b) F40 Group Updates (attached) c) Schools Block Local Consultation Issues Tel 01905 846942 for 2018-19 and 2019-20 (attached) E-mail [email protected]. uk
9. Schools Forum Operational and Good Practice Guidance (attached)
10. High Needs Funding 2018 to 2019 Operational Guidance (attached)
11. DfE s251 Benchmarking Tables 2017-18 (attached)
12. Academies Update (attached)
The dates of the next WSF meetings are: -
Wednesday 29th November 2017 at 2pm Lake View Room County Hall Worcester
This is an additional one off meeting to consider the local funding consultation outcomes for 2018-19.
Tuesday 16th January 2018 at 2pm Kidderminster Room County Hall Worcester
This is the already programmed meeting.
Please pass apologies to Andy McHale who can be contacted on Tel 01905 846285 or e-mail [email protected]
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Thursday 7th September 2017 Kidderminster Room, County Hall, Worcester
The meeting started at 2.00 pm
IN ATTENDANCE:
WSF Members
Malcolm Richards (Chair) - Governor, Bromsgrove Bryn Thomas (Vice Chair) - HT Wolverley CE Secondary School Paul Essenhigh - Executive HT Catshill Middle, Catshill First and Nursery Schools Adrian Ward - HT Trinity High School Chris King - CEO Severn Academies Educational Trust Deb Rattley - HT Chadsgrove Special School Stephen Garside - HT Vale of Evesham Special School Greg McClarey - Archdiocese of Birmingham Jeff Robinson - Governor, Malvern Hills Alistair Thomas - Governor, Malvern Hills Peter Ingham - Governor, Wyre Forest David McIntosh - Governor, Wyre Forest John Bateman - Governor, Aspire Alternative Provision (AP) Free School Lorraine Petersen - Governor, Bromsgrove Stephen Baker - Union Representative Tricia Wellings - PVI Sector Denise Phelps - PVI Sector Michael Kitcatt - 16-19 Providers
Local Authority (LA) Officers
Andy McHale - Service Manager Funding and Policy Children, Families and Communities Caroline Brand - Finance Manager Children, Families and Communities
Local Authority Member
Councillor Marcus Hart - Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education and Skills
Liberata
Gerwyn Baker - Managing Director for Public Sector Services Sian Roberts - Contract Director (Both for Agenda Item 8 until 2.45pm)
1
1.ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE WSF
1.1 WSF Chair
(a) Andy took the Chair and advised with the retirement of Clive Corbett there was a need to elect a new Chair of the WSF and so nominations were requested.
(b) Adrian Ward nominated Malcolm Richards and this was seconded by Alistair Thomas. There were no other nominations.
RESOLVED –
That Malcolm Richards be duly elected as Chair of the WSF from 7th September 2017 for a period of 2 years or until his current term of office expires, whichever is sooner.
(c) Malcolm Richards duly took the Chair for the meeting.
1.2 WSF Vice Chair
(a) Malcolm Richards requested nominations for WSF Vice Chair.
(b) Malcolm Richards nominated Bryn Thomas and this was seconded by Jeff Robinson. There were no other nominations.
RESOLVED –
That Bryn Thomas be duly elected as Vice Chair of the WSF from 7th September 2017 for a period of 2 years or until his current term of office expires, whichever is sooner.
2. APOLOGIES AND WELCOME
2.1 Apologies
Marie Pearse - HT Evesham Nursery School Vivienne Cranton - HT Hollymount Primary School (Absent) Richard Taylor - Governor, Bromsgrove Tim Reid - Church of England Board of Education (Absent) Sean Pearce - Chief Financial Officer Sue Alexander - Head of Financial Management Adults, Children, Families and Communities
2.2 Welcome
(a) The Chair welcomed and advised on new WSF members as follows: - Chris King – CEO Severn Academies Educational Trust replacing Clive Corbett in the Secondary HT Academies category. Paul Essenhigh – Executive HT Catshill Middle, Catshill First and Nursery Schools to the existing vacancy in the HT Middle School category. Greg McClarey – Principal Blessed Edward Oldcorne Catholic College replacing Sean Devlin in the Archdiocese of Birmingham Schools Commission category. 2
Tim Reid – Deputy Director Department for Education Diocese of Worcester replacing Val Houghton in the Church of England Board of Education Category.
(b) The Chair also welcomed Gerwyn Baker and Sian Roberts to the WSF meeting for Agenda Item 8.
3. OTHER SENIOR STAFFING UPDATES
3.1 The Chair advised that Sean Pearce Chief Financial Officer had been appointed as Director of Finance at the West Midlands Combined Authority and will be leaving the County Council later in the Autumn Term. Interim arrangements are being discussed within the County Council.
3.2 The Chair further advised that John Edwards Strategic Commissioner Education and Skills is leaving the County Council at the end of September 2017. Nick Wilson has been appointed as Interim Assistant Director Education and Skills and will attend future WSF meetings.
4. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
None.
5. DECLARATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS WITH ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
None.
6. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (6th July 2017)
Agreed.
7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
7.1 The WSF noted the attendance list from the last academic year 2016/17.
7.2 The WSF noted the recent circulation of information regarding the Apprenticeship Levy including contact details and the applications process.
8. MATTERS ARISING – MERCURY PROJECT HR, PAYROLL AND FINANCE SOLUTIONS
8.1 The Chair introduced the item and requested an update on the current position.
8.2 Caroline advised on the current position of the external review discussed at the last WSF meeting as follows: -
(a) WCC has commissioned SOCiTM Advisory to undertake the review. They are a specialist consultancy and advisory business to SOCiTM Ltd the membership body for IT professionals in Local Government with extensive experience of conducting post implementation reviews in LAs.
(b) The review will assess the functionality of the systems and appraise them to ensure they meet current and future needs of WCC, maintained schools and academies. The
3
approach will include stakeholder interviews including representatives from maintained schools and academies together with systems and document reviews.
(c) The key areas will include: - Review of the contract and its specific deliverables together with the achievement of these at the 'go live' stage. Effectiveness of the design approach including that of Liberata in gathering and understanding WCC and school requirements. Appropriateness of the build and configuration approach. Review of systems testing and what involvement Liberata requested from WCC and schools. Systems functionality at implementation and now. Effectiveness of security solutions. Involvement that the solutions providers had during the programme and how visible they were to WCC and schools. Data migration approach and resultant data quality. Review of customer support and service management to enable 'business as usual' for WCC and schools. Review of project governance and management including its execution. Review of the training design approach and delivery. Effectiveness of the communication approach.
(d) Caroline further advised the final report is scheduled for 11th October 2017 and will give details of areas of improvement, key learning points and identified issues, risks and successes. This will be subject to Freedom of Information requests. Recommendations will be implemented in a 100 day improvement plan and SOCiTM requested comments on how to engage with the WSF and schools.
(e) Members of the WSF raised issues as follows: - Will the review engage providers such as Sixth form Colleges that purchase services from WCC? Will the review look at the all issues raised by schools as far back as April 2017? Engagement from schools was welcomed and the proposed WSF working party could be used to support the 100 day improvement plan. Would it be useful to circulate a questionnaire to schools to obtain wider views? Who is to be the new SRO for the project? Concerns that the date of the report is a day before the next scheduled WSF meeting so there will not be time for WSF members to review the findings prior to the meeting. What is the current position on financial recompense for schools?
(f) Caroline advised issues relating to other providers would be raised and information on issues going back to April had been provided. It was noted a questionnaire although useful might delay the review, however this suggestion would be fed back to SOCiTM. Also, some of the schools being interviewed had HT representation on the WSF. On financial recompense the WSF were advised this was currently being discussed. The Chair advised he had liaised with Sean Pearce who was available to be contacted on specific issues.
(g) Gerwyn Baker advised the WSF on the progress made on the key issues raised at the WSF meeting on 7th July 2017 as follows: - All schools should now be in receipt of governor self-serving reports. 4
Training for bank account schools has now been completed. Payroll costing reports have now been completed and are part of 'business as usual'. The user manual continues to be updated with solutions. Communications have been ongoing during the summer. Pay slips have been updated to include more details.
(h) Members of the WSF commented as follows: - Even though the system is working Sixth form Colleges unlike the previous system cannot process starters and leavers or change pay rates. Also, where is the ability to write local reports? There is a need for clarity on authorisation levels particularly for those HTs and Business Managers overseeing more than one school. Payroll seems to be better but there are still issues on staff having multi roles in a school. Recognition that September is by far the most complex payroll for schools and concerns there might be further processing issues.
(i) In response Sian confirmed: - Starters and leavers require specific checks and currently pay rates are a central function. However Liberata agreed to liaise with the Sixth Form College to discuss any flexibility. It would be useful to discuss issues and specific requirements with those overseeing more than one school. Schools should be seeing different roles and rates on pay slips from August 2017 and reports will separate out this information. It is possible to reprint these going back to April 2017. Liberata has resourced up to process the increased volumes in September 2017.
(j) The Chair thanked colleagues from WCC and Liberata for attending the meeting.
Gerwyn Baker and Sian Roberts left the meeting at 2.45pm.
9. DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) POSITION
9.1 Final Position for 2016-17
(a) Andy confirmed the final DSG position for 2016-17 with the only change being a reduction in funding for EY 2, 3 & 4 year olds of £1.04m as a result of the January 2017 census.
(b) The WSF were advised this reduction in EY DSG will have to be managed within the overall DSG carry forward and is partly offset by the EY underspend for 2, 3 & 4 year old funding in 2016-17 previously notified.
(c) The WSF noted the updated position.
9.2 Revised Position for 2017-18
(a) Andy confirmed the revised DSG position for 2017-18 with the only change being a significant reduction in funding for EY 2, 3 & 4 year olds of £2.09m as a result of the January 2017 census.
5
(b) The WSF noted the updated position and raised concerns on the revised position due to a significant reduction in EY numbers and if these were issues on demographics generally together with parents not taking up their entitlements.
(c) The WSF EY representatives advised numbers are lower in PVI settings due to parental choice and differing social need. It was noted there is financial pressure on settings particularly regarding the 30 hours although the increase in the hourly rate as a consequence of the EY DSG review was welcomed. The WSF raised further concerns on the impact of reducing numbers for the first/primary school sector.
(d) Andy advised: - These numbers have been verified and reflect the actual current position. However, if numbers have increased after the census in the Summer and Autumn Terms 2017 this has the potential to create a significant budget pressure on the EY DSG as the allocation is based upon the January census numbers. Given the need to endeavour to maximise the hourly rate, there is no central contingency held as part of the 2017-18 EY DSG to support increases in numbers from the January census. Any cost pressures will be a call on the overall additional EY DSG and could potentially impact on the hourly rates for 2, 3 & 4 year olds.
(e) The WSF were conscious there will be further changes in the EY DSG for the January 2018 census.
(f) The WSF commented that although the current workings between the LA and the EY Team in Babcock are good requested further engagement as appropriate with the EY setting representatives.
9.3 Baseline Position 2017-18 for 2018-19 for Schools and High Needs
(a) Andy advised on the baseline position for 2017-18. The significant changes were as follows: - The overall position is unchanged and the baselines are based on the information LAs returned to the ESFA through the 2017-18 baselines exercise earlier in 2017. They reflect the fact that the DSG is now being distributed in four blocks with a new block called the Central Services Schools Block (CSSB). This will provide funding for central services e.g. coordinated admissions on a per pupil basis and historic commitments on current budget levels. Schools Block Guaranteed Unit of Funding (GUF) figures are no longer directly comparable between the years. In 2017-18 LAs received a single Schools Block GUF, which included both the Schools and Central Services but for 2018-19 it is for the Schools element only. The baselines represent a change in national policy by the DfE for the funding of SEN places in mainstream school units. This will move from a £10,000 commissioned place in the HN Block to a combination of pupil led in the Schools Block and place funding of £6,000 from the High Needs Block with such pupils now to be included in the October census data. Each LA's minimum amount for the schools block in 2018-19 is a £ per pupil figure. This is the guaranteed minimum LAs will receive per pupil in 2018-19. For each LA it is calculated by dividing the schools block adjusted baseline total by the LA's 2017-18 schools block pupil count (without deductions for pupils in high needs places). 6
(b) The WSF noted the issues and the 2018-19 baseline.
10. SCHOOL FUNDING UPDATE 2018-19
10.1 Education Secretary Announcement 17th July 2017
(a) On 17th July 2017 the Education Secretary made an announcement on school funding. The key issues from the statement are as follows: - A new National Funding Formula (NFF) will be introduced in 2018-19 as planned. Every LA to see a rise in its per pupil funding for schools as a result of the NFF. Increases in the basic amount that every pupil will attract in 2018-19 and 2019- 20. Increase the percentage allocated to pupil led factors – the proposed formula settlement to 2019-20 to provide at least £4,800 per pupil for every secondary school. Allow for gains of up to 3% per pupil for underfunded schools for the next two years. Provide at least a 0.5% a year per pupil cash increase for every school in 2018- 19 and 2019-20. In 2018-19 and 2019-20, the NFF will set indicative budgets for each school, and the total schools funding received by each LA will be allocated according to the NFF. LAs will be able to continue to set a Local Schools Funding Formula (LSFF) for individual schools’ budgets in 2018-19 and 2019-20, in consultation with schools in their area to allow longer transition to provide stability for schools. Continue to protect funding for pupils with additional needs. Ring-fence the vast majority of funding provided for primary and secondary schools in the Schools Block. Although LAs, in agreement with their local schools forum, will be able to move some limited amounts of funding to High Needs, where this better matches local need. The PE and Sports Premium Grant for primary schools to double. Spending plans for the years beyond 2019-20 will be set out in a future spending review.
(b) These detail the overall position but LA and individual school exemplifications, as well as the DfE response to their Stage 2 consultation is still not available. Andy advised it looks like the minimum funding per pupil quoted for secondary schools of £4,800 is the overall budget per pupil not a proposed national Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) or an overall DSG rate.
(c) The WSF noted the issues. Concerns were raised that: - The £10,000 rate for commissioned SEND places has not increased and cannot be varied locally. Post 16 has not been mentioned, so will this lead to further reductions in the sector? There appeared to be confusion on the role of LAs in the Free Schools programme. Will the pupil premium be re-designated to support the proposed minimum funding level in the secondary sector?
7
10.2 F40 Group Issues
(a) The WSF noted the current position.
(b) The WSF supported the active role of WCC members and officers in the F40 Executive and Finance Managers Research Group.
10.3 Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) Schools Revenue Funding 2018 to 2019 Operational Guidance
(a) Andy introduced the report which summarised the key issues in the ESFS Operational Guidance.
(b) The WSF were advised of the key issues as follows: -
For the DSG: - Introduction of a Central School Services Block (CSSB) 4th DSG block including Historic Commitments. Each of the four blocks of the DSG will be determined by a separate National Funding Formula (NFF). LA level allocations for 2018-19 for the Schools, CSSB and High Needs Blocks will be published in September. Final allocations will follow as usual in December, on the basis of pupil numbers recorded in the October census.
For the NFF: - The Schools Block will be ring-fenced from 2018-19. LAs will be able to transfer up to 0.5% of their Schools Block funding out with the agreement of their schools forum. Schools Block allocations will be expressed as separate per pupil primary and secondary rates for each LA. Funding at LA level for premises, mobility and pupil growth will be based on historic spend. Within the Schools Block, the Government will provide for at least a 0.5% per pupil increase for each school in 2018-19 through the NFF. LAs Schools Block NFF allocations will be calculated by aggregating schools’ notional allocations under the NFF and these notional allocations will reflect these increases. For the Schools Block Final 2018-19 allocations for LAs will then be confirmed as usual in December, taking into account pupil numbers recorded in the October census. Two calculations will be made: - . First, the guaranteed minimum amount, where the pupil numbers will be multiplied by the overall per-pupil guaranteed minimum for each LA. . Second, the pupil numbers will be multiplied by the primary/secondary NFF rates and added to the historic factors cash amount. . LAs will receive the higher of the two. The NFF will provide LAs with per pupil funding of at least £4,800 for all secondary schools that have pupils in years 10 and 11 by 2019-20. Within the High Needs Block, the Government will provide for at least a 0.5% overall increase in 2018-2019 through the High Needs NFF
8
For the LSFF: - Although the DSG quantum will be determined by the NFF LAs can still use a LSFF in the two years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Local factor values and parameters may continue to differ from those used in the NFF for this period. A new factor will be allowed in LA formulae for secondary schools to endeavour to set a transitional amount of per pupil funding in 2018-19, as a step towards £4,800 in 2019-20; otherwise the list of allowable factors remains the same in 2018-19. LAs will be able to use both current and Ever 6 Free School Meals (FSM) measures within their deprivation factors There will no longer be a deduction to Schools Block pupil numbers for High Needs places in mainstream schools LAs are required to submit one Local Authority Proforma Tool (APT) for 2018- 19 by 19th January 2018 and must ensure they have built in the relevant statutory consultation and political approvals as required. Confirmation by LAs of Schools Block School Budget Shares (SBS) for its maintained schools is required by 28th February 2018. Confirmation by the EFA of General Annual Grant (GAG) statements for academies is required by 31st March 2018.
For the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG): - The MFG for schools will continue, but LAs will have the flexibility to set a local MFG between 0% and minus 1.5% per pupil. It is a statutory EFA calculation and will be part of the APT calculation but the EFA will re-calculate for academies. LAs will continue to be able to request MFG disapplication for exceptional local circumstances as now by the end of November 2017.
For de-delegation and centrally retained services: - Any decisions made to de-delegate and centrally retained funding in 2017-18 related to that year only, so new decisions will be required for 2018-19. Funding for the former Education Services Grant (ESG) Retained Duties for all maintained schools and academies continues to be included in the CSSB in 2018-19. LAs will continue to be able to de-delegate from maintained schools to support services previously funded from the general funding rate of the ESG. This will need the agreement of the maintained school members of the schools forum and non-consensus requires the matter to be referred to the Secretary of State.
(c) On de-delegation Andy confirmed it can only apply to maintained mainstream schools and not academies, special or nursery schools.
10.4 Schools Block Local Consultation Issues for 2018-19
(a) The Chair introduced the report and reminded the WSF of their previous policy supported in the subsequent local consultations for stability in the LSFF. He commented that given the NFF this might not be the position in 2018-19.
(b) Andy confirmed the lack of the detailed NFF exemplifications meant the consultation that usually takes place early September to early October would have to take place later in the term with a proposal it takes place after the detail is available. The WSF were 9
advised with the need for the APT submission by 19th January 2018 and the later local consultation would mean the Cabinet on 14th December 2017 was the likely decision making meeting.
(c) WSF members commented as follows: - The need for WSF members in any consultation analysis and deliberations to represent their sectors not their individual schools. The need to encourage responses from schools given previous low response rates. Stability although important may work against the principles of the NFF and it might be worth looking at the previous work on the DfE Minimum funding Levels (MFLs).
(d) Andy advised that previous LSFF consultations with lots of options although useful were probably not appropriate for the NFF. Depending on the NFF exemplifications it was noted there are probably two options to consider – stay with the current LSFF and allocate any additional DSG into the local formula probably via the AWPU or move to the NFF as soon as possible.
(e) The WSF noted the consultation would need to include: - Any options for the LSFF and NFF. Whether the national MFG level needs to be more protective locally. De-delegation for maintained mainstream schools. Centrally retained services for all schools.
(f) Andy confirmed the WSF and schools would be advised when the detailed DfE NFF decisions and exemplifications were available and the timing of the consultation process. The WSF were advised that it likely a further WSF meeting would be required late November 2017 or early December 2017 to consider the consultation outcomes and to formulate its views to WCC cabinet.
10.5 DfE MFG Variation Approval Requests
The WSF noted the required application process for LAs to request any disapplication to the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations in 2018-19.
11. ACADEMIES UPDATE
11.1 The WSF noted the current position as at 1st August 2017.
The meeting closed at 3.45pm
Date of next meeting: -
Thursday 12th October 2017 at 2.00pm Council Chamber County Hall Worcester
10
Westminster Education Forum Keynote Seminar: Next steps for school funding in England Timing: Morning, Tuesday, 16 th January 2018 Venue: Central London
Draft agenda subject to change
8.30 - 9.00 Registration and coffee
9.00 - 9.05 Chair’s opening remarks Senior Parliamentarian
9.05 - 9.15 School funding in England - the current landscape Chris Belfield , Research Economist, Institute for Fiscal Studies
9.15 - 10.05 Key issues for implementing the new National Funding Formula: the ongoing role of local authorities and next steps after 2019-20 Julia Harnden , Funding Specialist, ASCL Richard Slade , Headteacher, Plumcroft Primary School, London Michelle Doyle Wildman , Acting Chief Executive, PTA UK Senior representative, local authority Questions and comments from the floor with Chris Belfield , Research Economist, Institute for Fiscal Studies
10.05 - 10.45 Implementing a high needs funding formula and implications for SEND provision Barbara Ball , Managing Director, Asend Senior representative, charity Senior representative, local authority Questions and comments from the floor
10.45 - 10.50 Chair’s closing remarks Senior Parliamentarian
10.50 - 11.20 Coffee
11.20 - 11.25 Chair’s opening remarks Lucy Powell MP , Member, Education Select Committee
11.25 - 12.00 Beyond the National Funding Formula: other issues for school funding and key challenges for the teaching workforce Valentine Mulholland , Head of Policy, NAHT Maire Williams , Economist, National Foundation for Educational Research Sean Coughlan , Education Correspondent, BBC News Questions and comments from the floor
12.00 - 12.25 Financial efficiency in English schools and supporting frontline teaching Richard de Friend , Chair of Governors, Ark Evelyn Grace Academy, Brixton Senior representative, consultancy Questions and comments from the floor
12.25 - 12.55 Moving towards a national funding formula for schools Tony Foot , Director, Education Funding Group, Department for Education Questions and comments from the floor
12.55 - 13.00 Chair’s and Westminster Education Forum closing remarks Lucy Powell MP , Member, Education Select Committee Sean Cudmore , Deputy Editor, Westminster Education Forum
AGENDA ITEM 8a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 12th OCTOBER 2017
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) EDUCATION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE NATIONAL FUNDING FORMULA (NFF) 14th SEPTEMBER 2017
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To share and discuss with the WSF the content of the National Funding Formula (NFF) announcement by the Education Secretary in September 2017.
2. CONTENT
2.1 On 14th September 2017 the Education Secretary made an announcement on the National Funding Formula (NFF).
2.2 The statements are on the attached links. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/justine-greening-statement-on-national- funding-formula https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fairer-funding-system-to-end-postcode-lottery-for- schools
2.3 The statement updated the details included in the Education Secretary announcement on 18th July 2017 and confirmed: - A new National Funding Formula (NFF) will be introduced in 2018-19 as planned. Every LA to see a rise in its per pupil funding for schools as a result of the NFF. Increases in the basic amount that every pupil will attract in 2018-19 and 2019- 20. Increase the percentage allocated to pupil led factors – the proposed formula settlement to provide at least: - £3,500 per pupil for every primary school by 2019-20 (£3,300 in 2018-19) £4,800 per pupil for every secondary school by 2019-20 (£4,600 in 2019-20). Allow for gains of up to 3% per pupil for underfunded schools for the next two years. Provide at least a 0.5% a year per pupil cash increase for every school in 2018- 19 and 2019-20. In 2018-19 and 2019-20, the NFF will set indicative budgets for each school, and the total schools funding received by each LA will be allocated according to the NFF. LAs will be able to continue to set a Local Schools Funding Formula (LSFF) for individual schools’ budgets in 2018-19 and 2019-20, in consultation with schools in their area to allow longer transition to provide stability for schools. Continue to protect funding for pupils with additional needs. Ring-fence the vast majority of funding provided for primary and secondary schools although LAs, in agreement with their local schools forum, will be able to move some limited amounts of funding to High Needs, where this better matches local need.
The significant changes to the original DfE proposals in December 2016 are the addition of £2.6bn additional cash over the next two years which allows the DfE to put in additional protections so that no school or LA loses funding as a result of the changes. Spending plans for the years beyond 2019-20 will be set out in a future spending review.
2.4 In support of the announcement the DfE also published: - Their responses to the Stage 2 consultations for Schools and High Needs. These are detailed in the attached links: - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/schools-national-funding-formula-stage-2 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/high-needs-national-funding-formula- stage-2
LA and school level illustrations of the potential effect using current data sets. The final NFF amounts.
2.5 Attached at Appendix A is a paper from the DfE providing an analysis of and response to the schools national funding formula consultations for Schools and High Needs. The DfE key conclusions are detailed in Appendix B.
3. IMPACT FOR WORCESTERSHIRE
3.1 Schools have been advised of all the above issues in a communication sent on 18th September 2017.
3.2 Overall DSG The overall indicative DSG Block amounts for Worcestershire are attached in Table 1. Its shows a +2.4% increase in 2018-19 and a further +1.5% in 2019-20 totalling 3.9% compared to the 2017-18 baseline. These are illustrations using current data and shows there are increases in the Schools and High Needs Blocks and a reduction in the Central Schools Services Block.
Table 1: DfE NFF Illustrations 14th September 2017
Detail 2017-18 2018-19 Variance to 2019-20 Variance to Baseline Provisional 2017-18 Illustrative 2017-18 £'m £'m £'m £'m £'m Schools Block 304.569 311.840 +7.271 315.772 +11.203 (see note)
Centrally Services 3.796 3.742 -0.054 3.742 -0.054 Schools Block (CSSB)
High Needs Block 47.353 48.716 +1.363 50.018 +2.665 TOTAL 355.718 364.298 +8.580 369.532 +13.814 +2.4% +3.9%
Note
Includes Schools Formula including SEN Unit Transfer £303.869m plus Pupil Growth Fund £0.700m
3.3 Individual School Illustrations For mainstream schools, the DfE published workbook is attached showing the DfE NFF impact on every Worcestershire mainstream school compared to the 2017-18 baselines. This is attached at Appendix C. These are DfE and not Worcestershire illustrations. This data is all calculated against the current 2017-18 baseline, so actual amounts will vary in respect of data set updates for 2018-19, in particular the October 2017 pupil census. The DfE illustrations show the following overall funding increases for Worcestershire schools: - Unlike the original proposals, in the new DfE NFF there is an increase in per pupil funding for all schools. For 2018-19 compared to 2017-18 baseline cash increases of £2,890,000 (1.9%) for primary; £870,000 (2.4%) for middle; £3,161,000 (2.8%) for secondary; £144,000 (2.2%) for all through – totalling £7,065,000 (2.3%). For 2019-20 compared to 2017-18 baseline cash increases of £4,100,000 (2.7%) for primary; £1,205,000 (3.3%) for middle; £5,311,000 (4.8%) for secondary; £167,000 (2.6%) for all through – totalling £10,783,000 (3.5%). The actual funding a school will receive will be subject to data changes from the 2017 October census and other 2017 data sets. Also, local decisions on the allocation of the Local Schools Funding Formula (LSFF) remain with LAs for the period 2018-19 and 2019-20.
3.4 Final DfE NFF The final DfE NFF detailing all the unit values and share of the DSG is shown at Appendix D. This is compared to the current Worcestershire Local Schools Funding Formula (LSFF) unit values.
3.5 At the time of writing this report the full NFF detailed calculations were still to be made available.
3.6 As far as local consultation is concerned this is discussed further under Agenda Item 8c).
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The WSF notes and discusses the content of the Education Secretary Statement on the NFF.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy Children, Families and Communities
October 2017
Analysis of and response to the schools national funding formula consultation
September 2017
Contents
Introduction 3 Part 1 - Summary of consultation proposals 4 The schools national funding formula 4 The central school services block formula 8 Part 2 - Key findings from the consultation and our decisions 9 Number of responses received 9 Key themes 11 Part 3 – Question level analysis 14 Question 1: Balance between fairness and stability 14 Question 2: Primary/Secondary ratio 17 Question 3: Pupil-led funding 19 Question 4: Proportion of funding allocated to additional needs 21 Question 5: Weightings for additional needs factors 23 Question 6: Mobility 30 Question 7: Lump sum 31 Question 8: Sparsity 34 Question 9: Growth 36 Question 10: Principle of the funding floor 37 Question 11: Level of the funding floor 38 Question 12: New and growing schools 39 Question 13: Minimum funding guarantee (MFG) 42 Question 14: Other considerations 43 Question 15: Central school services block – deprivation factor 44 Question 16: Central school services block – protection 45 Question 17: Central school services block – other considerations 46 Equalities analysis 49 Annex 1 – List of organisations that responded to the second stage of consultation 50
2 Introduction
On 14 December 2016, we launched the second stage of our consultation on a national funding formula for schools and central school services.
We asked 17 questions on the following areas:
• Our overall approach to constructing the national funding formula for schools • The detailed formula design proposals • Our proposals for the central school services block This document forms part of the government’s response to the second stage schools national funding formula consultation, and is in three parts. The first part summarises our second stage consultation proposals. The second part describes the responses and key themes we received on these proposals and confirms our decisions on the basis of these responses. The third part is a detailed question-by-question analysis which sets out the responses received on each individual question and summarises our decisions on the basis of these responses.
Full details on the final national funding formula for schools and central school services can be found in the policy document on the national funding formula for schools and high needs which is published alongside this document.
3 Part 1 - Summary of consultation proposals
The schools national funding formula
1. In the second stage of our consultation on a national funding formula for schools, we confirmed we would be using 13 factors in the formula, as set out in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The building blocks and factors in the proposed national funding formula for schools
NB This is not designed to scale.
2. The key proposals for the national funding formula for schools included:
Across the whole formula, to:
• maintain the primary to secondary ratio in line with the current national average
• maximise the proportion of funding allocated to pupil-led factors compared to the current system, so that as much funding as possible is spent in relation to pupils and their characteristics
With regard to basic per-pupil funding, to:
• reflect that the majority of funding is used to provide a basic amount for every pupil, but that some of this funding is, at present, specifically supporting pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. To do this, we proposed to increase the total spend on the additional needs factors in the national funding formula
4 • continue to increase the basic rate as pupils progress through the key stages
With regard to additional needs funding, to:
• increase total spend on the additional needs factors (socio-economic deprivation, low prior attainment and English as an additional language) to recognise that some basic per-pupil funding is currently supporting pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, as mentioned above
• have a substantial deprivation factor, alongside the pupil premium, to ensure schools with pupils from a socio-economically disadvantaged background attract significant extra funding. Within this, include a greater weighting towards areas with high concentrations of ordinary working families who do not typically qualify for free school meals (FSM) deprivation funding, through the use of a significant area-level deprivation factor (using the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, IDACI). This helps support all those whose background may create a barrier to their education, not only those with a history of free school meal (FSM) eligibility
• increase substantially the weighting of the low prior attainment factor, because attainment data is one of the strongest indicators of how children are likely to do later, and we want to target funding to schools to help all pupils catch up
• have an English as an additional language factor, increased in terms of total spend in comparison to the current system because the national funding formula will fund all eligible pupils consistently
• protect local authorities’ current spend on mobility, while we develop a more sophisticated mobility indicator for use in the national funding formula, as discussed in our response to the stage one consultation
With regard to school-led funding, to:
• provide every school with a lump sum, but at a lower level than the current national average so that we can direct more funding to the pupil-led factors
• provide small and remote schools with additional funding, over and above the lump sum, to recognise that they can face greater challenges in finding efficiencies and partnering with other schools
• fund rates and premises factors (private finance initiative (PFI); split sites; exceptional circumstances) in 2018-19 on the basis of historic spend but with
5 an adjustment to the PFI factor so that it is automatically uprated in line with inflation, using the RPI[X] measure1
• fund the growth factor on an historic basis for 2018-19 and seek views through this consultation on what we think would be a better approach for the long term, using lagged growth data
With regard to geographic funding, to
• recognise the higher salary costs faced by some schools, especially in London, by making an area cost adjustment. We confirmed we would use the hybrid area cost adjustment methodology, which takes into account variation in both the general and teaching labour markets
To ensure sufficient stability, we also proposed:
• to build in an overall ‘funding floor’ so that no school would face a reduction of more than 3% per-pupil overall as a result of the national funding formula
And during transition, we proposed:
• the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) of minus 1.5% per-pupil in any year would continue, in order to provide additional stability for schools
• schools would attract gains of up to 3% per-pupil in 2018-19, and then up to a further 2.5% in 2019-20.
3. Figure 2 shows the proposed weightings (the percentage of the total budget spent on each factor) and total spend through each factor as set out in the second stage of our consultation. Also included are the individual factor values (i.e. amount per- pupil or school) that followed from the proposed weightings.
1 RPI[X] is the retail price index all items excluding mortgage interest. For more information, please see https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/chmk/mm23
6 Figure 2: the factor values and weighting proposed for the national funding formula in the second stage of our consultation g g g pp g
Proposed Total we propose to spend Per-pupil/school funding under the weighting for through factor in the proposed national funding formula. Factor the national formula. NB These exclude area cost funding NB These include area cost adjustment funding. formula adjustment funding Primary Secondary KS1 KS3 £3,797 Basic per-pupil funding 72.5% £23,255m £2,712 (£ per pupil) KS2 KS4 £4,312
Ever6 FSM £540 £785 £1,746m Current FSM £980 £1,225 IDACI A £575 £810 Deprivation IDACI B 9.3% £2,985m £420 £600 (£ per pupil) IDACI C £360 £515 £1,239m IDACI D £360 £515 IDACI E £240 £390 IDACI F £200 £290 Low prior attainment 7.5% £2,394m £1,050 £1,550 (£ per pupil) English as an additional language 1.2% £388m £515 £1,385 (£ per pupil) Mobility (allocated to LAs on basis of 0.1% £23m N/A historic spend) Lump sum 7.1% £2,263m £110,000 £110,000 (£ per school) Sparsity 0.08% £27m £0 - £25,000 £0 - £65,000 (£ per school) Premises Rates (allocated to PFI LAs on Split sites 1.8% £569m N/A basis of historic Exceptional circumstances spend) A multiplier that is applied to certain factors. Shown in italics because it is Area cost adjustment £792m already included in the total spend through each factor.
Explicit spend on growth (allocated to LAs on basis of 0.5% £167m N/A historic spend)
Total £32,071m
Figure 2: this table shows the weightings we proposed for each factor in the national funding formula; the total spent through each factor in our published illustrative national funding formula allocations; and the per-pupil or per-school amounts that follow from the proposed weightings for each factor.
7 The central school services block formula
4. In the second stage of our consultation, we confirmed that we would create a central school services block within the dedicated schools grant (DSG) to reflect the ongoing local authority role in education. Funding will be provided for two distinct elements, which will be handled separately within the formula: ongoing responsibilities and historic commitments. 5. For ongoing responsibilities which local authorities hold in respect of both maintained schools and academies, we proposed the majority (90%) of funding be calculated on a per-pupil basis. We also proposed to include a deprivation factor to recognise the importance of particular central services for schools in areas with high levels of socio-economic deprivation. 6. For historic commitments, we confirmed that funding will be allocated to local authorities based on evidence, with the expectation that historic commitments will unwind over time. 7. We proposed to put in place a protection on the central school services block which would minimise reductions to 2.5% per pupil in 2018-19 and 2019-20 to ensure a manageable transition for all local authorities. Gains would be set annually and depend on the precise composition of the central school services block in each year.
8 Part 2 - Key findings from the consultation and our decisions
Number of responses received
8. In total there were 25,222 responses to the consultation on the schools national funding formula. The largest proportion of responses received were from those who identified themselves as parents (66%). 9% of the respondents said they were governors, 7% teachers and 7% head teachers or principals.
Figure 3: The number of responses by respondent type 18000 70% 66% 16000 60% 14000 50% 12000
10000 40%
8000 30% Percentage Percentage
6000 Number of of responses Number 20% 4000
9% 10% 2000 7% 7% 3% 3% 2% 0 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Respondent type
Figure 3: this chart shows the number of respondents to the second stage of our consultation, according to their self-identified profession, or their relationship to the education sector.
9. Almost a third (31%) of responses were received from three specific local authority areas: Cheshire East (15%), West Sussex (9%) and Cambridgeshire (7%). 22 local authorities account for 71% of total responses received, as shown in Figure 4 below.
9 Figure 4: The number of responses by local authority area
Not Answered / Not applicable Richmond upon Thames Oxfordshire Lewisham Birmingham Kensington and Chelsea Enfield Devon Barnsley Derbyshire East Sussex Cheshire West And Chester Southwark Warwickshire Wiltshire Gloucestershire Brent Lambeth Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Cambridgeshire West Sussex Cheshire East All other local authorities
0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% 21% 24% 27% 30%
Figure 4: This chart shows the percentage of respondents to the second stage of the consultation, according to their local authority.
10. Across the regions, the largest proportion of responses was from London, making up 28% of the total received. 1% of respondents were from the North East; 22% from the North West; 3% from Yorkshire and the Humber; 4% from the East Midlands; 5% from the West Midlands; 9% from the East of England; 16% from the South East; and 9% from the South West. Note that the regional proportions will be significantly affected by the high response rates from Cheshire East, West Sussex and Cambridgeshire. 11. A full list of the representative organisations that responded can be found at Annex 1 of this document. 12. Some respondents answered just a subset of questions. Throughout this document, the proportion of respondents agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal are given as a proportion of all 25,222 respondents, rather than of those who answered the question.
10 13. Percentages have not been weighted to take account of responses from representative bodies or campaigns (identical responses from certain areas). Throughout the document, when we quote the proportion of respondents who agreed or disagreed with our proposals, we take account of all responses received. Where results are significantly impacted by high volumes of campaign responses, we will note this in the explanation. 14. Throughout this document, the percentages do not always total 100% due to rounding. 15. During the consultation period, Department for Education ministers and officials attended a wide range of externally organised conferences and events, and local authority regional school finance meetings. They also held numerous meetings with funding stakeholders including members of parliament, as well as the department’s School and Academy Funding Group2 and the Service-level Working Group for Education and Children’s Services3. As well as the findings from the online consultation, the discussion at these meetings and events has influenced the final decisions and where relevant has been reflected in the responses set out in Part 3.
Key themes
16. Overall, respondents supported a number of the key proposals and much of the basic design of the formula. Detailed summaries of responses and decisions on each of the main proposals can be found in Part 3. Information on the final national funding formula can be found in the policy document on the national funding formula for schools and high needs, which is published alongside this document. 17. There were several key themes that were raised across multiple questions. These themes are summarised below.
2 The School and Academy Funding Group (SAFG) exists to advise the department on matters relating to all aspects of school funding, in the context of the wider policy objectives for schools. It is made up of key stakeholders from a number of organisations with a focus on education and/or funding.
3 The Service Working Group on Education and Children's Services (SWGECS) facilitates exchanges between local authority finance representatives and the DfE on matters concerned with revenue and capital expenditure on education and children’s services.
11 Overall funding in the system
18. The overall level of funding for schools was raised in response to nearly every question in the consultation. It was a common theme in questions relating to the different pupil-led factors, where many respondents called for an increase to the basic per-pupil funding rate for all pupils or a reweighting away from the additional needs factors towards basic per-pupil funding in order to deliver an increase to basic per-pupil funding.
19. We want schools to have the resources they need to deliver a world class education for their pupils. This is why, in July, we announced an additional £1.3 billion for schools and high needs across 2018-19 and 2019-20, in addition to the schools budget set at the 2015 Spending Review. This funding will be delivered across the next two years as we transition to the national funding formula.
20. As a result of the additional investment, core funding for schools and high needs with rise from nearly £41.0 billion in 2017-18 to £42.4 billion in 2018-19, and to £43.5 billion in 2019-20. The additional investment for the national funding formula will allow us to:
• increase the basic amount that every pupil will attract in 2018-19 and 2019- 20
• continue to protect funding for pupils with additional needs, as we proposed in the second stage of our consultation
• increase the percentage of funding allocated to pupil-led factors, as we proposed in the second stage of our consultation
• provide a minimum per-pupil funding level over the next two years. For secondary schools this will be £4,800 in 2019-20 with a transitional amount of £4,600 in 2018-19; and for primary schools this will be £3,500 in 2019- 20, with a transitional amount of £3,300 in 2018-19
• for the next two years, provide for up to 3% gains per pupil for underfunded schools, and a minimum cash increase of 1% per pupil by 2019-20, compared to their baseline, in respect of every school.
The balance between fairness and stability
21. There was particular support for the proposal to include a funding floor to limit overall reductions as a result of the formula. Some respondents cited the cost pressures facing schools and called for the floor to be further increased so that no school would lose funding as a result of the formula.
12 22. We recognise that stability is vital for schools and that is why we have raised the funding floor in the national funding formula so that all schools attract at least a 1% cash increase per pupil by 2019-20, compared to their baseline, as mentioned above. We are also using the additional funding to ensure that those schools that have been underfunded will be allocated per-pupil gains of up to 3% a year in both 2018-19 and 2019-20. Our previous proposal had capped gains at 2.5% in 2019- 20.
23. Further information on the transition to the new funding system can be found in the policy document on the national funding formula for schools and high needs, which is published alongside this document.
The need for minimum per-pupil funding
24. We heard a consistent message throughout the consultation that we could do more through our formula to support those schools that attract the lowest levels of per-pupil funding.
25. We have listened carefully, and have decided to both raise the basic amount that each pupil attracts and target additional funding to the lowest funded schools. The national funding formula will provide at least £4,800 per pupil for every secondary school and £3,500 per pupil for every primary school in 2019-20. In 2018-19 the formula will provide a transitional minimum amount of £4,600 in respect of secondary schools and a transitional minimum amount of £3,300 for primary schools.
26. We believe this will help ensure that every school has the resources it needs to provide appropriate support to every one of its pupils.
27. Further information on the minimum per-pupil funding and how it will be phased in can be found in the policy document on the national funding formula for schools and high needs which is published alongside this document.
13 Part 3 – Question level analysis
Question 1: Balance between fairness and stability
Q.1 In designing our national funding formula, we have taken careful steps to balance the principles of fairness and stability. Do you think we have struck the right balance?
Total Percentage Yes 1352 5% No 23500 93% Not Answered 370 2%
Summary of responses
The vast majority of respondents to this consultation provided a response and supporting comments for this question. Although the question was about the balance of fairness and stability, many respondents took the opportunity to express their views on the total size and sufficiency of the schools budget.
There was broad support for the principle of having a formula. Respondents cited current unfair distribution of funding to similar schools and a number of headteachers welcomed the transparency that a national funding formula would bring and believed it would be a step in the right direction. 93% of respondents however, felt that we had not struck the right balance between fairness and stability in the proposals, largely due to their concerns about the overall amount of funding available for schools.
Many respondents felt that rather than redistributing current funding there should be an increase in the overall budget for school funding. Campaign responses from a number of local authorities also called for an increase in the overall budget.
In line with this, respondents also felt that the basic per-pupil amount was not high enough. A number of parents suggested the basic per-pupil amount (or “age-weighted pupil unit” – AWPU) should act as the core base for funding so that every school can operate effectively, regardless of the intake. Some respondents wanted to see reference to the cost of running a school and believed that until we determined the minimum amount required for a school to deliver the core provision there should be no cuts made to school funding. They felt that staffing costs were not accounted for in the formula and the lack of funding being directed to meeting these costs would force schools to make job cuts. We heard calls for a minimum level of per-pupil funding for secondary schools; a number of values were suggested, with the most commonly quoted figure being £4,800.
14 The removal of the Education Services Grant (ESG) was also cited as having a negative impact on school funding.
Another key theme raised in this question was deprivation. Some respondents felt that the weighting of the factors used in the formula gave an increased and disproportionate emphasis to deprivation and prior attainment. With pupil premium levels remaining the same, some local authority representatives were concerned that too much overall funding is being directed for deprivation. Furthermore, clarification was sought on what schools should be using increased deprivation funding for as opposed to the pupil premium.
Some respondents felt that there was insufficient consideration in the funding formula for small rural schools. There were concerns that small schools are unable to sustain any reductions. Some respondents felt that the formula is biased to inner city areas such as London, and rural schools would suffer as a result, particularly if they were not eligible for sparsity funding.
There were mixed views on the proposal for including a ‘floor’ in the formula. As set out in Part 2, many respondents supported the proposal to include a funding floor to limit overall reductions as a result of the formula. They felt that it would ensure stability as it would limit the budget reductions that individual schools would have to manage. However they argued that the floor should be set at a higher level in order to limit losses further.
Others felt the proposed floor would lock in historical differences in funding between schools, and would therefore make the new formula unfair. They argued that if relatively high-funded schools would face a maximum reduction of 3% per pupil, this would limit the scope of gains for underfunded schools and would maintain the current inequality that exists and therefore compromise the principle of fairness.
A number of respondents also discussed the area cost adjustment (ACA). Respondents raised concerns that the ACA calculation was flawed as it only compared local salary costs and did not take into account the economic costs faced by each area.
There was a general recognition among many respondents that the impact of the proposed funding formula served to highlight the unfairness of the current system. They felt change was needed to ensure the best possible outcomes for all children and the move to a new national funding formula should not be delayed.
Government response
As set out in Part 2, in July we announced an additional £1.3 billion in schools and high needs across 2018-19 and 2019-20 to support the introduction of the national funding formulae. On top of the existing schools funding settlement from the 2015 Spending Review, this will maintain funding in real terms per pupil to 2019-20. The introduction of the national funding formula and the additional investment will together give schools a firm foundation that will enable them to continue to raise standards, promote social
15 mobility and give every child the best possible education and the best opportunities for the future.
The additional investment means we can improve our formula in the following ways:
• We are increasing the basic amount that every pupil will attract in 2018-19 and 2019-20, compared to the formula proposals we set out in the stage 2 consultation. We are increasing the age weighted pupil unit for primary pupils to £2,747, for key stage 3 pupils to £3,863 and for key stage 4 pupils to £4,386 so that all schools can benefit. • We are increasing the level of the funding floor from our stage 2 proposals. We are going further than our commitment that no school will lose from the formula and will instead provide a cash increase of at least 1% per pupil by respect of every school in 2019-20, compared to its baseline. • We are introducing a minimum funding level of £4,800 per pupil for secondary schools and a minimum funding level of £3,500 per pupil for primary schools in 2019-20, to support the lowest funded schools. This is to recognise that funding for additional needs is distributed on the basis of proxy indicators that do not necessarily pick up all pupil needs. These new minimum levels of per-pupil funding will be phased in quickly over the next two years. In 2018-19, the formula will provide a transitional minimum amount of £4,600 in respect of secondary schools, and a transitional minimum amount of £3,300 for primary schools. We have considered carefully the calls for the department to undertake a bottom-up costing review in order to determine the national funding formula, and reviewed evidence provided by a number of sector representatives and individual schools.
Our view remains that there is no ‘one size fits all’ model for running a school, on which we could justifiably base a national funding formula. Schools are – and should be – run in a way which reflect their varied circumstances and the experience and priorities of their leadership and school community. Constructing such a model would require government to make arbitrary decisions on questions like the appropriate class size and pupil to teacher ratio – decisions on which experts in the education sector do not necessarily agree and for which there is unlikely to be an answer that is appropriate in all circumstances. The responses we received during the consultation confirmed that there is no consensus on what would constitute a minimum level of funding that is required to provide an adequate education. Accordingly, we continue to think it would not be appropriate for the government to base the school funding system on an activity-led model. Instead, our national funding formula distributes funding in a manner that reflects policy objectives, evidence and the agreed principles for funding reform.
We have also considered the concerns raised about the ACA and the view that it does not recognise a number of cost drivers for schools, especially in rural areas. In the first stage of our consultation, we sought views on different possible methodologies for
16 calculating the ACA. After reviewing the responses to that consultation, we confirmed that we would use the ‘hybrid’ methodology which takes into account labour market variation in both the general labour market and the teacher labour market. For more information about the area cost adjustment, please see the government response to the first stage of our consultation and for a list of the area cost adjustment scores by local authority area, please see the annex published alongside the second stage of our consultation.
The government believes that all pupils, regardless of birth or background, should receive an excellent education wherever they are. Central to this is ensuring all schools have access to high-quality teachers throughout England. In May this year we published further analysis of teacher supply, retention and mobility at a local level. This analysis includes information on movement in and out of the sector, characteristics associated with in-school and in-system retention and teacher mobility between schools and geographic areas. For more information please see the teachers analysis compendium.
We have more teachers in our schools than ever before and the number of teachers has kept pace with changing numbers of pupils. There are more than 457,000 teachers in state-funded schools throughout England –15,500 more than 2010. We are spending over £1.3 billion up to 2020 to attract new teachers into the profession. This investment in training the next generation of teachers demonstrates the government’s commitment to make sure that all schools are able to recruit the teachers they need.
Question 2: Primary/Secondary ratio
Q.2 Do you support our proposal to set the primary to secondary ratio in line with the current national average?
Total Percentage Yes 9966 40% No – the ratio should be closer (i.e. primary and secondary 7732 31% phases should be funded at more similar levels) No – the ratio should be wider (i.e. the secondary phase should be funded more than 29% higher than the primary 2292 9% phase) Not Answered 5232 21%
Summary of responses
Our proposal to set the national funding formula ratio between the primary and secondary phases in line with the current national average of 1:1.29 received the most support of the three options proposed.
17 Respondents who agreed with the proposed ratio raised similar issues to the respondents who wanted a ratio that would allocate more funding to secondary schools than the current average. The most common point raised amongst these respondents was that secondary schools should be more highly funded than primary schools due to the greater complexity of the secondary curriculum and the need for secondary schools to have a wider range of facilities, such as IT suites and science labs. Many of these respondents also referred to the cost and importance of examinations and the role of secondary education in career progression.
Respondents that wanted a ratio that is more generous to the primary phase raised the importance of early intervention and the role of primary schools in providing the foundation on which secondary education is built. Some respondents also raised concerns over the role of primary schools in identifying and supporting pupils who have particular needs (and who, after assessment, would attract additional funding through the high needs national funding formula). Conversely, a small number of those who requested more funding for primary schools referred to their need for IT and science facilities and the importance of primary school tests.
There was a small number of misunderstandings with this question. Some respondents referred to sixth form funding and the costs associated with A-levels. Funding for students in sixth forms, whether in sixth form colleges or in secondary schools, is allocated through a separate post-16 formula.
Government response
We have considered carefully the arguments put forward in favour of tilting the formula more towards the primary or the secondary phase and have concluded that the best option is to maintain the current national average distribution of funding between the primary and secondary phases.
In our proposal we cited evidence on the impact of investment across phases that found that the impact of additional spend is similar across primary and secondary. The review concluded that early investment needs to be backed up by later investment, otherwise the impact fades, and that there is no strong case to make significant change to the current balance between the phases4.
At this stage we have decided that there is not sufficient evidence to support either narrowing or widening the ratio and that basing the ratio on the current national average
4 Gibbons, S and McNally, S, ‘The effect of resources across school phases: a summary of the recent evidence’, 2013
18 will provide valuable ongoing stability to the school system. The national funding formula therefore has a national primary to secondary ratio of 1:1.29.
This is a national ratio. At individual local authority level, the ratio produced by the national funding formula will vary: for example, a local authority with many small primary schools will see a lower ratio as the primary phase would attract more funding through the lump sum, other things being equal. This means that, under the national funding formula, there will be a range of primary to secondary ratios in the allocations received by individual local authorities, reflecting their local circumstances.
In addition, under a ‘soft’ formula approach in 2018-19 and 2019-20, local authorities will continue to be responsible for setting a local ratio through their process of local consultation. They are able to set different ratios from the 1:1.29 ratio, and/or different to the ratio suggested in the allocation they receive under the national funding formula, if that is the local decision.
Question 3: Pupil-led funding
Q.3 Do you support our proposal to maximise pupil-led funding?
Total Percentage Yes 8378 33% No – you should further increase pupil-led funding and 1571 6% further reduce school-led funding No – you should keep the balance between pupil-led funding and school-led funding in line with the current 5778 23% national average No – you should increase school-led funding compared 4949 20% to the current national average Not Answered 4546 18%
Summary of responses
In the consultation we proposed a small increase to the proportion of funding allocated through the pupil-led factors (i.e. factors that are paid on a per-pupil basis) in comparison to the school-led factors (i.e. the lump sum, sparsity, mobility and premises factors), in order to maximise the proportion of funding that is directly attributable to the pupils in the school.
Overall 33% of respondents supported our proposal to maximise pupil-led funding. Some felt it would particularly support pupils facing barriers to their education. Others commented that the proposal would enable pupils to achieve other qualifications through
19 a broader curriculum and contribute towards reducing the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers.
Many of these respondents expressed the view that one set of funding should not be reduced in favour of the other and commented that support shown for pupil-led funding should not be at the expense of small or rural schools. This sentiment was expressed by both small and rural schools as well as larger schools concerned about the impact on neighbouring smaller schools. These respondents requested flexibility in the implementation of the national funding formula to ensure stability for these schools.
Many respondents thought that schools attracting less pupil-led funding and schools with pupils located in more affluent areas should not be penalised. These respondents suggested that the basic per-pupil amount should be set higher so that in conjunction with the lump sum it would meet the fixed costs of each school. Similarly, many respondents thought that the lump sum should be subject to inflationary increases each year, along with recognition of both inner and outer London localised specific costs.
Of those who disagreed, the majority expressed a preference for keeping the pupil-led to school-led balance in line with the current average so that schools in non-deprived areas and students with high levels of attainment would not be discriminated against.
Some respondents questioned the impact of this proposal on the viability of small/rural schools. They discussed particularly the impact on small schools with low numbers of pupils with additional needs. Some respondents were concerned that our proposals would put these schools at a financial disadvantage and that this could result in school closures that would negatively affect local communities. Some respondents argued we should increase school-led funding in order to reflect costs that do not necessarily vary with pupil numbers.
Government response
We continue to believe that the great majority of funding should be related to schools’ pupil cohorts and their characteristics. In the interests of securing a funding system where funding is matched transparently to need and relates to the characteristics of the pupils in that school, we will maximise spending on pupil-led factors.
We have considered carefully the concerns that were raised in the consultation responses – for example the risk of a detrimental impact on small rural schools, or on schools with fewer disadvantaged pupils. We have confirmed that we will be providing local authorities with funding calculated on the basis of every school receiving at least a 1% per-pupil cash increase by 2019-20. We are also introducing a minimum per-pupil level of funding for primary and secondary schools to increase stability and recognise pupils’ additional needs that may not be picked up through the proxy factors in the formula. By continuing the ‘soft’ formula system (where we use the national funding formula to calculate the amount of funding going to local authorities, and local authorities
20 then determine final allocations for schools locally) we will also ensure a more stable transition onto the national funding formula.
We recognise that some schools are necessarily small because they are remote and do not have the same opportunities as other schools to grow or make efficiency savings. These schools can be especially important to their local communities and ensure children do not have to travel long distances to school. The sparsity factor in the formula is designed to provide important support for these schools.
As a result of the changes we have introduced since the second stage of consultation, rural primary schools will attract average gains of 3.8% compared to 1.7% under the stage 2 proposals, and rural secondary schools will attract average gains of 4.0% compared to 0.6% under the stage 2 proposals.
Question 4: Proportion of funding allocated to additional needs
Q.4 Within the total pupil-led funding, do you support our proposal to increase the proportion allocated to the additional needs factors5?
Total Percentage Yes 4981 20% No – allocate a greater proportion to additional needs 2587 10% No – allocate a lower proportion to additional needs 11194 44% Not Answered 6460 26%
Summary of responses
We proposed increasing total spend on the additional needs factors compared to the current system, to recognise that some basic per-pupil funding is currently supporting pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Respondents to the consultation recognised the importance of supporting schools whose pupils have additional needs. Some respondents who agreed with this proposal felt it would be a positive move towards bridging the achievement gap between pupils. This
5 The additional needs factors are deprivation, low prior attainment, English as an additional language and mobility.
21 pointed was raised by several representative organisations.
However, many felt that they could not support this proposal in the context of the overall schools budget. They argued that unless the overall core schools budget was increasing, it would be more important to increase basic per-pupil funding as, without sufficient basic per-pupil funding, schools would be unable to cover their basic costs. A number of respondents argued that the proportion should remain at the same level that is explicitly allocated to deprivation within local authorities’ formulae.
Some respondents felt that the proposed distribution of funding could have a detrimental impact on those pupils that do not qualify for funding through the additional needs factors. The need for more research was a common response in relation to this proposal. A small number of respondents felt there was insufficient evidence that additional funding for pupils’ additional needs would necessarily lead to better outcomes for those pupils.
Some respondents felt our proposals to increase the proportion allocated to additional needs factors would reflect the needs of pupils from ordinary working families. They argued that much of deprivation is hidden and that allocating a higher percentage of funding would better recognise this. However, where support was not shared for this proposal, some respondents commented that there is no evidence that the additional needs factors would capture pupils from ordinary working families and that the department should undertake more research before any changes are implemented.
A number of respondents were concerned that the proposals would result in “double funding” of deprivation in the school funding system, as pupils from a disadvantaged background would attract additional funding to their school through the pupil premium and through the additional needs factors of the formula. Many questioned how deprivation funding through the national funding formula differed to funding from the pupil premium, particularly since both draw on the same free school meals data. Along with this, a number of responses asked for a better definition of who falls under the additional needs category.
Government response
The government believes that all children should have an education that unlocks their potential and allows them to go as far as their talent and hard work will take them. That is key to improving social mobility. We are protecting additional needs funding in the national funding formula in order to recognise additional needs in a broad sense. In 2018- 19, this means 17.8% of total funding will be distributed through the additional needs factors.
Evidence shows that pupils with additional needs are more likely to fall behind and therefore need extra support if they are to reach their full potential. We have broadened the reach of additional needs factors within the national funding formula by applying them
22 consistently across the country; by using the full 6 IDACI bands; and by giving a significant weighting to both IDACI and low prior attainment (LPA), in addition to the traditional Ever6 FSM and FSM measures. We have also recognised the actual spending on deprivation by local authorities, as this is sometimes hidden in higher basic per-pupil funding in areas with high proportions of deprived pupils.
The pupil premium is an additional grant targeted towards eligible pupils. Additional needs funding in the national funding formula is proxy funding intended for pupils with a range of needs, including special educational needs (SEN). We continue to believe there is a strong case for both elements of funding and therefore the pupil premium will continue to support those who need it. The pupil premium totals nearly £2.5 billion in 2017-18 and will continue to be maintained alongside the national funding formula.
However, in relation to the concerns expressed in response to this question on the sufficiency of basic per-pupil funding, as announced in July, we have increased the core schools budget by £1.3 billion across 2018-19 and 2019-20. Funding per pupil for schools and high needs will be maintained in real terms for the remaining two years of the Spending Review. As mentioned above, we have therefore been able to increase the funding we are allocating to basic per-pupil funding while continuing to protect additional needs funding.
Question 5: Weightings for additional needs factors
Do you agree with the proposed weightings for each of the additional needs factors? i) Deprivation - Free School Meals (FSM) at 5.4%
Total Percentage Allocate a higher proportion 3084 12% The proportion is about right 4307 17% Allocate a lower proportion 9584 38% Not Answered 8247 33%
Summary of responses Across each of the additional needs questions, many respondents recognised the importance of supporting pupils with additional needs. As set out in Question 4, many respondents felt that the overall weighting of funding for additional needs in the formula was too great in the context of the overall schools budget or that the proposals would result in ‘double funding’ of deprivation (i.e. that students who attracted deprivation
23 funding through the formula would also attract the pupil premium).
A number of respondents pointed out perceived flaws with using FSM eligibility as an indicator for deprivation. A common concern was that the introduction of Universal Infant Free School Meals (UIFSM) has resulted in lower registrations for FSM. A large number of parents, local authorities and schools were concerned that with fewer parents registering for meals the measure would not accurately identify deprivation.
Some respondents argued that the FSM measure is overused, and called for a higher proportion to be allocated through IDACI instead.
Respondents who wanted a higher proportion allocated to FSM argued that there are higher costs associated with educating a child from a deprived background. These respondents supplied evidence including listing the types of activities that can support such children. These respondents particularly noted that children from low-income families often needed a higher level of pastoral care and early intervention to tackle the long term challenges which result from deprivation.
Respondents also welcomed the factor now explicit recognition that it costs £440 per year to provide free school meals to an eligible pupil.
Government response
The additional funding announced in July will allow us to increase the basic amount that every pupil will attract in 2018-19 and 2019-20, compared to the proposals set out in the second stage of our consultation, without reducing the total funding allocated for additional needs.
We believe that it is important that deprivation, as a subset of additional needs, has substantial weighting within the formula. In order to capture an accurate picture of deprivation we will use both FSM and IDACI in order to identify both pupil and area based deprivation. While we are still spending the same amount on the FSM factor in cash terms compared to our original proposals, the proportion has dropped from 5.4% to 5.2% as a result of the additional funding which has been added to basic per-pupil funding.
We have reflected on the IDACI bandling following our analysis of the consultation responses and stakeholder engagement, and in particular on the concerns raised about the accuracy of the measure in capturing deprivation. We have therefore made a sensible minor technical adjustment to increase the band C unit value slightly, so that it sits halfway between bands B and D. This will better reflect the higher levels of deprivation faced by children living in band C areas, compared to those in band D areas.
We do not accept that this approach results in ‘double funding’ of deprivation. The sums allocated through the national funding formula effectively maintain existing local authority
24 investment in additional needs and have been set with the funding provided through the pupil premium in mind. Improving social mobility is a high priority for the government and so it is vital that the national funding formula and pupil premium, in combination, adequately support schools to help children from deprived backgrounds to succeed. The pupil premium will continue to ensure school have a specific focus on raising the attainment of these pupils, while the deprivation factor in the formula will act as a broader proxy measure, working in combination with other additional needs factors in the formula, for schools that are most likely to need extra resources to support their pupils to reach their full potential. ii) Deprivation - Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) at 3.9%
Total Percentage Allocate a higher proportion 3133 12% The proportion is about right 5285 21% Allocate a lower proportion 8121 32% Not Answered 8683 34%
Summary of responses
As with the previous question, some respondents misunderstood the question or said they did not have enough information to make an informed judgement. The overall quantum of funding and the perceived ‘double funding’ of deprivation were recurring concerns in this question.
A number of respondents pointed out perceived flaws in the IDACI methodology, including the revaluation of IDACI bands. A large number of respondents argued that the revaluation process every five years causes excessive turbulence in the measure at these points. This was a common concern from local authorities, many of whom highlighted that they have been able to manage this turbulence locally but under a ‘hard’ national funding formula they will be unable to do so.
Some respondents expressed concern about how IDACI measures deprivation. Some rural respondents were concerned that IDACI does not effectively capture rural deprivation, arguing the areas are too large to represent rural areas with small but diverse populations accurately. Conversely, some urban respondents were concerned that IDACI does not reflect deprivation in cities as the areas are too small to identify by a postcode. A number of respondents also expressed concern that IDACI does not accurately reflect deprivation as it does not pick up new housing developments and social housing.
Respondents who expressed concern about the accuracy of the measure frequently
25 called for a lower proportion of funding to be allocated according to IDACI and a higher proportion of funding to be allocated according to FSM.
Some respondents who were supportive of the measure were concerned that reducing funding for the highest IDACI bands would reduce funding for students living in the most deprived communities. These respondents argued that these students should attract a higher level of funding in order to give them equality of opportunity with their peers.
Respondents that were supportive of IDACI also gave evidence as to the higher cost of supporting children from deprived backgrounds, including listing the types of activities that can support such students.
Government response
We have decided to proceed with our proposal to distribute 3.9% of total funding through an IDACI factor. No single deprivation measure will adequately fund deprivation, which is why we continue to believe we should use a basket of indicators in order to ensure that schools attract adequate funding. We also recognise that IDACI raises some methodological challenges but believe it is a robust index that can be successfully used in combination with other factors. It has been used by many local authorities in their local funding formulae for a number of years.
It is important to note that IDACI measures the level of deprivation in the area where a child lives and matches each area to a band. The postcode of the pupil is then used to calculate an area based level of deprivation. The school’s catchment area does not determine the level of IDACI funding it attracts, which was a common misunderstanding among respondents.
We have thought carefully about how we treat the IDACI bands in a national funding formula. Currently, local authorities can allocate different levels of funding for up to 6 IDACI bands. Local authorities make different decisions about the number of bands they use and how they weight them. Of the 122 local authorities that use IDACI in their formula, 49 assign funding to all 6 bands. By using all 6 IDACI bands in the formula, we capture more than 44% of pupils in schools. While the individual experiences of these pupils will vary widely, as a group, they are more likely to suffer the effects of deprivation to some extent, while not necessarily qualifying for free school meals. Allocating funding to all IDACI bands means that every pupil who lives in a deprived area will attract additional funding to their school, whether or not they live in one of the 49 local authorities which choose to use all IDACI bands currently. Reflecting current local authority practice, we will apply different unit values to each IDACI band, so pupils attract more funding if they live in a more deprived area.
While area level IDACI scores are updated on a five-year cycle, pupil-level IDACI data is updated annually. This means that if new pupils join, or if existing pupils change their
26 home address, this will be captured in the data and in any funding allocated through the IDACI measure the following year. We recognise that the 2015 update generated significant turbulence in budgets. In response, we reset the IDACI bands ahead of local authorities setting their budgets for 2017-18 so that they captured a similar proportion of pupils as they did before the 2015 update. The IDACI scores for each area will be constant for 5 years since the last update. We are conscious of the danger of turbulence in our national funding formula and will consider ways to smooth the introduction of new IDACI data. iii) Low prior attainment (LPA) at 7.5%
Total Percentage Allocate a higher proportion 2753 11% The proportion is about right 5368 21% Allocate a lower proportion 8096 32% Not Answered 9005 36%
Summary of responses
Of the respondents that answered this question, there was a balance between those arguing that the proposed weighting was right or should be higher (32%), and those arguing for a lower weighting (32%).
Many respondents were concerned that there was a significant overlap between LPA and SEN pupils and that funding both would double fund those pupils.
Some respondents were concerned that the proposed increase in weighting for the LPA factor would adversely influence relationships between primary and secondary schools within a local area. They argued that improvements to results in the primary phase would result in a reduction of funding to secondary schools. Secondary schools, in particular, were concerned that having successful feeder primary schools would impact their funding.
A large number of respondents were concerned that the changes in national assessments made LPA an unreliable measure causing too much volatility in funding levels. Some local authorities gave evidence to show how the fluctuation in this measure has recently affected funding for schools in their area. Schools were concerned that raising attainment, a key goal for all schools, would result in a sudden drop in funding.
A significant number of parents thought that including LPA as a factor would incentivise low attainment and penalise successful schools. Some respondents also thought the inclusion of an LPA factor would lead to some schools gaming the system.
27 Respondents that were supportive of the measure argued that there are higher costs associated with supporting a student with LPA. Respondents also noted the importance of closing the attainment gap and argued that investing in the LPA factor would help achieve this.
Government response
We continue to believe that prior attainment data is an important tool for schools to identify pupils who are likely to need extra support. Research has shown that a pupil’s prior attainment is the strongest predictor of their likely later attainment6. We will therefore increase funding to LPA, as proposed in the second stage of our consultation.
It should be noted that while we are still spending the same amount on the LPA factor in cash terms, the proportion has dropped from 7.5% to 7.4% as a result of the additional funding which has been added to basic per-pupil funding.
We recognise that pupils with SEN are more likely to have LPA, and therefore attract funding as a result of this factor. The inclusion of the LPA factor will direct additional funding to schools likely to be supporting pupils with SEN in mainstream provision, and that will help those schools to meet the additional costs to provide for these pupils. Mainstream schools are expected to cover the first £6,000 of additional costs associated with catering for pupils with SEN (ie costs above the provision provided to all pupils at the school). The LPA factor therefore provides a helpful proxy to support schools with pupils with SEN, rather than providing “double funding”.
We appreciate respondents’ concerns about the effect that reforms to national assessments may have on the stability of the LPA factor. The consultation ‘Primary assessment in England’ confirmed that the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) will remain in place, which means that the EYFSP will continue to form the basis of the primary LPA factor for 2018-19 and 2019-20. We are currently reviewing responses to the primary assessment consultation and will respond in due course. We will keep the primary LPA factor under review as proposals on primary assessment evolve.
We recognise that some respondents expressed concern about the risk of perverse incentives, with schools deliberately pursuing low attainment or failing to collaborate in order to obtain higher levels of funding through the formula. However we believe this risk
6 Taggart B and others, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, + Birkbeck, University of London, University of Oxford, ‘Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education (EPPSE 3-16+)’, 2008; Sutherland A, Ilie S, Vignoles A, RAND Europe and the University of Cambridge, ‘Factors associated with achievement: key stages 2 and 4’, November 2015
28 is very small. The robust accountability system that we have in place is designed to ensure that all schools are held to account for providing their pupils with an excellent education and to maximise their chances of success. iv) English as an additional language (EAL) at 1.2%
Total Percentage Allocate a higher proportion 3112 12% The proportion is about right 9411 37% Allocate a lower proportion 5497 22% Not Answered 7202 29%
Summary of responses
A majority of those who answered the question felt that the proposed weighting was about right. Many of those respondents however, wanted the detail of the measure to be further refined. A large number of respondents were concerned about the methodology for EAL, particularly determining EAL eligibility. EAL funding is distributed on the basis of a school census question that identifies any child with a mother tongue other than English, not just those who are acquiring English as a second language. This means that bilingual pupils attract EAL funding when it is not necessarily needed. Respondents also thought that EAL students often already attract funding from deprivation factors, acting as a proxy for EAL.
The length of time students are eligible for funding was also a concern for respondents. Some respondents said three years was too long as intensive support was only needed at the beginning, and it could then be tapered off. Others respondents were concerned that three years was too short and some secondary schools would never attract funding for EAL students who continued to need support.
Respondents arguing for a lower amount to be allocated to EAL often argued that EAL students tended to attain well compared to their non-EAL peers once they had caught up.
Government response
We continue to believe that it is important to include an EAL factor in the formula as EAL creates additional costs for schools. We will therefore direct 1.2% of total funding through the EAL factor, as proposed in the second stage of our consultation.
The department's school census now requires schools to report annually on the written and spoken English language proficiency of their individual EAL pupils, using a five-point scale that ranges from "new to English" through to "fluent". This is answered on the basis
29 of teacher assessment, not through a national test. This may allow us to better identify pupils who are in the early stages of English proficiency and who therefore need more support than those who are bilingual. As set out in the second stage of our consultation, we will keep this data under review to assess its appropriateness for inclusion in the funding system in the future.
We recognise that some respondents expressed concern about the length of time for which pupils would attract EAL funding. We continue to believe that EAL3 (that is, funding for the first three years after a pupil with EAL joins the education system) is more appropriate than EAL1 or EAL2 (funding for the first year or first two years). As set out in the first stage of our consultation, we believe that it is right to apply a longer-lasting measure given that some pupils will need sustained support over a longer period of time. The use of EAL3 within the national funding formula is not intended to suggest every pupil receiving such support will require it for three years; some students will require support over a longer period, and some shorter.
Question 6: Mobility
Q.6 Do you have any suggestions about potential indicators and data sources we could use to allocate mobility funding in 2019-20 and beyond?
A large proportion of respondents chose not to respond or did not include substantive comments. There over 9,000 comments received on this question.
Summary of responses
In the stage one government response we confirmed that the national funding formula would have a mobility factor to recognise the additional administrative costs of pupil churn in-year, but that we would fund local authorities for it on the basis of historic spend in 2018-19 while we developed a better measure to allocate funding in future. In the stage two consultation, we sought views and suggestions on how a mobility factor could operate in future.
Fewer respondents shared a view on this question than other questions. Many of those who responded noted that they did not feel they held enough knowledge on pupil mobility to make a suggestion. Some felt that until we have a fairer universal funding factor for mobility that is open and transparent, this factor should not be included in the national funding formula.
Of those who shared views and suggestions, a key theme was whether we could use school census data from each term rather than each year as a data source to allocate mobility funding. Respondents suggested that doing so could lead to greater accuracy in identifying the schools and areas with the highest level of pupil turnover during the year. As a result, schools with the highest levels of turnover could attract additional funding to
30 help support the significant impact that mobility has such as administrative costs for schools.
Some respondents suggested mobility funding should be counted as a ‘pupil-led’ rather than ‘school-led’ factor, and funding should be distributed on the basis of individual pupil data rather than an overall average turnover rate for the school.
Respondents argued that schools in areas where regiments are relocated experienced a significant turnover of pupils during the year. Some were concerned that, without mobility funding, such schools would struggle to keep a stable number of staff in the school.
Government response
The purpose of the mobility factor is to target additional funding to the schools with the highest levels of pupil turnover outside the usual points of entry, in recognition of the additional burdens this places on schools. The costs to schools associated with in-year pupil mobility were highlighted consistently during the first stage consultation. We listened to these concerns, and we are including a mobility factor in the national funding formula to recognise that some schools face additional pressures. It is counted as pupil- led funding, along with other additional needs factors.
An important issue, in developing a mobility indicator for use in the national funding formula, is that the underpinning data that we currently hold is not sufficiently robust for local authorities that do not currently use this as a factor. An interest was expressed by some respondents to be involved in our plans to review the mobility factor. We have taken note of all of the suggestions that have been made and will be looking into ways in which we can work with external stakeholders to address this issue for the longer-term.
In 2018-19 local authorities will receive mobility funding on the basis of historic spend. This means that only local authorities who have used the factor in the past will receive the associated funding. It is then for local authorities to distribute it to their schools through their local formula. We recognise the impact on local authorities that did not include a mobility factor in 2017-18 and will therefore miss out on funding for 2018-19. We will work with stakeholders to explore options for bringing in an improved mobility factor in the near future.
Question 7: Lump sum
Do you agree with the proposed lump sum amount of £110,000 for all schools?
For primary schools
31 Total Percentage Allocate a higher proportion 9740 39% The proportion is about right 5014 20% Allocate a lower proportion 2545 10% Not Answered 7923 31%
For secondary schools
Total Percentage Allocate a higher proportion 10455 41% The proportion is about right 4908 19% Allocate a lower proportion 897 4% Not Answered 8962 36%
Summary of responses
Over a third of respondents did not answer the question. A majority of those who answered supported a higher value for the lump sum for both primary schools and secondary schools.
There was some support for having a single sum for both primary and secondary schools. Some respondents suggested the lump sum value should be varied; however, there was no consensus about whether secondary or primary schools should attract more funding. Some suggested it should be varied by school condition or size and that there should be local flexibility in setting the amount.
Some respondents suggested raising the lump sum to the national average. There were concerns about whether the lump sum and basic per-pupil funding are sufficient for schools that do not attract significant amounts of funding through the additional needs factors. Specific concerns were raised about small schools, especially those that would attract less funding through the lump sum factor than they did under the local funding formula.
Conversely, a few respondents argued the lump sum should be reduced over time and brought into the basic per-pupil funding to encourage efficiency.
There was a call from some respondents to define the fixed costs the lump sum is intended to cover, with some suggesting using an activity-led model. Many respondents seemed to believe the lump sum was intended to cover capital costs or specific salary
32 costs, with a few believing it is intended to cover all labour or capital costs.
Many respondents recognised that the lump sum provided greater funding stability. A number of respondents also recognised that increasing the lump sum would likely lead to the reductions in the basic per-pupil funding.
Government response
Having carefully considered the consultation responses, we remain committed to providing the lump sum of £110,000 to all primary and secondary schools. At the moment there is insufficient evidence to vary the funding based on either the stage of education or other school characteristics.
Given the responses summarised above, it is important that we clarify that the lump sum is not intended to be used or to be sufficient for any specific expenditure. It is rather intended to reduce the fluctuations in funding due to changes in pupil-led factors by providing a fixed basic amount not related to those factors. As many respondents recognised, this is particularly important for schools that have relatively low pupil numbers but relatively high fixed costs.
As we have stated in our stage 1 consultation response, we do not think it appropriate to specify exactly how schools are supposed to spend this funding or to base it on an activity-led model, as schools should be free to choose an operating model most suitable to their particular circumstances.
Having considered responses to the stage 2 consultation we have adjusted the formula to ensure that every school will attract more funding per pupil. In 2018-19, the formula will provide as a minimum, a 0.5% per-pupil cash increase in respect of every school; and by 2019-20, an increase of 1%, compared to baselines. The historical lump sum will be included in the baseline, so allocations for schools whose lump sum payments were much higher than £110,000 will be protected by this decision.
We are also ensuring that all schools will attract a minimum level of per-pupil funding through the formula. We believe this will address concerns about funding for schools that are due to attract a reduction in their lump sum and/or do not attract a lot of funding through the additional needs factors. As a result of the changes we have introduced, rural primary schools will attract average gains of 3.8% compared to 1.7% under the stage 2 proposals, and rural secondary schools will attract average gains of 4.0% compared to 0.6% under the stage 2 proposals.
We are also committed to supporting a more productive and efficient school system and will continue our support for schools and school leaders to improve their efficiency and make best use of their resources.
33 Question 8: Sparsity
Do you agree with the proposed amounts for sparsity funding of up to £25,000 for primary and up to £65,000 for secondary, middle and all through schools?
For primary schools
Total Percentage Allocate a higher amount 3878 15% This is about the right amount 7449 29% Allocate a lower amount 3467 14% Not Answered 10428 41%
For secondary schools
Total Percentage Allocate a higher amount 3332 13% This is about the right amount 7393 29% Allocate a lower amount 3489 14% Not Answered 11008 44%
Summary of responses
Over 40% of all respondents did not answer this question. The majority of respondents accepted that small and remote schools need an element of additional funding, with many supporting a higher level of sparsity funding.
Some respondents expressed concern that some small rural schools do not currently qualify for sparsity funding and suggested distributing the same total amount of funding to a larger number of schools at a lower rate. Some also suggested that funding should be distributed based on the degree of rurality rather than sparsity.
In particular the method of measuring distances ‘as-the-crow-flies’ received criticism with some respondents calling for a more accurate measure to reflect actual travel times.
Some respondents argued that sparsity factor is unnecessary given the lump sum funding. Others supported distributing funding purely based on pupil-led factors.
A number of respondents were concerned about the efficiency of small schools, arguing that sparsity funding might promote inefficient use of resources and act as a disincentive
34 for academies to join multi-academy trusts. Many suggested investment in transport to allow pupils to attend bigger schools further away.
Government response
We remain committed to providing funding through both the sparsity and lump sum factors. As we stated in our stage 1 response, we recognise that some schools are necessarily small and do not have the same opportunities to grow or make efficiency savings. Together with the lump sum, sparsity provides important support for these schools. We believe that together with the lump sum, this is an appropriate level of funding.
The funding is tapered to avoid cliff edges, where small pupil number changes would otherwise result in schools moving from significant additional funding to no sparsity funding. There is also a floor in the sparsity factor so that the smallest remote schools attract the full sum.
We acknowledge that the current use of ‘as-the-crow-flies’ distances in distributing sparsity funding can be improved. We will use it to distribute sparsity funding in 2018-19, but will investigate the possibility of refining this method to reflect actual journey distance in the future.
We decided not to include a separate rurality factor as suggested by some respondents. Given available evidence, we believe that a combination of sparsity, lump sum and pupil- led factors captures the funding needs of rural schools. Should new and compelling evidence of distinct rural deprivation not covered by these factors become available in the future, we would review it and consider revising our funding formula.
The additional funding we are investing through the formula will ensure every school, including all rural schools, will attract more funding. In 2018-19, the formula will provide, as a minimum, a 0.5% per-pupil cash increase in respect of every school; and by 2019- 20, an increase of 1%, compared to baselines. This means all rural schools will attract more funding than under our original proposals. As set out above, the additional funding means that rural primary schools will attract average gains of 3.8% compared to 1.7% under the stage 2 proposals, and rural secondary schools will attract average gains of 4.0% compared to 0.6% under the stage 2 proposals.
We are also committed to supporting a more productive and efficient school system and will continue our support for schools and school leaders to improve their efficiency and make best use of their resources.
35 Question 9: Growth
Q.9 Do you agree that lagged pupil growth data would provide an effective basis for the growth factor in the longer term?
Summary of responses
A large proportion of respondents chose not to respond to this question or did not include substantive comments. There were almost 13,000 substantive comments.
The second stage consultation document proposed that for 2018-19 we would allocate funding for growth in pupil numbers to local authorities on the basis of historic spend in line with our approach for the premises and mobility factors. This would represent a significant improvement on the current arrangements where growing local authorities receive no additional support. In the consultation we explored different options for funding growth in the longer term, including using school capacity survey (SCAP) data and Office for National Statistics (ONS) population projections. Our proposal for the longer term was to have a growth factor based on lagged pupil growth data: this would fund local authorities for the growth in pupil numbers experienced in the previous year, ensuring growth was funded in full on a consistent basis across local authorities, just one year after the growth occurred.
There was some support for the use of lagged or historic pupil growth for funding growth after 2018-19 with respondees recognising this would ensure growth was funded accurately, albeit one year later. However, many respondees thought we should have a more extensive review considering other options such as funding growth in real time or using a combination of projections and in-year adjustments. Some respondees also suggested using alternative data sources, such as birth rates or housing data.
Some respondees raised concern about using lagged or historic growth for funding new or growing schools.
Some respondees also raised concerns about the impact on fast growing areas of using lagged growth as they felt these areas would be consistently underfunded for the growth they were experiencing.
Government response
As set out in the consultation document, we will use historic spend on growth for 2018-19 and we will continue to look at the options for funding growth for 2019-20 and beyond. We believe there is still considerable merit in our proposal to use lagged growth as this provides certainty in the allocations prior to the financial year commencing and ensures every local authority is funded on a consistent and fair basis, according to the actual growth they experienced. However, we will also work with local authorities and others to
36 explore further the options of using projections and in-year adjustments or funding growth directly in real time according to a national unit rate prior to finalising the approach for 2019-20 and beyond.
Our proposal to use lagged or historic growth data relates to funding for local authorities, which is then distributed to schools. It is not related to how funding is allocated to schools – including those that are new or growing schools. Local authorities will continue to be responsible for funding growth at school level through their growth fund or through additions to the pupil count from the preceding October. New and growing schools will continue to be funded based on agreed estimates. Further information on our proposals for new and growing schools can be found at Question 12.
Question 10: Principle of the funding floor
Do you agree with the principle of a funding floor?
Total Percentage
Yes 13505 54%
No 8171 32%
Not Answered 3546 14%
Summary of responses
There was general support for the principle of a funding floor, with over half of respondents agreeing with this. Regardless of support or opposition to the floor, many respondents used this space to argue that there is not enough money for schools. A high proportion of respondents to this question were from areas where there were campaigns related to the national funding formula and nearly half of the respondents that were not in support of a floor were concentrated in three local authority areas (Cambridgeshire, West Sussex and Cheshire East).
Respondents who supported a funding floor argued that stability in the system was important, and that large losses would be unmanageable for schools to accommodate alongside cost pressures. Respondents also thought that more money should be allocated to schools, arguing that the overall amount was not sufficient.
Respondents who disagreed with the principle of a funding floor argued that a floor builds in historic unfairness by protecting overfunded schools at the expense of underfunded schools. They argued this was done by preventing underfunded schools from gaining as much or as quickly as they would without a floor. They thought the minimum funding
37 guarantee (MFG) of minus 1.5% per pupil per year was sufficient protection for schools, and suggested that the floor should be phased out over time to make the formula fairer.
Government response
We believe that both stability and fairness are integral to introducing a national funding formula. Schools need to have stability in order to plan ahead and manage their finances. We listened carefully to the many concerns we heard during the consultation period from schools and local areas that would have lost money through our proposed formula.
All schools will therefore attract a cash increase of at least 1% by 2019-20 through the fomula, compared to their baselines. Within local formulae, local authorities will continue to apply the MFG, and will have a new flexibility over the level of the MFG locally. Following consultation, local authorities will be able to fix the level of the MFG between minus 1.5% and 0% per pupil.
We understand the concerns from some respondents that the funding floor would restrict the gains they will see under the formula, and the national funding formula will provide for gains for underfunded schools of up to 3% per pupil in each of 2018-19 and in 2019-20.
Question 11: Level of the funding floor
Do you support our proposal to set the funding floor at minus 3%?
Total Percentage
Yes 2249 10%
No – the floor should be lower (i.e. allow losses of more 6281 25% than £% per pupil)
No – the floor should be higher (i.e. restrict losses to less 10976 44% than 3% per pupil)
Not Answered 5516 22%
Summary of responses
The responses to this question were broadly similar to those in Question 10 and many respondents referenced their answers to the previous question. Most respondents thought that the floor should be higher, and therefore restrict losses to less than 3% per pupil.
38 Respondents who supported setting the floor at minus 3% tended to support the proposal because it provided schools facing losses under the proposals with stability to plan ahead and to manage change. Respondents felt that losses of greater than 3% could be unmanageable and unsustainable for schools.
Respondents who felt the floor should be higher argued that there is not enough money for schools and/or that schools are already facing pressures,. They reasoned that this meant schools should be protected from future losses by a higher floor. There were a significant number of responses quoting figures on the losses specific institutions were forecast to lose, suggesting that even with a funding floor of minus 3%, losses would be unmanageable or unsustainable. There were also comments suggesting that a minus 3% floor would make small schools unsustainable.
As noted above, respondents who thought the floor should be lower argued that the funding floor built unfairness into the formula and continued to overfund some schools by locking in historic funding.
There were some areas where respondents were unclear on our proposals. Some respondents were unclear how long the funding floor would apply for, and what would happen if the floor was removed.
A few respondents suggested varying the level of protection so that schools facing the greatest reductions would see their funding reduced faster than those facing small reductions. There was no consensus on an alternative to the minus 3% floor, with respondents suggesting alternative floors between 0 and 10%. Some respondents argued the floor should be set according to a minimum level of per-pupil funding of £4,800.
Government response
As set out above, we will increase the funding floor from minus 3% per pupil, so that every school will attract at least a 1% per pupil cash increase by 2019-20 over its 2017- 18 baseline, while providing for gains of up to 3% per pupil for underfunded schools in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Question 12: New and growing schools
Q.12 Do you agree that for new or growing schools (i.e. schools that are still filling up and do not have pupils in all year groups yet) the funding floor should be applied to the per-pupil funding they would have received if they were at full capacity?
39 Total Percentage Agree 9423 37% Disagree 6571 26% Not Answered 9228 37%
Summary of responses
Overall there was support for this proposal.
Many respondents who agreed with the proposal felt it would ease the transition for schools from new and growing to full. However, some respondents stated that the proposal was appropriate only if the new school was in an area of high pupil growth.
Respondents who disagreed were concerned that this would lead to overfunding of new and growing schools at a detriment to existing schools.
Some respondents believed that school that were adding a new phase (such as an infant school, adding a junior school) should be classified as a new and growing school.
There was a campaign from some local authorities that supported the proposal but expressed concern about overfunding and requested local flexibility to disapply the MFG in exceptional circumstances.
Government response
As set out in the consultation document, we will apply the funding floor for new or growing schools with reference to their “if full” per-pupil baseline: the funding they would have received per-pupil in 2017-18 if they were at full capacity. This means that new and growing schools will attract at least 1% of funding per pupil above their “if full” baseline by 2019-20.
This will ensure that these schools are treated in a comparable way to other schools in the calculation of the funding floor. The funding floor calculation takes account of the change to the total of pupil-led and school-led funding on a per-pupil basis, in a similar way to the current minimum funding guarantee calculation used by local authorities. Using 2017-18 data for new and growing schools would skew this calculation, as, while a school is still filling up, the school-led funding is significantly bigger on a per-pupil basis than for full schools. Thus any change in the school-led funding captured in the baseline for the funding floor would be divided by a small number of pupils, either penalising the growing school (if the national funding formula lump sum is higher than their local authority’s current lump sum) or unfairly overfunding it (if the national funding formula lump sum is lower than their local authority’s current lump sum). The fairest approach for
40 new and growing schools is therefore to use their “if full” baseline for the funding floor calculation.
New and growing schools will continue to be funded under the national funding formula for the current number of pupils in their schools: the use of the “if full” baseline is only for the purposes of calculating the funding floor. For some new and growing schools, the level of the funding floor will actually be lower than their current per-pupil funding. This is because growing schools experience higher per-pupil funding in their early years, as their school-led funding is divided by a smaller number of pupils. As the school’s pupil numbers grow, their school-led funding will remain the same, and so the overall per-pupil level of funding will decrease.
New and growing schools that will see a fall in their per-pupil funding under the national funding formula will be protected by a year on year limit on change to per-pupil funding of minus 1.5% per pupil. New and growing schools that will see an increase in the per-pupil funding under the national funding formula will not be subject to the gains cap. This is consistent with existing regulations, which exempt new and growing schools from any cap on gains in local formulae. When local authorities calculate actual allocations for new and growing schools, they must be funded on estimated numbers and, as stated above, are exempt from any cap on gains in the local formula. Local authorities will also be able to ask to disapply the local minimum funding guarantee as they do now if they feel that is appropriate.
For the purposes of the national funding formula, we will define new and growing schools as maintained schools, free schools, or academies that the local authority has told us:
• have opened within the last 7 years, • do not have pupils in all year groups yet, and, • have an “if full” pupil count that is at least 15 pupils greater than their 2017-18 pupil count.
For further information on the calculation of the funding formula for new and growing schools, please refer to the annex on new and growing schools, which has been published alongside the technical notes.
41 Question 13: Minimum funding guarantee (MFG)
Q.13 Do you support our proposal to continue the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) at minus 1.5%?
Total Percentage Yes 7386 29% No – the minimum funding guarantee should be lower (i.e. 4644 18% allow losses of more than 1.5% per pupil in any year) No – the minimum funding guarantee should be higher 9081 36% (i.e. restrict losses to less than 1.5% per pupil in any year) Not Answered 4111 16%
Summary of responses
Respondents who agreed with our proposal stated that it would provide stability, and would enable schools to plan their budgets ahead. Those in favour of our proposals also stated that the proposed MFG provides adequate protection to schools that are losing. Local authority representatives were particularly supportive of our proposal.
Respondents who wanted a lower (less generous) MFG thought that continuing at minus 1.5% per pupil would protect schools that are currently overfunded, and prevent gains being allocated to underfunded schools quickly enough. Some respondents thought the floor should be removed because the MFG was sufficient to protect schools which would see reductions to their budget as a result of the formula.
Respondents who wanted the MFG to be higher (more generous) were concerned about the difficulties for schools losing under the formula, and the turbulence the formula could cause to those schools.
Many respondents also argued for no losses – suggesting there should not need to be a MFG, and requesting a ‘levelling up’ of funding (i.e. a 0% floor).
Government response
We have listened carefully to the concerns raised during the consultation period, especially the request that no school should lose as a result of the national funding formula. The national funding formula will provide for a cash increase of at least 1% in respect of all schools by 2019-20, compared to their baseline.
Under a ‘soft’ formula, local authorities will remain responsible for determining schools’ budgets according to their local formulae. The MFG will therefore continue to allow local authorities some level of flexibility to reflect local circumstances and to help smooth the
42 transition towards the national funding formula. We are introducing a new limited flexibility to allow local authorities to set an MFG of between 0% and minus 1.5% per pupil, to allow them to set a more protective MFG in their local formulae if they choose to do so.
Question 14: Other considerations
Q.14 Are there any further considerations we should be taking into account with the schools national funding formula?
No quantitative data was collected on this question. There were almost 18,000 substantive comments.
Summary of responses
This question gave respondents a further opportunity to comment on our proposals for schools funding. A number of campaigns were received on this question, relating specifically to overall funding in the system and cost pressures, which could result in a reduced curriculum or school hours, teacher redundancies and an increased reliance on parental donations.
There was a strong support for minimum levels of per-pupil funding for schools. While a range of figures was quoted, several campaigns suggested that the minimum should be £4,800 per pupil for secondary schools.
Many respondents asked about how and when the formula would be reviewed and how schools and parents would be involved in this review. Related to this, there was a request for stability in the system so schools could plan their budgets properly, with a suggested three year review period.
There were several local campaigns which requested the area cost adjustment be changed to include further local costs, such as water rates, teacher recruitment and retention rates and higher living costs.
Government response
Most of the responses to this question were also raised in relation to other questions, and we have responded to them elsewhere in this document.
As set out in Chapter 1 of the policy document on the national funding formula for schools and high needs which is published alongside this document, the national funding formulae will distribute funding to schools and local authorities on a more rational basis. The formulae as set out in the policy document will be the basis for allocations in 2018-19
43 and 2019-20, supported by the additional investment announced to Parliament in July. Spending plans beyond 2019-20 will be set in a future Spending Review.
Question 15: Central school services block – deprivation factor
Do you agree that we should allocate 10% of funding through a deprivation factor in the central school services block?
Total Percentage Yes 5044 20% No – A higher proportion should be allocated to the 1767 7% deprivation factor No – A lower proportion should be allocated to the 2593 10% deprivation factor No – There should not be a deprivation factor 4300 17% Not Answered 11518 46%
Summary of responses
A large proportion of respondents did not answer this question.
Around 84% of local authorities who responded to this question agreed with the principle of having a deprivation factor, whilst around 47% of local authorities who responded to this question agreed with our proposal to allocate 10% of funding for ongoing functions through a deprivation factor.
Within the group of respondents who agreed with our proposal, many argued that local authorities in deprived areas are likely to incur higher costs, which should be reflected in the formula.
Of those who would like a higher proportion to be allocated to deprivation, some said that local authorities with high levels of deprivation would have disproportionately high costs associated with education welfare services.
Many respondents who said that they would like a lower proportion of funding to be allocated to deprivation argued that the majority of services covered by the central school services block are not affected by deprivation and, therefore, the proposed proportion of 10% is too high.
Some respondents argued that a deprivation factor is not needed for the central school services block formula as deprivation is already included in the schools block formula.
44 Government response
We will pursue the proposal set out in the consultation as we believe it is the fairest and most appropriate way to recognise the importance of particular central services for schools, specifically education welfare services, in areas with high levels of socio- economic deprivation.
It is important to note that the central school services block is separate from the schools and high needs blocks of funding. This block provides funding for local authorities in respect of the duties they carry out on behalf of all pupils, both in maintained schools and academies. The number of academies will therefore not affect this funding.
The central school services block provides funding for local authorities, rather than schools. The schools block is a separate funding stream to the central school services block. The schools block funding stream is for schools to ensure they can provide an excellent education for all pupils. The central school services block will be given to local authorities to reflect the ongoing local authority role in education.
Question 16: Central school services block – protection
Do you support our proposal to limit reductions on local authorities' central school services block funding to 2.5% per pupil in 2018-19 and in 2019-20?
Total Percentage Yes 5423 22% No – allow losses of more than 2.5% per pupil per year 2477 10% No – limit losses to less than 2.5% per pupil per year 5854 23% Not Answered 11468 46%
Summary of responses
A large proportion of respondents did not answer this question.
Of the local authorities that responded, approximately 38% agreed with our proposal to limit losses to 2.5% per pupil per year, and approximately 55% said that losses should be limited to less than 2.5%.
Respondents who agreed with our proposals said that this would provide stability and allow local authorities to plan in the longer term, while still redressing historical inequalities in a timely manner.
45 Respondents who want losses to be limited to less than 2.5% said that they believed any loss of funding should be in line with the minimum funding guarantee for schools of minus 1.5%. Some respondents also suggested that, as the Education Services Grant (ESG) general duties rate has been removed, reductions to the central school services block should be capped at 0%.
Of those who believe that losses greater than 2.5% should be allowed, many respondents argued that restricting losses to 2.5% would perpetuate unfairness in the system and would limit gains for local authorities which stand to gain under the national funding formula.
Government response
Having considered the consultation responses, we have concluded we will pursue the proposal to limit reductions to the central school services block to 2.5% per pupil in 2018- 19 and 2019-20.
It is important that we move towards a formulaic distribution at a manageable pace to avoid excessive changes to local authority budgets. This is why we will pursue a gradual transition, with a protection for local authorities that face a reduction in their overall allocations.
We understand that some respondents would like to see the protection set in line with the minimum funding guarantee of minus 1.5% per pupil, however we believe that local authorities which have been spending considerably more than other local authorities should be able to adjust their spend to bring them in line with other local authorities that spend less delivering the same services.
Question 17: Central school services block – other considerations
Are there further considerations we should be taking into account about the proposed central school services block formula?
No quantitative data was collected on this question. There were over 6,000 substantive comments.
Summary of responses
A campaign from Cambridgeshire suggested that the highest-funded local authorities should see greater decreases in their budgets and the lowest-funded local authorities should see greater increases, effectively resulting in a tapered protection for the central school services block.
46 Some respondents requested clarity regarding the future use of funding for historic commitments that have wound down.
Some respondents suggested that current arrangements, in which schools are able to pool funding so that the local authority can provide certain services, should be allowed to continue in the interests of efficiency.
Some respondents, particularly those from London, argued that the area cost adjustment was insufficient for the costs of providing services within the capital.
Respondents were also concerned about the overall levels of funding for the central school services block, saying that the removal of the Education Services Grant (ESG) general duties rate will result in pressures on central services overall.
Government response
After consideration, we have concluded that no further changes should be made to the central school services block.
While we appreciate that there would be some benefits to a tapered protection, it would also create a complex formula which risks confusion in the system. On balance we have decided that we want to maintain the simplicity of the central school services block formula.
As set out in the second stage of our consultation, in 2018-19 we expect local authorities to recycle funding that is no longer needed for historic commitments into schools, high needs or early years. We will set out our long-term intention for funding released from historic commitments at a later point.
On the subject of pooled arrangements, under a soft national funding formula in 2018-19 and 2019-20, local areas will be free to continue using these as they have done before. We will consider if it is appropriate to make adjustments to the way these arrangements work at a later date.
On the subject of the area cost adjustment, the General Labour Market (GLM) method takes into account the labour costs in different areas, and therefore should reflect the additional costs of employing staff in metropolitan areas.
It should be noted that whilst the ESG general funding rate has now been phased out, funding previously delivered through the ESG retained duties rate will continue to be distributed through the central school services block.
The department recognises that local authorities will need to use other sources of funding to cover the costs of the duties that were previously covered by the ESG general funding rate. This has been reflected in the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2017, which allowed local authorities to retain some of their maintained
47 schools’ DSG to cover the statutory duties that they carry out on behalf of maintained schools. Further information on this can be found as part of the Schools Revenue Funding Operational Guide.
48 Equalities analysis
There were 5,838 responses were received on the equality analysis. The vast majority of responses received were unrelated to the protected characteristics identified in the Equality Act 2010 for the public sector equality duty. Of those that do mention protected characteristics the main issues that were raised are:
• Age – some respondents were concerned that reductions in funding suggested by our proposals could potentially incentivise premature retirement of older teachers in favour of younger, potentially less costly teachers. • Sex – some respondents were concerned that the attainment gap between boys and girls could result in funding levels which disproportionately benefit a particular sex. • Race – some respondents expressed concern that the introduction of the national funding formula for schools could adversely affect ethnic minority groups. A response to the concerns raised and an equalities analysis for the final formula can be found in the Equalities Impact Assessment document, which is published alongside this document.
49 Annex 1 – List of organisations that responded to the second stage of consultation
This list of stakeholder organisations was drawn from the online form submitted. This list may not be exhaustive as other organisations may have engaged and contributed to the consultation response through other channels such as meetings with ministers and through other forms of correspondence.
Achieving for Children Association of Colleges Association of Liverpool Special Schools Headteachers Association of London Directors of Children's Services Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) Association of Secondary Headteachers in Essex (ASHE) Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Bedford Borough Council Birmingham Association of School Business Management Birmingham City Council Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Blackpool Council Bolton Council Borough of Poole Bournemouth Borough Council Bracknell Forest Council Brighton & Hove City Council Bristol City Council Buckinghamshire County Council Bury Council Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Cambridgeshire County Council Cambridgeshire Primary Heads Association
50 Catholic Education Service Central Bedfordshire Council Cheshire East Council Cheshire West and Chester Association of Governing Bodies Cheshire West and Chester Council Cheshire West Association of Secondary Headteachers City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council City of York Council Cornwall Council Coventry City Council Cumbria County Council Derby City Council Derbyshire County Council Devon Association of Primary Headteachers (DAPH) Devon Association of Secondary Headteachers (DASH) Devon County Council Diocesan Board of Education Diocese of Hereford Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Dorset County Council Durham County Council East Riding of Yorkshire Council East Sussex County Council Education Datalab Education Policy Institute (EPI) Essex County Council Essex Primary Headteachers' Association Freedom and Autonomy for Schools National Association (FASNA) Gateshead Council Gloucestershire County Council GMB Trade Union Gosport Borough Council
51 Grammar School Heads' Association (GSHA) Halton Local Authority Hampshire County Council Haringey Council Hartlepool Borough Council Hertfordshire County Council Hull City Council Institute for Fiscal Studies Isle of Wight Council Kent County Council Kirklees Council Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council Lancashire County Council Lead Association for Catering in Education (LACA) Leeds City Council Leicester City Council Leicestershire County Council Lincolnshire County Council Liverpool Governors' Forum Local Government Association (LGA) London Borough of Barking and Dagenham London Borough of Barnet London Borough of Bexley London Borough of Brent London Borough of Bromley London Borough of Camden London Borough of Croydon London Borough of Ealing London Borough of Enfield London Borough of Hackney London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough of Haringey
52 London Borough of Harrow London Borough of Havering London Borough of Hillingdon London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Islington London Borough of Lambeth London Borough of Lewisham London Borough of Merton London Borough of Newham London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Richmond upon Thames London Borough of Sutton London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Borough of Waltham Forest London Councils London Diocesan Board for Schools Luton Borough Council Manchester City Council Mayor of London Medway Council Milton Keynes Council NALDIC, the national subject association for English as an additional language National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) National Association of School Business Managers (NASBM) National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) National Governors' Association National Network of Parent Carer Forums National Teaching and Advisory Service National Union of Teachers (NUT) Newcastle City Council Norfolk County Council North East Lincolnshire Council
53 North Lincolnshire Council North Somerset Council North Tyneside Council North Yorkshire County Council Northamptonshire County Council Northern Association of Support Services for Equality and Achievement (NASSEA) Northumberland County Council Nottingham City Council Nottinghamshire County Council Oldham Council Oxfordshire County Council Oxfordshire Education Scrutiny Committee Peterborough City Council Plymouth City Council Portsmouth City Council Rochdale Borough Council Royal Borough of Greenwich Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Rutland County Council Salford City Council School-Home Support (SHS) SCHOOLS NorthEast Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Sheffield Association of School Governing Bodies Sheffield City Council Shepway District Council Shropshire Council Slough Borough Council Solihull Metropolitan Council Somerset Association of Secondary Headteachers South Cambridgeshire District Council
54 South Gloucestershire Council South Tyneside Council Southampton City Council Southwark Council Southwark Diocesan Board of Education Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (SIGOMA) St Helens Council Staffordshire County Council Stockport Council Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Suffolk Secondary Heads' Association Suffolk County Council Sunderland City Council Surrey County Council Surrey Governors' Association Surrey Secondary Headteachers' Phase Council Swindon Borough Council Teach First Telford & Wrekin Council The Bell Foundation The f40 Group of Local Authorities The Sutton Trust and Education Endowment Foundation Thurrock Council Torbay Local Authority Trafford Council UNISON Voice, the union for education professionals Wakefield Council Wandsworth Council Warrington Borough Council West Berkshire Council West Sussex County Council
55 West Sussex Governors' Association Westminster City Council Wigan Council Wiltshire Association of Secondary and Special school Headteachers Wiltshire Council Wirral Council Wokingham Borough Council Wolverhampton City Council Worcestershire County Council
56
© Crown copyright 2017 This document/publication (not including logos) is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
To view this licence: visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 email [email protected] write to Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London, TW9 4DU
About this publication: enquiries www.education.gov.uk/contactus download www.gov.uk/government/consultations
Reference: DFE-00255-2017
Follow us on Twitter: Like us on Facebook: @educationgovuk facebook.com/educationgovuk
57 APPENDIX B
DFE KEY CONCLUSIONS TO THEIR STAGE 2 CONSULTATION FOR SCHOOLS AND HIGH NEEDS
Question Consultation DfE Key Conclusions Theme 1 Balance between Overall fairness and The introduction of the NFF and the additional stability investment will give schools a firm foundation for the future.
Final NFF Will increase both the basic amount that every pupil will attract in 2018-19 and 2019-20 and the level of the funding floor. No school will lose from the NFF it will instead provide a cash increase of at least 1% per pupil over the two year period. Provide a minimum funding level of £4,800 per pupil for secondary schools and a minimum funding level of £3,500 per pupil for primary schools in 2019-20, with transitional minimum amounts of £4,600 and £3,300 in 2018-19.
NFF Construction DfE view that there is no ‘one size fits all’ model for running a school on which to base the NFF. Constructing such a model would require government to make arbitrary decisions on questions like the appropriate class size and pupil to teacher ratios. These are decisions on which experts in the education sector do not necessarily agree and for which there is unlikely to be an answer that is appropriate in all circumstances. DfE contend the responses confirmed that there is no consensus on what would constitute a minimum level of funding that is required to provide an adequate education. DfE conclude it would not be appropriate for the government to base the school funding system on an activity-led model. 2 Primary to The best option is to maintain the current national secondary ratio average distribution of funding between the primary and secondary phases. There is no strong case to make significant change to the current balance between the phases. The NFF will have a national primary to secondary ratio of 1:1.29 – this is a national ratio and LAs will continue to be responsible for setting a local ratio. 3 Pupil-led funding The majority of funding should be related to schools’ pupil cohorts and their characteristics. Need to maximise spending on pupil-led factors. Need to increase the funding to basic per-pupil funding while continuing to protect additional needs funding. 4 Proportion of Need to protect additional needs funding in the funding allocated NFF in order to recognise additional needs in a to additional broad sense. needs There is a strong case for such funding and for the pupil premium will be maintained alongside the NFF. Need to increase the funding to basic per-pupil funding while continuing to protect additional needs funding. 5 Weightings for Deprivation, as a subset of additional needs, additional needs needs a substantial weighting within the formula. factors Need to use both FSM and IDACI on all 6 bands in order to identify both pupil and area based deprivation. The inclusion of the LPA factor will direct additional funding to schools likely to be supporting pupils with SEN in mainstream provision. Appreciate concerns about the effect that reforms to national assessments may have on the stability of the LPA factor. The risk of schools deliberately pursuing LPA is very small. Important to include an EAL factor in the formula as this creates additional costs for schools. 6 Mobility Need for a mobility factor in the NFF to recognise that some schools face additional pressures. In 2018-19 LAs will receive mobility funding on the basis of historic spend. It will be for LAs to distribute it to their schools through their local formula. 7 Lump Sum Committed to the lump sum of £110,000 for all primary and secondary schools. Insufficient evidence to vary the funding based on either the stage of education or other school characteristics. 8 Sparsity Committed to providing funding through the sparsity factor. Funding is to be tapered to avoid cliff edges, where small pupil number changes would otherwise result in schools moving from significant additional funding to no sparsity funding. Need for a floor so that the smallest remote schools attract the full sum. Acknowledge that the use of ‘as-the-crow-flies’ distances can be improved – it will be used to distribute sparsity funding in 2018-19, but DfE will investigate the possibility of refining this method to reflect actual journey distance in the future. Not to include a separate rurality factor. A combination of sparsity, lump sum and pupil-led factors captures the funding needs of rural schools. 9 Growth The use of historic spend on growth for 2018-19 and to continue to look at the options for funding growth for 2019-20 and beyond. Need to work with LAs and others to explore further the options of using projections and in-year adjustments or funding growth directly in real time according to a national unit rate prior to finalising the approach for 2019-20 and beyond. 10 Principle of the LAs will continue to apply the MFG, and will have a funding floor new flexibility over the level of the MFG locally. LAs will be able to fix the level of the MFG between -1.5% and 0% per pupil. NFF will provide for gains of up to +3% per pupil in each of 2018-19 and in 2019-20. 11 Level of the Need to increase the funding floor from -3% per funding floor pupil in the original proposals, so that every school will attract at least a +1% per pupil cash increase by 2019-20 over its 2017-18 baseline. NFF will provide for gains of up to +3% per pupil for underfunded schools in 2018-19 and 2019-20. 12 New and growing The NFF will apply the funding floor for new or schools growing schools with reference to their 'if full' per- pupil baseline i.e. the funding they would have received per-pupil in 2017-18 if they were at full capacity. New and growing schools will continue to be funded under the NFF for the current number of pupils in their schools. 13 Minimum Funding Allowing a new limited flexibility to allow LAs to set Guarantee (MFG) an MFG of between 0% and -1.5% per pupil, to allow them to set a more protective MFG in their local formulae if they choose to do so. 14 Other NFF will distribute funding to schools and LAs on a considerations more rational basis. The NFF as set out in the policy document will be the basis for allocations in 2018-19 and 2019-20. Spending plans beyond 2019-20 will be set in a future Spending Review. 15 Central Services The proposal set out in the consultation is the Schools Block – fairest and most appropriate way to recognise the deprivation factor importance of particular central services for schools. This block provides funding for LAs to reflect the ongoing LA role in education in respect of the duties they carry out on behalf of all pupils, both in maintained schools and academies. The number of academies will therefore not affect this funding. 16 Central Services The proposal to limit reductions to the central Schools Block – school services block to -2.5% per pupil in 2018-19 protection and 2019-20 will be in place to allow a gradual transition. Not appropriate to set the protection in line with the MFG of -1.5% per pupil. 17 Central Services No further changes will be made to the Central Schools Block – Services Schools Block. other In 2018-19 DfE expect LAs to recycle funding that considerations is no longer needed for historic commitments into schools, high needs or early years. The DfE long-term intentions for funding released from historic commitments will be made at a later point. Funding previously delivered through the ESG retained duties rate will continue to be distributed through the Central Services Schools Block.
National funding formula: Impact of the schools national funding formula- all schools
The school's baseline funding is the total core In the first year of the NFF local authorities (LAs) will continue to determine In the second year of the NFF LAs will continue to determine funding locally. funding received in 2017-18 (or 2017/18) through the funding locally. These columns show the amount the department will allocate to These columns show the amount the department will allocate to LAs in respect schools block and MFG. Other grants/funding LAs in respect of each school in 2018-19, subject to pupil number changes, and of each school in 2019-20, subject to pupil number and pupil characteristics sources are excluded. the percentage difference between this amount and the school's baseline changes, and the percentage difference between this amount and the school's funding and pupil-led baseline funding. baseline funding and pupil-led baseline funding. LA level allocations in 2018-19 will be updated to reflect up to date pupil LA level allocations in 2019-20 will be updated to reflect up to date pupil numbers. numbers and pupil characteristics.
Baseline funding Notional NFF funding in 2018-19 (year 1) Illustrative NFF funding in 2019-20 (year 2)
Flag for schools that New and Baseline funding Baseline funding Notional total NFF funding Percentage change Percentage change in Illustrative total NFF Percentage change Percentage change in Region LA number LA name LAESTAB URN School Name Phase are only open growing (as though the school is (2017-18) in 2018-19 compared to baseline pupil-led funding funding in 2019-20 compared to baseline pupil-led funding for part of the School full in 2017-18) year
[a] [b] [c] [d] = [c]/[a] - 1 [e] [f] = [e] / [a] - 1
West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853000 116780 ABBERLEY PAROCHIAL PRIMARY SCH Primary £423,000 £424,000 0.4% 0.5% £426,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852119 116716 ABBEY PARK FIRST & NURSERY SCHOOL Primary £625,000 £640,000 2.4% 3.0% £640,000 2.5% 3.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852906 116774 Abbey Park Middle School Primary Middle £917,000 £921,000 0.4% 0.5% £925,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853398 142541 Abbeywood First School Primary £914,000 £938,000 2.6% 3.0% £947,000 3.6% 4.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854575 116983 Alvechurch C.E. Middle School Secondary Middle £1,958,000 £2,006,000 2.5% 2.5% £2,018,000 3.1% 2.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854008 138505 Arrow Vale RSA Academy Secondary £2,907,000 £2,991,000 2.9% 3.0% £3,077,000 5.9% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852006 116650 ASHTON-UNDER-HILL FIRST SCHOOL Primary £434,000 £436,000 0.4% 0.5% £437,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853300 116864 Astley C E Primary School Primary £416,000 £423,000 1.5% 2.1% £423,000 1.5% 2.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854401 116957 Aston Fields Middle School Secondary Middle £2,283,000 £2,334,000 2.2% 2.4% £2,334,000 2.2% 2.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852127 140258 Astwood Bank First School Primary £1,037,000 £1,050,000 1.3% 1.5% £1,050,000 1.3% 1.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852007 116651 BADSEY FIRST SCHOOL Primary £915,000 £938,000 2.5% 2.9% £938,000 2.5% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852128 116721 BATCHLEY FIRST SCHOOL Primary £1,127,000 £1,157,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,188,000 5.4% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854014 138660 Baxter College Secondary £4,128,000 £4,249,000 2.9% 3.0% £4,373,000 5.9% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853001 116781 Bayton C.E Primary Primary £461,000 £463,000 0.4% 0.5% £464,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852197 116768 Beaconside Primary/Nursery Sch Primary £783,000 £791,000 1.1% 1.3% £791,000 1.1% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853002 116782 Belbroughton C.E. Primary School Primary £574,000 £576,000 0.4% 0.5% £578,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853041 140932 Bengeworth CE Academy Primary £1,708,000 £1,739,000 1.8% 2.0% £1,739,000 1.8% 2.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852008 116652 Beoley First School Primary £426,000 £436,000 2.2% 3.0% £438,000 2.7% 3.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853397 135076 Bewdley Primary School Primary £1,114,000 £1,138,000 2.2% 2.5% £1,138,000 2.2% 2.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852905 135045 BIRCHEN COPPICE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,294,000 £1,300,000 0.4% 0.5% £1,305,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854418 116967 Birchensale Middle School Secondary Middle £2,168,000 £2,229,000 2.8% 3.0% £2,291,000 5.7% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854754 138107 Bishop Perowne CofE College Secondary £4,049,000 £4,167,000 2.9% 3.0% £4,289,000 5.9% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855402 116999 BL. EDWARD OLDCORNE CATH. COLL Secondary £4,846,000 £4,987,000 2.9% 3.0% £5,071,000 4.7% 4.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854408 116960 Blackminster Middle School Secondary Middle £992,000 £1,017,000 2.6% 3.0% £1,040,000 4.9% 5.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852022 116665 Blackwell First School Primary £523,000 £525,000 0.4% 0.5% £527,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853005 116784 Blakedown C.E. Primary School Primary £552,000 £556,000 0.7% 0.9% £556,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853306 116868 BREDON HANCOCKS FIRST SCHOOL Primary £622,000 £625,000 0.4% 0.5% £627,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854400 143395 Bredon Hill Academy Secondary Middle £1,894,000 £1,936,000 2.2% 2.3% £1,936,000 2.2% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852012 116655 Bretforton First School Primary £294,000 £298,000 1.4% 2.4% £298,000 1.4% 2.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853008 116787 Broadheath C.E.Primary Primary £539,000 £542,000 0.6% 0.8% £543,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853308 116870 Broadwas C of E VA School Primary £379,000 £386,000 2.0% 3.0% £394,000 4.0% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852013 116656 BROADWAY FIRST SCHOOL Primary £427,000 £433,000 1.4% 1.9% £433,000 1.4% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852903 135040 Burlish Park Primary School Primary £1,479,000 £1,517,000 2.6% 2.8% £1,517,000 2.6% 2.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853014 116789 Callow End C.E. Primary Primary £408,000 £409,000 0.4% 0.5% £411,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853017 116791 Castlemorton CE Primary School Primary £405,000 £407,000 0.4% 0.5% £408,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852015 116658 Catshill First School & Nursery Primary £933,000 £957,000 2.6% 3.0% £970,000 4.0% 4.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854402 116958 Catshill Middle School Secondary Middle £1,313,000 £1,326,000 1.0% 1.1% £1,326,000 1.0% 1.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853330 135046 Chaddesley Corbett Primary School Primary £770,000 £773,000 0.4% 0.5% £777,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852016 116659 CHARFORD FIRST SCHOOL Primary £1,581,000 £1,624,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,632,000 3.2% 3.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852036 116672 Chawson Community First School Primary £1,346,000 £1,382,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,420,000 5.5% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852121 116717 Cherry Orchard 1st School Primary £583,000 £597,000 2.4% 3.0% £600,000 2.9% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852161 116749 Cherry Orchard Primary School Primary £2,156,000 £2,216,000 2.8% 3.0% £2,222,000 3.1% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854432 136890 Christopher Whitehead Language College Secondary £5,317,000 £5,471,000 2.9% 3.0% £5,602,000 5.4% 5.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853018 116792 CHURCH LENCH C.E.FIRST SCHOOL Primary £375,000 £382,000 1.9% 3.0% £385,000 2.9% 4.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854427 142543 Church Hill Middle School Secondary Middle £1,418,000 £1,456,000 2.7% 2.9% £1,456,000 2.7% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853019 116793 CLAINES C.E.PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £724,000 £742,000 2.5% 3.0% £758,000 4.6% 5.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853020 116794 Cleeve Prior C of E 1st School Primary £238,000 £240,000 0.8% 1.6% £240,000 0.8% 1.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853022 116796 Clent Parochial Primary School Primary £443,000 £445,000 0.4% 0.5% £446,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852032 116669 Clifton-on-Teme Primary School Primary £339,000 £345,000 1.7% 3.0% £346,000 1.9% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852907 135047 Comberton Primary School Primary £1,469,000 £1,508,000 2.6% 2.9% £1,508,000 2.6% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853016 135048 COOKLEY SEBRIGHT PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £799,000 £818,000 2.3% 2.8% £818,000 2.3% 2.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852915 137697 Coppice Primary School Primary £1,845,000 £1,890,000 2.4% 2.6% £1,890,000 2.4% 2.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852001 139825 Crabbs Cross Academy Primary £954,000 £980,000 2.7% 3.0% £992,000 4.0% 4.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852162 143394 Cranham Primary School Primary £1,663,000 £1,710,000 2.8% 3.0% £1,737,000 4.5% 4.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853027 116800 Cropthorne with Charlton CE Primary £410,000 £419,000 2.2% 3.0% £428,000 4.4% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853028 116801 Crowle CofE First School Primary £319,000 £320,000 0.3% 0.5% £321,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852002 116646 Crown Meadow First School & Nursery Primary £1,206,000 £1,226,000 1.6% 1.5% £1,231,000 2.1% 1.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853316 141412 Cutnall Green CofE First Primary £404,000 £409,000 1.2% 1.6% £409,000 1.2% 1.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853029 116802 Defford-cum-Besford C.E. First Primary £272,000 £277,000 1.8% 3.0% £280,000 3.1% 5.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852163 116751 Dines Green Primary School Primary £1,018,000 £1,045,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,067,000 4.8% 5.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852034 116670 Dodford First School Primary £331,000 £332,000 0.3% 0.5% £333,000 0.6% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853208 116862 Drakes' Broughton St Barnabas CofE First and Middle School Primary Middle £1,334,000 £1,341,000 0.5% 0.5% £1,347,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854005 136927 Droitwich Spa High School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary £4,920,000 £5,064,000 2.9% 3.0% £5,175,000 5.2% 5.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854801 137186 Dyson Perrins CofE Academy Secondary £2,697,000 £2,774,000 2.9% 3.0% £2,854,000 5.8% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853038 116806 Eckington C.E. First School Primary £390,000 £392,000 0.7% 1.0% £393,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853039 116807 Eldersfield Lawn C.E.Primary Primary £443,000 £445,000 0.4% 0.5% £446,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853040 116808 Elmley Castle C.E. 1st School Primary £215,000 £222,000 3.3% 9.4% £227,000 5.9% 16.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852047 116675 Fairfield First School Primary £471,000 £472,000 0.4% 0.5% £474,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853010 135034 FAR FOREST LEA MEMORIAL CE PRIMARY Primary £530,000 £542,000 2.3% 3.0% £550,000 3.7% 4.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853091 116842 Feckenham C of E First School Primary £480,000 £491,000 2.3% 3.0% £497,000 3.4% 4.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852017 116660 Finstall First School Primary £1,045,000 £1,072,000 2.6% 3.0% £1,074,000 2.8% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853324 116879 Fladbury CE First School Primary £298,000 £303,000 1.9% 3.0% £309,000 3.8% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855201 116676 Flyford Flavell 1st School Primary £346,000 £352,000 1.9% 3.0% £359,000 3.8% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852908 135049 Foley Park Community Primary School Primary £853,000 £875,000 2.6% 3.0% £877,000 2.8% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852910 135050 Franche Community Primary Primary £2,657,000 £2,732,000 2.8% 3.0% £2,742,000 3.2% 3.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852105 136984 Great Malvern Primary School Primary £1,500,000 £1,507,000 0.5% 0.5% £1,513,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853328 142706 Great Witley CofE Primary School Primary £606,000 £608,000 0.4% 0.5% £611,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853048 116815 Grimley & Holt Primary School Primary £409,000 £410,000 0.4% 0.5% £412,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853400 135067 GROVE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £854,000 £876,000 2.6% 3.0% £898,000 5.2% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854800 141414 Hagley Catholic High School Secondary £3,914,000 £4,028,000 2.9% 3.0% £4,142,000 5.8% 6.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852055 116678 Hagley Primary School Primary £2,093,000 £2,151,000 2.8% 3.0% £2,244,000 7.2% 7.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853329 116882 Hallow Primary School Primary £717,000 £723,000 0.8% 1.0% £724,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853049 116816 Hanbury C.E.First School. Primary £460,000 £470,000 2.2% 3.0% £481,000 4.5% 6.1% National funding formula: Impact of the schools national funding formula- all schools
The school's baseline funding is the total core In the first year of the NFF local authorities (LAs) will continue to determine In the second year of the NFF LAs will continue to determine funding locally. funding received in 2017-18 (or 2017/18) through the funding locally. These columns show the amount the department will allocate to These columns show the amount the department will allocate to LAs in respect schools block and MFG. Other grants/funding LAs in respect of each school in 2018-19, subject to pupil number changes, and of each school in 2019-20, subject to pupil number and pupil characteristics sources are excluded. the percentage difference between this amount and the school's baseline changes, and the percentage difference between this amount and the school's funding and pupil-led baseline funding. baseline funding and pupil-led baseline funding. LA level allocations in 2018-19 will be updated to reflect up to date pupil LA level allocations in 2019-20 will be updated to reflect up to date pupil numbers. numbers and pupil characteristics.
Baseline funding Notional NFF funding in 2018-19 (year 1) Illustrative NFF funding in 2019-20 (year 2)
Flag for schools that New and Baseline funding Baseline funding Notional total NFF funding Percentage change Percentage change in Illustrative total NFF Percentage change Percentage change in Region LA number LA name LAESTAB URN School Name Phase are only open growing (as though the school is (2017-18) in 2018-19 compared to baseline pupil-led funding funding in 2019-20 compared to baseline pupil-led funding for part of the School full in 2017-18) year
[a] [b] [c] [d] = [c]/[a] - 1 [e] [f] = [e] / [a] - 1
West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854500 137101 Hanley Castle High School Secondary £3,769,000 £3,879,000 2.9% 3.0% £3,984,000 5.7% 5.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853051 116817 Hanley Swan Primary £438,000 £440,000 0.4% 0.5% £441,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853013 135042 Hartlebury CE Primary School Primary £655,000 £657,000 0.4% 0.5% £660,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853053 116819 Harvington CE First School Primary £644,000 £646,000 0.4% 0.5% £649,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854010 136898 Haybridge High School and Sixth Form Secondary £3,779,000 £3,928,000 3.9% 4.1% £4,099,000 8.5% 8.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852010 141246 Heronswood Primary School Primary £1,066,000 £1,095,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,104,000 3.6% 4.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853056 116821 Himbleton CE First School Primary £309,000 £316,000 2.3% 4.1% £321,000 4.1% 7.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853057 116822 Hindlip CE First Primary £415,000 £417,000 0.4% 0.5% £418,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852167 140933 Hollymount School Primary £1,485,000 £1,492,000 0.5% 0.5% £1,499,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853368 116908 HOLY REDEEMER RC PRIMARY SCH Primary £676,000 £692,000 2.5% 2.9% £692,000 2.5% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8856009 141105 Holy Trinity School All-through £2,308,000 £2,337,000 1.3% 1.3% £2,337,000 1.3% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852131 116724 Holyoakes Field First School Primary £1,053,000 £1,081,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,105,000 5.0% 5.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852921 132060 Holywell Primary School Primary £1,504,000 £1,530,000 1.7% 1.9% £1,530,000 1.7% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852078 139749 Honeybourne First School Primary £546,000 £559,000 2.4% 3.0% £560,000 2.6% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852079 116689 Inkberrow First School Primary £487,000 £489,000 0.4% 0.5% £491,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854009 139020 Ipsley CE RSA Academy Secondary Middle £2,299,000 £2,365,000 2.9% 3.0% £2,432,000 5.8% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852080 116690 KEMPSEY PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £986,000 £996,000 1.0% 1.2% £996,000 1.0% 1.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854501 138032 King Charles I School Secondary £4,824,000 £4,959,000 2.8% 3.0% £5,099,000 5.7% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852914 116776 Leigh & Bransford Primary Primary £508,000 £512,000 0.6% 0.8% £512,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852018 116661 LICKEY END FIRST SCHOOL Primary £574,000 £588,000 2.4% 3.0% £600,000 4.4% 5.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852901 116773 Lickey Hills Primary School Primary £1,398,000 £1,436,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,442,000 3.1% 3.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852904 137825 LICKHILL PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £748,000 £765,000 2.3% 2.7% £765,000 2.3% 2.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853350 116895 LINDRIDGE C E PRIMARY Primary £382,000 £389,000 2.0% 3.0% £397,000 4.0% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852918 131274 Lyppard Grange Primary School Primary £1,290,000 £1,325,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,327,000 2.9% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853353 116898 Madresfield Primary School Primary £454,000 £464,000 2.3% 3.0% £467,000 3.0% 4.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853357 116900 Malvern Parish C.E. School Primary £746,000 £765,000 2.5% 3.0% £766,000 2.6% 3.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853359 116902 Malvern Wells CE Primary Primary £420,000 £423,000 0.7% 1.0% £423,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853077 116831 MARTLEY C.E. PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £492,000 £503,000 2.2% 3.0% £514,000 4.5% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852919 140309 Matchborough First School Academy Primary £1,418,000 £1,457,000 2.8% 3.0% £1,495,000 5.4% 5.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852188 116763 Meadow Green Primary School Primary £1,081,000 £1,091,000 1.0% 1.1% £1,091,000 1.0% 1.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852019 116662 MEADOWS FIRST SCHOOL Primary £1,280,000 £1,308,000 2.2% 2.3% £1,314,000 2.7% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852020 116663 Millfield First School Primary £926,000 £950,000 2.6% 3.0% £951,000 2.7% 3.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852192 116765 Moon's Moat First School Primary £986,000 £1,012,000 2.6% 3.0% £1,029,000 4.3% 4.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854002 116928 North Bromsgrove High School Secondary £3,826,000 £3,936,000 2.9% 3.0% £3,997,000 4.5% 4.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853210 116863 Northleigh C.E. Primary School Primary £1,084,000 £1,091,000 0.7% 0.8% £1,093,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853401 143396 NORTHWICK MANOR PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £2,077,000 £2,142,000 3.1% 3.3% £2,272,000 9.4% 9.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853081 116834 Norton Juxta Kempsey CE First Primary £492,000 £503,000 2.2% 3.0% £514,000 4.5% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854434 137051 NUNNERY WOOD HIGH SCHOOL Secondary £6,156,000 £6,336,000 2.9% 3.0% £6,418,000 4.3% 4.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852172 116754 NUNNERY WOOD PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,430,000 £1,446,000 1.1% 1.3% £1,446,000 1.1% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852920 132820 Oak Hill First School Primary £1,647,000 £1,692,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,700,000 3.2% 3.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852005 140041 Oasis Academy Warndon Primary £1,954,000 £2,009,000 2.8% 3.0% £2,053,000 5.1% 5.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853082 116835 Offenham CofE First School Primary £439,000 £442,000 0.6% 0.8% £443,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852911 135052 Offmore Primary School Primary £1,104,000 £1,133,000 2.6% 3.0% £1,151,000 4.2% 4.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852202 116770 OLDBURY PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,453,000 £1,485,000 2.2% 2.4% £1,485,000 2.2% 2.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853365 116905 Ombersley Endowed 1st School Primary £496,000 £499,000 0.6% 0.7% £500,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855200 141058 Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic First School Primary £1,057,000 £1,086,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,115,000 5.5% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853387 116921 OUR LADY QUEEN OF PEACE CATHOLIC PRIMARY Primary £771,000 £788,000 2.2% 2.6% £788,000 2.2% 2.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853084 116837 Overbury C.E. First School Primary £348,000 £354,000 1.8% 3.0% £361,000 3.7% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854403 116959 Parkside Middle School Secondary Middle £2,388,000 £2,456,000 2.8% 3.0% £2,471,000 3.4% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852118 116715 Pebworth First School Primary £214,000 £217,000 1.6% 4.7% £220,000 2.9% 8.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853085 116838 Pendock C.E. Primary School Primary £305,000 £306,000 0.3% 0.5% £307,000 0.6% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852173 116755 Perdiswell Primary School Primary £1,452,000 £1,465,000 0.9% 0.9% £1,465,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852000 139001 Perry Wood Primary and Nursery School Primary £1,532,000 £1,551,000 1.2% 1.3% £1,551,000 1.2% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854030 136925 Pershore High School Secondary £4,123,000 £4,243,000 2.9% 3.0% £4,280,000 3.8% 3.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853088 116840 Pinvin CE First School Primary £516,000 £528,000 2.3% 3.0% £539,000 4.5% 5.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852200 116769 Pitmaston Primary School Primary £1,959,000 £2,014,000 2.8% 3.0% £2,047,000 4.5% 4.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853089 116841 Powick Primary School Primary £724,000 £732,000 1.2% 1.4% £732,000 1.2% 1.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855403 136469 Prince Henry's High School Secondary £4,515,000 £4,647,000 2.9% 3.0% £4,691,000 3.9% 4.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853116 116859 Red Hill C E Primary School Primary £775,000 £779,000 0.4% 0.5% £782,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854422 139029 Ridgeway Academy Secondary Middle £1,786,000 £1,836,000 2.8% 3.0% £1,888,000 5.7% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852141 116733 ROMAN WAY FIRST SCHOOL Primary £836,000 £857,000 2.6% 3.0% £866,000 3.6% 4.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853098 116847 Rushwick C E Primary School Primary £579,000 £584,000 0.8% 1.1% £584,000 0.8% 1.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853099 116848 Sedgeberrow C.E. First School Primary £655,000 £659,000 0.7% 0.9% £660,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852021 116664 Sidemoor First School &Nursery Primary £1,402,000 £1,442,000 2.8% 3.0% £1,456,000 3.8% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852204 137292 SOMERS PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,388,000 £1,411,000 1.6% 1.8% £1,411,000 1.6% 1.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854003 140292 South Bromsgrove High Secondary £5,231,000 £5,390,000 3.0% 3.0% £5,423,000 3.7% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853393 141413 St Ambrose Catholic Primary Primary £810,000 £815,000 0.6% 0.7% £817,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853043 116811 St Andrew's CE School Primary £846,000 £858,000 1.4% 1.6% £858,000 1.4% 1.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853011 135036 ST ANNE'S C E PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,020,000 £1,031,000 1.1% 1.3% £1,031,000 1.1% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855400 141063 St Augustine's Catholic High School Secondary £3,226,000 £3,320,000 2.9% 3.0% £3,347,000 3.8% 3.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853012 135041 St Bartholomew's CofE VC Primary School Primary £1,014,000 £1,027,000 1.2% 1.4% £1,027,000 1.2% 1.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855401 141064 St Bede's Catholic Middle School Secondary Middle £2,472,000 £2,543,000 2.9% 3.0% £2,546,000 3.0% 3.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853021 135051 St Catherine's CE Primary Primary £1,524,000 £1,563,000 2.6% 2.9% £1,563,000 2.6% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853388 141443 St Clement's CofE Primary Primary £826,000 £847,000 2.6% 3.0% £855,000 3.5% 4.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853024 135056 ST JOHN'S CE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,505,000 £1,542,000 2.4% 2.7% £1,542,000 2.4% 2.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855404 139286 St John's Church of England Middle School Academy Secondary Middle £2,527,000 £2,584,000 2.2% 2.3% £2,584,000 2.2% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853097 116846 St Kenelm's C.E. PrimarySchool Primary £742,000 £745,000 0.4% 0.5% £748,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853331 135057 St Mary's C of E (VA) Primary School Primary £899,000 £903,000 0.4% 0.5% £907,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853309 116871 St Mary's Catholic Primary Primary £400,000 £401,000 0.4% 0.5% £402,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853354 137185 ST MATTHIAS CHURCH OF ENGLAND PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £851,000 £861,000 1.2% 1.3% £861,000 1.2% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853026 135058 ST OSWALD'S C E Primary Primary £795,000 £815,000 2.5% 3.0% £831,000 4.5% 5.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853310 141066 St Peter's Catholic First School Primary £963,000 £989,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,015,000 5.4% 6.1% National funding formula: Impact of the schools national funding formula- all schools
The school's baseline funding is the total core In the first year of the NFF local authorities (LAs) will continue to determine In the second year of the NFF LAs will continue to determine funding locally. funding received in 2017-18 (or 2017/18) through the funding locally. These columns show the amount the department will allocate to These columns show the amount the department will allocate to LAs in respect schools block and MFG. Other grants/funding LAs in respect of each school in 2018-19, subject to pupil number changes, and of each school in 2019-20, subject to pupil number and pupil characteristics sources are excluded. the percentage difference between this amount and the school's baseline changes, and the percentage difference between this amount and the school's funding and pupil-led baseline funding. baseline funding and pupil-led baseline funding. LA level allocations in 2018-19 will be updated to reflect up to date pupil LA level allocations in 2019-20 will be updated to reflect up to date pupil numbers. numbers and pupil characteristics.
Baseline funding Notional NFF funding in 2018-19 (year 1) Illustrative NFF funding in 2019-20 (year 2)
Flag for schools that New and Baseline funding Baseline funding Notional total NFF funding Percentage change Percentage change in Illustrative total NFF Percentage change Percentage change in Region LA number LA name LAESTAB URN School Name Phase are only open growing (as though the school is (2017-18) in 2018-19 compared to baseline pupil-led funding funding in 2019-20 compared to baseline pupil-led funding for part of the School full in 2017-18) year
[a] [b] [c] [d] = [c]/[a] - 1 [e] [f] = [e] / [a] - 1
West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853318 143397 St Peter's CofE Droitwich Academy Primary £1,490,000 £1,531,000 2.8% 3.0% £1,532,000 2.8% 3.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853094 116845 ST STEPHEN'S CE FIRST SCHOOL Primary £654,000 £670,000 2.5% 3.0% £686,000 5.0% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855202 116910 St Thomas More Catholic First Primary £888,000 £911,000 2.6% 3.0% £920,000 3.6% 4.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853380 141444 St Wulstan's Catholic Primary School Primary £672,000 £689,000 2.5% 3.0% £702,000 4.4% 5.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853302 116865 St. Andrew`s C.E. First School Primary £761,000 £780,000 2.6% 3.0% £800,000 5.2% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853114 116858 ST. BARNABAS C.E. PRIMARY Primary £1,608,000 £1,652,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,661,000 3.2% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854576 116984 St. Egwin's C.E. Middle School Secondary Middle £1,612,000 £1,656,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,666,000 3.3% 3.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853092 116843 St. George's C.E. First School Primary £973,000 £977,000 0.4% 0.5% £981,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853389 116923 ST. GEORGE'S C.E. PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £803,000 £824,000 2.6% 3.0% £827,000 3.0% 3.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853023 135055 St. George's C.E. Primary School Primary £834,000 £854,000 2.5% 3.0% £862,000 3.4% 4.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853390 116924 ST. GEORGE'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY Primary £744,000 £763,000 2.5% 3.0% £765,000 2.8% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853360 116903 St. James' C E Primary School Primary £442,000 £444,000 0.4% 0.5% £445,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853391 116925 St. Joseph's Catholic Primary Primary £1,206,000 £1,227,000 1.7% 1.9% £1,227,000 1.7% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853358 116901 St. Joseph's Catholic School Primary £678,000 £691,000 1.9% 2.3% £691,000 1.9% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853093 116844 St. Luke's C.E. First School Primary £618,000 £633,000 2.4% 3.0% £643,000 4.0% 4.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853322 116878 St. Mary's Catholic Primary School Primary £770,000 £783,000 1.6% 1.9% £783,000 1.6% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853205 116861 St. Nicholas C E Middle School Primary Middle £1,214,000 £1,223,000 0.7% 0.8% £1,225,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853317 116876 St.Joseph's Catholic Primary School & Nursery Primary £805,000 £813,000 1.0% 1.2% £813,000 1.0% 1.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853042 116810 St.Richard`s C.E.First School Primary £1,309,000 £1,340,000 2.4% 2.7% £1,340,000 2.4% 2.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852179 116759 Stanley Road Primary School Primary £1,593,000 £1,601,000 0.5% 0.5% £1,608,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852147 116735 Stoke Prior First School Primary £557,000 £565,000 1.4% 1.9% £565,000 1.4% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852902 143508 Stourport Primary Academy Primary £1,121,000 £1,151,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,167,000 4.2% 4.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852153 136983 SUCKLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £428,000 £429,000 0.3% 0.5% £431,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853369 135075 Sutton Park Primary Primary £888,000 £908,000 2.3% 2.8% £908,000 2.3% 2.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852041 116673 Swan Lane First School Primary £1,322,000 £1,355,000 2.5% 2.8% £1,355,000 2.5% 2.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853381 116916 Sytchampton Endowed 1st School Primary £337,000 £354,000 5.1% 8.3% £368,000 9.1% 14.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853382 116917 Tardebigge C E First School Primary £548,000 £561,000 2.4% 3.0% £574,000 4.9% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852136 116729 TENACRES FIRST SCHOOL Primary £1,122,000 £1,151,000 2.5% 2.9% £1,151,000 2.5% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853104 142448 Tenbury CofE Primary School Primary £704,000 £711,000 0.9% 1.1% £711,000 0.9% 1.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854013 141169 Tenbury High Ormiston Academy Secondary £1,655,000 £1,700,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,733,000 4.7% 5.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854001 135035 The Bewdley School & Sixth Form Centre Secondary £3,782,000 £3,890,000 2.8% 3.0% £3,940,000 4.2% 4.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854435 136897 THE CHANTRY SCHOOL Secondary £3,217,000 £3,310,000 2.9% 3.0% £3,432,000 6.7% 6.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854028 137625 The Chase Secondary £5,186,000 £5,338,000 2.9% 3.0% £5,357,000 3.3% 3.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854006 116932 The De Montfort School All-through £4,118,000 £4,233,000 2.8% 3.0% £4,256,000 3.4% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853394 134707 THE FAIRFIELD COMMUNITY PRMY Primary £847,000 £869,000 2.5% 3.0% £871,000 2.8% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853072 116829 The Littletons CofE First School Primary £470,000 £481,000 2.3% 3.0% £485,000 3.2% 4.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854004 137162 The Stourport High School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary £5,070,000 £5,209,000 2.7% 3.0% £5,287,000 4.3% 4.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852134 137960 The Vaynor First School Primary £1,517,000 £1,559,000 2.8% 3.0% £1,568,000 3.4% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853105 116851 Tibberton C.E. First School Primary £338,000 £340,000 0.4% 0.7% £340,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854437 137167 Trinity High School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary £3,977,000 £3,997,000 0.5% 0.5% £4,016,000 1.0% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854438 140731 Tudor Grange Academy Redditch Secondary £1,707,000 £1,753,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,800,000 5.5% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8856905 135913 Tudor Grange Academy Worcester Secondary £4,436,000 £4,565,000 2.9% 3.0% £4,691,000 5.8% 5.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853109 135037 Upper Arley C of E Primary School Primary £345,000 £353,000 2.4% 4.1% £360,000 4.4% 7.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853108 116854 Upton Snodsbury C.E. Primary £314,000 £317,000 0.8% 1.2% £317,000 0.8% 1.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853107 116853 UPTON UPON SEVERN C.E. PRIMARY Primary £619,000 £629,000 1.6% 2.0% £629,000 1.6% 2.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854579 139185 Walkwood CofE Middle School Secondary Middle £2,444,000 £2,514,000 2.9% 3.0% £2,519,000 3.1% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854044 138664 Waseley Hills High School Secondary £3,149,000 £3,241,000 2.9% 3.0% £3,263,000 3.6% 3.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852135 138026 Webheath Academy Primary School Primary £1,119,000 £1,143,000 2.2% 2.5% £1,143,000 2.2% 2.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852156 116744 Welland Primary School Primary £536,000 £549,000 2.3% 3.0% £551,000 2.8% 3.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852916 116778 WESTACRE MIDDLE SCHOOL Primary Middle £1,527,000 £1,568,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,572,000 3.0% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852035 116671 Westlands First School Primary £1,065,000 £1,093,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,122,000 5.4% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853110 116856 WHITTINGTON CE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £763,000 £780,000 2.2% 2.7% £780,000 2.2% 2.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853015 135043 WILDEN ALL SAINTS CE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £709,000 £712,000 0.4% 0.5% £715,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852917 116779 WITTON MIDDLE SCHOOL Primary Middle £1,769,000 £1,807,000 2.1% 2.3% £1,807,000 2.1% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854503 135061 Wolverley CE Secondary School Secondary £2,604,000 £2,676,000 2.8% 3.0% £2,733,000 4.9% 5.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853332 135059 Wolverley Sebright VA Primary School Primary £554,000 £562,000 1.4% 1.7% £562,000 1.4% 1.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854436 138208 Woodfield Academy Secondary Middle £2,366,000 £2,433,000 2.9% 3.0% £2,503,000 5.8% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852137 116730 Woodrow First School Primary £1,186,000 £1,218,000 2.7% 3.0% £1,244,000 4.9% 5.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854017 136924 Woodrush Community High School Secondary £4,198,000 £4,321,000 2.9% 3.0% £4,346,000 3.5% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852187 116762 Wychbold First and Nursery School Primary £437,000 £447,000 2.2% 3.0% £448,000 2.4% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853074 116830 WYCHE C.E. PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £534,000 £536,000 0.4% 0.5% £538,000 0.8% 1.0% £303,818,000 £310,883,000 £314,601,000 £7,065,000 £3,718,000 2.3% £10,783,000 3.5% National funding formula: Impact of the schools national funding formula- all schools APPENDIX C
To further illustrate the impact of the national funding formula, the government has published illustrative NFF funding as if the NFF had been implemented in full and without transition, based on the 2017-18 pupil count. It is important to note that these are not actual allocations for any specific year: they are illustrations based on 2017-18 data (and 2017/18 data for academies) for most schools ("if full" data for new and growing schools) to support understanding of the NFF. Actual allocations for future years will reflect updated pupil characteristics and pupil numbers and will be subject to future spending review decisions.
Illustrative NFF funding as if the NFF had been implemented in full
Flag for New and growing schools schools that New and Illustrative total NFF illustrative NFF funding -if Percentage change Percentage change in Region LA number LA name LAESTAB URN School Name Phase are only open growing funding - if fully fully implemented (as if compared to baseline pupil-led funding for part of the School implemented the school was full in year 2017-18)
if new and growing then [g] [h] [i] = [h] / [b] - 1 else [i] = [g] / [a] - 1
West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853000 116780 ABBERLEY PAROCHIAL PRIMARY SCH Primary £426,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852119 116716 ABBEY PARK FIRST & NURSERY SCHOOL Primary £640,000 2.5% 3.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852906 116774 Abbey Park Middle School Primary Middle £925,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853398 142541 Abbeywood First School Primary £947,000 3.6% 4.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854575 116983 Alvechurch C.E. Middle School Secondary Middle £2,018,000 3.1% 2.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854008 138505 Arrow Vale RSA Academy Secondary £3,134,000 7.8% 8.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852006 116650 ASHTON-UNDER-HILL FIRST SCHOOL Primary £437,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853300 116864 Astley C E Primary School Primary £423,000 1.5% 2.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854401 116957 Aston Fields Middle School Secondary Middle £2,334,000 2.2% 2.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852127 140258 Astwood Bank First School Primary £1,050,000 1.3% 1.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852007 116651 BADSEY FIRST SCHOOL Primary £938,000 2.5% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852128 116721 BATCHLEY FIRST SCHOOL Primary £1,201,000 6.6% 7.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854014 138660 Baxter College Secondary £4,416,000 7.0% 7.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853001 116781 Bayton C.E Primary Primary £464,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852197 116768 Beaconside Primary/Nursery Sch Primary £791,000 1.1% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853002 116782 Belbroughton C.E. Primary School Primary £578,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853041 140932 Bengeworth CE Academy Primary £1,739,000 1.8% 2.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852008 116652 Beoley First School Primary £438,000 2.7% 3.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853397 135076 Bewdley Primary School Primary £1,138,000 2.2% 2.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852905 135045 BIRCHEN COPPICE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,305,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854418 116967 Birchensale Middle School Secondary Middle £2,303,000 6.2% 6.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854754 138107 Bishop Perowne CofE College Secondary £4,321,000 6.7% 6.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855402 116999 BL. EDWARD OLDCORNE CATH. COLL Secondary £5,071,000 4.7% 4.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854408 116960 Blackminster Middle School Secondary Middle £1,040,000 4.9% 5.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852022 116665 Blackwell First School Primary £527,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853005 116784 Blakedown C.E. Primary School Primary £556,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853306 116868 BREDON HANCOCKS FIRST SCHOOL Primary £627,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854400 143395 Bredon Hill Academy Secondary Middle £1,936,000 2.2% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852012 116655 Bretforton First School Primary £298,000 1.4% 2.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853008 116787 Broadheath C.E.Primary Primary £543,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853308 116870 Broadwas C of E VA School Primary £396,000 4.7% 7.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852013 116656 BROADWAY FIRST SCHOOL Primary £433,000 1.4% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852903 135040 Burlish Park Primary School Primary £1,517,000 2.6% 2.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853014 116789 Callow End C.E. Primary Primary £411,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853017 116791 Castlemorton CE Primary School Primary £408,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852015 116658 Catshill First School & Nursery Primary £970,000 4.0% 4.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854402 116958 Catshill Middle School Secondary Middle £1,326,000 1.0% 1.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853330 135046 Chaddesley Corbett Primary School Primary £777,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852016 116659 CHARFORD FIRST SCHOOL Primary £1,632,000 3.2% 3.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852036 116672 Chawson Community First School Primary £1,481,000 10.1% 11.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852121 116717 Cherry Orchard 1st School Primary £600,000 2.9% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852161 116749 Cherry Orchard Primary School Primary £2,222,000 3.1% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854432 136890 Christopher Whitehead Language College Secondary £5,602,000 5.4% 5.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853018 116792 CHURCH LENCH C.E.FIRST SCHOOL Primary £385,000 2.9% 4.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854427 142543 Church Hill Middle School Secondary Middle £1,456,000 2.7% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853019 116793 CLAINES C.E.PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £758,000 4.6% 5.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853020 116794 Cleeve Prior C of E 1st School Primary £240,000 0.8% 1.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853022 116796 Clent Parochial Primary School Primary £446,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852032 116669 Clifton-on-Teme Primary School Primary £346,000 1.9% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852907 135047 Comberton Primary School Primary £1,508,000 2.6% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853016 135048 COOKLEY SEBRIGHT PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £818,000 2.3% 2.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852915 137697 Coppice Primary School Primary £1,890,000 2.4% 2.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852001 139825 Crabbs Cross Academy Primary £992,000 4.0% 4.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852162 143394 Cranham Primary School Primary £1,737,000 4.5% 4.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853027 116800 Cropthorne with Charlton CE Primary £431,000 5.2% 7.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853028 116801 Crowle CofE First School Primary £321,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852002 116646 Crown Meadow First School & Nursery Primary £1,231,000 2.1% 1.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853316 141412 Cutnall Green CofE First Primary £409,000 1.2% 1.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853029 116802 Defford-cum-Besford C.E. First Primary £280,000 3.1% 5.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852163 116751 Dines Green Primary School Primary £1,067,000 4.8% 5.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852034 116670 Dodford First School Primary £333,000 0.6% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853208 116862 Drakes' Broughton St Barnabas CofE First and Middle School Primary Middle £1,347,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854005 136927 Droitwich Spa High School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary £5,175,000 5.2% 5.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854801 137186 Dyson Perrins CofE Academy Secondary £2,887,000 7.1% 7.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853038 116806 Eckington C.E. First School Primary £393,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853039 116807 Eldersfield Lawn C.E.Primary Primary £446,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853040 116808 Elmley Castle C.E. 1st School Primary £250,000 16.4% 47.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852047 116675 Fairfield First School Primary £474,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853010 135034 FAR FOREST LEA MEMORIAL CE PRIMARY Primary £550,000 3.7% 4.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853091 116842 Feckenham C of E First School Primary £497,000 3.4% 4.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852017 116660 Finstall First School Primary £1,074,000 2.8% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853324 116879 Fladbury CE First School Primary £320,000 7.4% 11.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855201 116676 Flyford Flavell 1st School Primary £365,000 5.5% 8.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852908 135049 Foley Park Community Primary School Primary £877,000 2.8% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852910 135050 Franche Community Primary Primary £2,742,000 3.2% 3.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852105 136984 Great Malvern Primary School Primary £1,513,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853328 142706 Great Witley CofE Primary School Primary £611,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853048 116815 Grimley & Holt Primary School Primary £412,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853400 135067 GROVE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £915,000 7.1% 8.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854800 141414 Hagley Catholic High School Secondary £4,142,000 5.8% 6.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852055 116678 Hagley Primary School Primary £2,244,000 7.2% 7.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853329 116882 Hallow Primary School Primary £724,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853049 116816 Hanbury C.E.First School. Primary £487,000 5.9% 7.9% National funding formula: Impact of the schools national funding formula- all schools APPENDIX C
To further illustrate the impact of the national funding formula, the government has published illustrative NFF funding as if the NFF had been implemented in full and without transition, based on the 2017-18 pupil count. It is important to note that these are not actual allocations for any specific year: they are illustrations based on 2017-18 data (and 2017/18 data for academies) for most schools ("if full" data for new and growing schools) to support understanding of the NFF. Actual allocations for future years will reflect updated pupil characteristics and pupil numbers and will be subject to future spending review decisions.
Illustrative NFF funding as if the NFF had been implemented in full
Flag for New and growing schools schools that New and Illustrative total NFF illustrative NFF funding -if Percentage change Percentage change in Region LA number LA name LAESTAB URN School Name Phase are only open growing funding - if fully fully implemented (as if compared to baseline pupil-led funding for part of the School implemented the school was full in year 2017-18)
if new and growing then [g] [h] [i] = [h] / [b] - 1 else [i] = [g] / [a] - 1
West Midlands 885 Worcestershire88545008853000 137101116780 HanleyABBERLEY Castle PAROCHIAL High School PRIMARY SCH SecondaryPrimary £3,984,000 5.7% 5.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853051 116817 Hanley Swan Primary £441,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853013 135042 Hartlebury CE Primary School Primary £660,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853053 116819 Harvington CE First School Primary £649,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854010 136898 Haybridge High School and Sixth Form Secondary £4,099,000 8.5% 8.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852010 141246 Heronswood Primary School Primary £1,104,000 3.6% 4.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853056 116821 Himbleton CE First School Primary £344,000 11.4% 20.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853057 116822 Hindlip CE First Primary £418,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852167 140933 Hollymount School Primary £1,499,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853368 116908 HOLY REDEEMER RC PRIMARY SCH Primary £692,000 2.5% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8856009 141105 Holy Trinity School All-through £2,337,000 1.3% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852131 116724 Holyoakes Field First School Primary £1,105,000 5.0% 5.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852921 132060 Holywell Primary School Primary £1,530,000 1.7% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852078 139749 Honeybourne First School Primary £560,000 2.6% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852079 116689 Inkberrow First School Primary £491,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854009 139020 Ipsley CE RSA Academy Secondary Middle £2,434,000 5.9% 6.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852080 116690 KEMPSEY PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £996,000 1.0% 1.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854501 138032 King Charles I School Secondary £5,105,000 5.8% 6.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852914 116776 Leigh & Bransford Primary Primary £512,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852018 116661 LICKEY END FIRST SCHOOL Primary £600,000 4.4% 5.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852901 116773 Lickey Hills Primary School Primary £1,442,000 3.1% 3.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852904 137825 LICKHILL PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £765,000 2.3% 2.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853350 116895 LINDRIDGE C E PRIMARY Primary £416,000 9.1% 13.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852918 131274 Lyppard Grange Primary School Primary £1,327,000 2.9% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853353 116898 Madresfield Primary School Primary £467,000 3.0% 4.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853357 116900 Malvern Parish C.E. School Primary £766,000 2.6% 3.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853359 116902 Malvern Wells CE Primary Primary £423,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853077 116831 MARTLEY C.E. PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £520,000 5.6% 7.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852919 140309 Matchborough First School Academy Primary £1,495,000 5.4% 5.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852188 116763 Meadow Green Primary School Primary £1,091,000 1.0% 1.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852019 116662 MEADOWS FIRST SCHOOL Primary £1,314,000 2.7% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852020 116663 Millfield First School Primary £951,000 2.7% 3.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852192 116765 Moon's Moat First School Primary £1,029,000 4.3% 4.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854002 116928 North Bromsgrove High School Secondary £3,997,000 4.5% 4.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853210 116863 Northleigh C.E. Primary School Primary £1,093,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853401 143396 NORTHWICK MANOR PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £2,272,000 9.4% 9.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853081 116834 Norton Juxta Kempsey CE First Primary £534,000 8.6% 11.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854434 137051 NUNNERY WOOD HIGH SCHOOL Secondary £6,418,000 4.3% 4.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852172 116754 NUNNERY WOOD PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,446,000 1.1% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852920 132820 Oak Hill First School Primary £1,700,000 3.2% 3.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852005 140041 Oasis Academy Warndon Primary £2,053,000 5.1% 5.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853082 116835 Offenham CofE First School Primary £443,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852911 135052 Offmore Primary School Primary £1,151,000 4.2% 4.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852202 116770 OLDBURY PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,485,000 2.2% 2.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853365 116905 Ombersley Endowed 1st School Primary £500,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855200 141058 Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic First School Primary £1,117,000 5.6% 6.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853387 116921 OUR LADY QUEEN OF PEACE CATHOLIC PRIMARY Primary £788,000 2.2% 2.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853084 116837 Overbury C.E. First School Primary £370,000 6.4% 10.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854403 116959 Parkside Middle School Secondary Middle £2,471,000 3.4% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852118 116715 Pebworth First School Primary £231,000 8.1% 23.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853085 116838 Pendock C.E. Primary School Primary £307,000 0.6% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852173 116755 Perdiswell Primary School Primary £1,465,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852000 139001 Perry Wood Primary and Nursery School Primary £1,551,000 1.2% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854030 136925 Pershore High School Secondary £4,280,000 3.8% 3.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853088 116840 Pinvin CE First School Primary £539,000 4.5% 5.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852200 116769 Pitmaston Primary School Primary £2,047,000 4.5% 4.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853089 116841 Powick Primary School Primary £732,000 1.2% 1.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855403 136469 Prince Henry's High School Secondary £4,691,000 3.9% 4.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853116 116859 Red Hill C E Primary School Primary £782,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854422 139029 Ridgeway Academy Secondary Middle £1,895,000 6.1% 6.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852141 116733 ROMAN WAY FIRST SCHOOL Primary £866,000 3.6% 4.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853098 116847 Rushwick C E Primary School Primary £584,000 0.8% 1.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853099 116848 Sedgeberrow C.E. First School Primary £660,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852021 116664 Sidemoor First School &Nursery Primary £1,456,000 3.8% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852204 137292 SOMERS PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,411,000 1.6% 1.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854003 140292 South Bromsgrove High Secondary £5,423,000 3.7% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853393 141413 St Ambrose Catholic Primary Primary £817,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853043 116811 St Andrew's CE School Primary £858,000 1.4% 1.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853011 135036 ST ANNE'S C E PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,031,000 1.1% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855400 141063 St Augustine's Catholic High School Secondary £3,347,000 3.8% 3.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853012 135041 St Bartholomew's CofE VC Primary School Primary £1,027,000 1.2% 1.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855401 141064 St Bede's Catholic Middle School Secondary Middle £2,546,000 3.0% 3.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853021 135051 St Catherine's CE Primary Primary £1,563,000 2.6% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853388 141443 St Clement's CofE Primary Primary £855,000 3.5% 4.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853024 135056 ST JOHN'S CE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £1,542,000 2.4% 2.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855404 139286 St John's Church of England Middle School Academy Secondary Middle £2,584,000 2.2% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853097 116846 St Kenelm's C.E. PrimarySchool Primary £748,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853331 135057 St Mary's C of E (VA) Primary School Primary £907,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853309 116871 St Mary's Catholic Primary Primary £402,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853354 137185 ST MATTHIAS CHURCH OF ENGLAND PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £861,000 1.2% 1.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853026 135058 ST OSWALD'S C E Primary Primary £831,000 4.5% 5.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853310 141066 St Peter's Catholic First School Primary £1,020,000 5.9% 6.6% National funding formula: Impact of the schools national funding formula- all schools APPENDIX C
To further illustrate the impact of the national funding formula, the government has published illustrative NFF funding as if the NFF had been implemented in full and without transition, based on the 2017-18 pupil count. It is important to note that these are not actual allocations for any specific year: they are illustrations based on 2017-18 data (and 2017/18 data for academies) for most schools ("if full" data for new and growing schools) to support understanding of the NFF. Actual allocations for future years will reflect updated pupil characteristics and pupil numbers and will be subject to future spending review decisions.
Illustrative NFF funding as if the NFF had been implemented in full
Flag for New and growing schools schools that New and Illustrative total NFF illustrative NFF funding -if Percentage change Percentage change in Region LA number LA name LAESTAB URN School Name Phase are only open growing funding - if fully fully implemented (as if compared to baseline pupil-led funding for part of the School implemented the school was full in year 2017-18)
if new and growing then [g] [h] [i] = [h] / [b] - 1 else [i] = [g] / [a] - 1
West Midlands 885 Worcestershire88533188853000 143397116780 StABBERLEY Peter's CofE PAROCHIAL Droitwich AcademyPRIMARY SCH Primary £1,532,000 2.8% 3.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853094 116845 ST STEPHEN'S CE FIRST SCHOOL Primary £689,000 5.3% 6.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8855202 116910 St Thomas More Catholic First Primary £920,000 3.6% 4.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853380 141444 St Wulstan's Catholic Primary School Primary £702,000 4.4% 5.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853302 116865 St. Andrew`s C.E. First School Primary £834,000 9.7% 11.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853114 116858 ST. BARNABAS C.E. PRIMARY Primary £1,661,000 3.2% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854576 116984 St. Egwin's C.E. Middle School Secondary Middle £1,666,000 3.3% 3.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853092 116843 St. George's C.E. First School Primary £981,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853389 116923 ST. GEORGE'S C.E. PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £827,000 3.0% 3.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853023 135055 St. George's C.E. Primary School Primary £862,000 3.4% 4.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853390 116924 ST. GEORGE'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY Primary £765,000 2.8% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853360 116903 St. James' C E Primary School Primary £445,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853391 116925 St. Joseph's Catholic Primary Primary £1,227,000 1.7% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853358 116901 St. Joseph's Catholic School Primary £691,000 1.9% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853093 116844 St. Luke's C.E. First School Primary £643,000 4.0% 4.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853322 116878 St. Mary's Catholic Primary School Primary £783,000 1.6% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853205 116861 St. Nicholas C E Middle School Primary Middle £1,225,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853317 116876 St.Joseph's Catholic Primary School & Nursery Primary £813,000 1.0% 1.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853042 116810 St.Richard`s C.E.First School Primary £1,340,000 2.4% 2.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852179 116759 Stanley Road Primary School Primary £1,608,000 0.9% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852147 116735 Stoke Prior First School Primary £565,000 1.4% 1.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852902 143508 Stourport Primary Academy Primary £1,167,000 4.2% 4.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852153 136983 SUCKLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £431,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853369 135075 Sutton Park Primary Primary £908,000 2.3% 2.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852041 116673 Swan Lane First School Primary £1,355,000 2.5% 2.8% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853381 116916 Sytchampton Endowed 1st School Primary £423,000 25.4% 41.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853382 116917 Tardebigge C E First School Primary £581,000 6.1% 7.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852136 116729 TENACRES FIRST SCHOOL Primary £1,151,000 2.5% 2.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853104 142448 Tenbury CofE Primary School Primary £711,000 0.9% 1.1% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854013 141169 Tenbury High Ormiston Academy Secondary £1,733,000 4.7% 5.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854001 135035 The Bewdley School & Sixth Form Centre Secondary £3,940,000 4.2% 4.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854435 136897 THE CHANTRY SCHOOL Secondary £3,432,000 6.7% 6.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854028 137625 The Chase Secondary £5,357,000 3.3% 3.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854006 116932 The De Montfort School All-through £4,256,000 3.4% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853394 134707 THE FAIRFIELD COMMUNITY PRMY Primary £871,000 2.8% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853072 116829 The Littletons CofE First School Primary £485,000 3.2% 4.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854004 137162 The Stourport High School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary £5,287,000 4.3% 4.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852134 137960 The Vaynor First School Primary £1,568,000 3.4% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853105 116851 Tibberton C.E. First School Primary £340,000 0.7% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854437 137167 Trinity High School and Sixth Form Centre Secondary £4,016,000 1.0% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854438 140731 Tudor Grange Academy Redditch Secondary £1,819,000 6.6% 7.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8856905 135913 Tudor Grange Academy Worcester Secondary £4,691,000 5.8% 5.9% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853109 135037 Upper Arley C of E Primary School Primary £387,000 12.1% 20.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853108 116854 Upton Snodsbury C.E. Primary £317,000 0.8% 1.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853107 116853 UPTON UPON SEVERN C.E. PRIMARY Primary £629,000 1.6% 2.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854579 139185 Walkwood CofE Middle School Secondary Middle £2,519,000 3.1% 3.2% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854044 138664 Waseley Hills High School Secondary £3,263,000 3.6% 3.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852135 138026 Webheath Academy Primary School Primary £1,143,000 2.2% 2.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852156 116744 Welland Primary School Primary £551,000 2.8% 3.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852916 116778 WESTACRE MIDDLE SCHOOL Primary Middle £1,572,000 3.0% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852035 116671 Westlands First School Primary £1,128,000 5.9% 6.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853110 116856 WHITTINGTON CE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £780,000 2.2% 2.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853015 135043 WILDEN ALL SAINTS CE PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £715,000 0.8% 1.0% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852917 116779 WITTON MIDDLE SCHOOL Primary Middle £1,807,000 2.1% 2.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854503 135061 Wolverley CE Secondary School Secondary £2,733,000 4.9% 5.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853332 135059 Wolverley Sebright VA Primary School Primary £562,000 1.4% 1.7% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854436 138208 Woodfield Academy Secondary Middle £2,511,000 6.1% 6.4% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852137 116730 Woodrow First School Primary £1,244,000 4.9% 5.5% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8854017 136924 Woodrush Community High School Secondary £4,346,000 3.5% 3.6% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8852187 116762 Wychbold First and Nursery School Primary £448,000 2.4% 3.3% West Midlands 885 Worcestershire8853074 116830 WYCHE C.E. PRIMARY SCHOOL Primary £538,000 0.8% 1.0% £315,189,000
The DfE Final National Funding APPENDIX D Formula (NFF)
Funding Factors NFF Unit values Total Funding (including Proportion WCC Unit values Nearest £ ACA) – See Note
Basic per-pupil funding £24,183m 72.9% Age Weighted Pupil Unit £2,747 £2,858 £12,595m 38.0% (AWPU): Primary Age Weighted Pupil Unit £3,863 £3,906 £6,668m 20.1% (AWPU): Secondary - KS3 Age Weighted Pupil Unit £4,386 £4,436 £4,734m 14.3% (AWPU): Secondary - KS4 Minimum per pupil funding NA NA £185m 0.6% level Additional needs funding £5,906m 17.8% Deprivation £3,022m 9.1% Current FSM top up (Pupils £440 £846 £291m 0.9% currently claiming FSM at the last census): Primary Current FSM top up (Pupils £440 £1,009 £173m 0.5% currently claiming FSM at the last census): Secondary FSM6 (Any pupil that has £540 NIL £626m 1.9% ever claimed FSM in the past 6 years): Primary FSM6 (Any pupil that has £785 NIL £641m 1.9% ever claimed FSM in the past 6 years): Secondary IDACI band F: Primary £200 £200 £94m 0.3% IDACI band F: Secondary £290 £277 £80m 0.2% IDACI band E: Primary £240 £249 £101m 0.3% IDACI band E: Secondary £390 £363 £95m 0.3% IDACI band D: Primary £360 £333 £131m 0.4% IDACI band D: Secondary £515 £451 £108m 0.3% IDACI band C: Primary £390 £405 £123m 0.4% IDACI band C: Secondary £560 £531 £102m 0.3% IDACI band B: Primary £420 £457 £165m 0.5% IDACI band B: Secondary £600 £589 £135m 0.4% IDACI band A: Primary £575 £663 £88m 0.3% IDACI band A: Secondary £810 £785 £69m 0.2% Low prior attainment £2,458m 7.4% Low prior attainment: Primary £1,050 £641 £1,531m 4.6% Low prior attainment: £1,550 £901 £928m 2.8% Secondary English as an additional language £404m 1.2% English as an additional £515 £447 £299m 0.9% language: Primary English as an additional £1,385 £1,083 £106m 0.3% language: Secondary Mobility £22m 0.1% School led funding £3,077m 9.3% Lump sum £2,267m 6.8% Lump sum: Primary £110,000 £111,026 £1,892m 5.7% Lump sum: Secondary £110,000 £119,999 £375m 1.1% Sparsity £26m 0.1% Sparsity: Primary £25,000 £42,796 £21m 0.1% Sparsity: Secondary £65,000 £63,910 £5m 0.0% Premises £610m 1.8% Explicit Growth £174m 0.5% Area Cost Adjustment: A multiplier that is applied to basic £824m per pupil, additional needs and school led funding (ACA is already included in each of the factor subtotals) Core Total (Excluding funding floor) £33,166m Funding Floor £624m £33,790m Total (Including funding floor) £33,790m
Note – The total funding and proportion of core total funding columns are based on implementing the formula in full, without transition, using 2017-18 authority proforma tool data and 2017/18 general annual grant data.
AGENDA ITEM 8b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 12th OCTOBER 2017
NEWS RELEASE
14 September 2017
F40 response to government announcement on fair funding
The f40 Group, which has campaigned for fairer funding of education for over 20 years, has broadly welcomed the latest government announcement on school funding.
Responding to an announcement by the Secretary of State for Education, the Rt. Hon. Justine Greening MP, to the House of Commons today, f40 Chairman, Cllr Ivan Ould, said: “There are some positive elements to the national fair funding announcement that we must welcome, including the extra funding over the next two years, the guarantee of minimum funding that each primary and secondary school will attract and the potential for fast gains in per pupil funding for the very lowest funded schools.
“On the face of it, the promised protected funding for additional needs is also welcome, though once again we need to see how the funding allocations are applied.
“But importantly, I hope that the government looks upon what is on offer today as just another step towards fairer funding and the removal of significant inequities in the funding allocation system.
“The immediate task is to check the many figures and percentages presented in the announcement to see how they apply to the poorest funded local authorities and schools and to determine whether they produce the kind of results that f40 has called for.
“As with previous announcements on this extremely complicated topic, it is important that we look behind the headlines to check what is really on the table. We will be getting to work on applying the new figures to our spreadsheets straight away and discussing the latest position with our member authorities.
F40 Vice Chair Alex Chalk MP (Cheltenham) added: “This is a significant step forward and it is clear that the government has listened to the arguments put forward by f40 since the initial announcement a few months ago. Whilst being a move in the right direction, it is important that the government continues to tackle the long-standing inequity locked in to the current system of funding. The extra funding for the education front line will be most welcome but we should not forget that some schools will continue to receive significantly less than others and this injustice must be changed in due course.”
ENDS
Issued by Doug Allan, Secretary of the f40 Group. For further comment or information please call 07785 223707 or email [email protected]
1
1. 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 42 member authorities representing over 3.5 million pupils in over 10,000 schools.
2. The members are: Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Central Bedfordshire, Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, Cornwall, Derbyshire, Devon, Dorset, East Riding of Yorkshire, East Sussex County Council, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Herefordshire, Kent, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Plymouth, Shropshire, Solihull, Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Staffordshire, Stockport, Suffolk, Swindon, Torbay, Trafford, Wakefield, Warrington, Warwickshire, West Sussex, Wigan, Wiltshire, Worcestershire and York.
2
Views of some F40 Group Members on the NFF Annoucement
Buckinghamshire County Council
Commenting on the new National Funding Formula announcements, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, Mike Appleyard said, “As Buckinghamshire has historically had one of the lowest funding levels per pupil in the country, I am very pleased that the new funding formula goes some way to improving that position. Early indications do suggest Buckinghamshire is one of the areas that will benefit most from the changes announced. However, the devil will be in the detail and we are currently carrying out a full analysis of what it means for schools across Buckinghamshire.”
Devon County Council
“Historic” reforms which will see a major overhaul of school funding in England have been welcomed by Devon County Council. For many years its heads and governors have been fighting for fair funding. Devon’s schools are already funded at £290 less per pupil than the national average, and when new national funding figures were announced at the beginning of the year it did not bring the good news that was hoped.
It was revealed more than a third of Devon’s schools would lose out of the figures weren’t revised, and pupils would still be funded at £268 a head less than the national average. Altogether it amounted to £24m less coming to Devon schools than if they were funded at the national average.
However, today education secretary Justine Greening has confirmed under a new National Funding Formula (NFF), money will be distributed according to the individual needs of each school.
Devon County Council’s cabinet member for schools, James McInnes, said: “We campaigned strongly against the previous formula with our schools and MPs that would have penalised two thirds of the children in Devon’s schools. Clearly, the devil is in the detail and we still have to number crunch the latest figures, but it appears the Government has listened to our strong and united opposition to the previous formula, and also to the national campaigning work we did with the f40 group, which represents the lowest funded education areas.
Our initial assessment of Justine Greening’s new proposals suggests that 13 of our 42 secondary and all-through schools will benefit from the proposals to ensure every pupil has £4,800 of funding whilst none should lose out. Many of our primary schools should also benefit from the uplift in per capita funding and also from the increase in funding for rural areas and schools in sparsely populated areas. We also hope to gain at least £320,000 extra for our most vulnerable children by the increase in funding for high needs, but this will in no way compensate for all the extra pressures we face. “There is no doubt that schools in Devon are facing tough times financially and I am very hopeful that when we have all the details on this announcement it will go some way to alleviating those pressures.
Dorset County Council
Welcome the further announcement regarding a national funding formula for schools and the protections it will ultimately give for our schools. However, there is still a lot of detail to consider to see the impact for Dorset Schools and there will still be inequities within the system across the country. The new High Needs Funding formula was also announced and this is more concerning. We have growing numbers of pupils with high needs in Dorset, but the new national funding formula only gives Dorset 0.7% increase which is better than no increase, but does not keep pace with the increasing demands we have.
3
On HN 0.7% is 250k – a big deal when we are millions overspent! The word ‘ultimately’ is used because Dorset schools won’t necessarily get it in 2018-19, if we ask to use it to pay back the HN block. They may not get the protections until 2020-21.
Headline figures at first look seem to be Schools +£5.5m, HN +£250k, Central Schools Block -£45k.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
We are still working through the data but without the new APT pro-forma its a little difficult to know where all the figures have come from. The funding is still not really being targeted in the right places. Our small schools and those with little deprivation are gaining the least and the minimum levels do not hit small schools. Our largest secondary school (academy) with little deprivation is due to gain 0.5m due to the minimum of £4,600. This is an eighth of our overall increase
Plymouth Council
Plymouth welcome the increased spending on schools over the next 2 years and the move to direct resources more equitably across the country. However, it is very disappointing that the maximum gains cap will remain at 3% and therefore delay the move towards equitable funding. In a speech to the House of Commons, Justine Greening highlighted the necessity to reform by stating ‘the manifest unfairness when Coventry receives £510 more per pupil than Plymouth despite having equal proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals’. However, under the NFF, Coventry will still be receiving £431 more than Plymouth in 2018/19. The NFF still feels significantly flawed; when the NFF has been fully implemented, Coventry will still receive £4,822 per pupil compared to Plymouth’s £4,544 per pupil. In addition, Plymouth will only come 18 places above the bottom 40 local authorities once the formula is fully implemented.
Solihull Council
This is a significant improvement on the proposals under the previous consultation. All our schools will receive an increase (many would have lost funding under earlier proposals) although this is quite modest for a number of Primaries (£3,000), but there is some serious money for others and quite substantial increases at secondary level.
• Overall Solihull will see £1,062,000 for Primaries (1.5%) for 2018/19 and £3,474,000 (4.9%) for Secondaries, producing a total of £4,536,000 against the 2017/18 baseline.
• The High Needs Block shows a small increase of £84,000 but there are some complex adjustments within this that need further evaluation.
• The Central Services Block will have a modest increase of £26,000 for 2018/19.
• For 2018-19 there is a £1,062,000 cash increase for primary (1.5%) and £3,474,000 for secondary (4.9%) total £4,536,000, 3.2% compared to 2017-18 baseline.
• For 2019-20 there is a £2,190,000 cash increase for primary (3.1%) and £6,042,000 for secondary (8.5%), total £8,232,000, 5.8% compared to 2017-18 baseline.
• When the proposals are fully implemented: there is a £2,211,000 cash increase for primary (3.1%) and £7,159,000 for secondary (10.0%), total £9,370,000, 6.6% compared to 2017-18 baseline.
Officers are still working on the final analysis but it looks to be a real improvement. We have a high proportion of children in our schools from neighbouring Local Authority areas and not yet assessed
4 how our schools will now compare with the surrounding areas (Coventry, Birmingham, Warwickshire and Worcestershire) and whether the new funding arrangements are truly ‘fair’.
Wakefield Council
Definitely an improvement for the district when compared to the proposals consulted on in December 2016 - largely due to the £1.3b additional funding invested across the school and high needs allocations.
The concern remains about the financial sustainability of schools that achieve good attainment and have little EAL/deprivation. These are the schools that we think will suffer the most under this formula as the lump sum and AWPU rates are less than what is currently payable within Wakefield.
Whilst the uplift to the HNB is welcome, the speed of transition remains a concern. The allocations for Wakefield will increase by 6% (£1.7m) from current baseline to 2019/20 yet the full allocation set out in the governments modelling should be an increase of 14.5% - over £4m.
Warrington Council
Schools Block - Warrington BC welcomes the additional per pupil funding, and the consequence that all our schools will see at least a modest increase in their funding levels, as a majority of settings were adversely affected in the previous proposals. It is no longer the case that the small number of schools with substantial provisional increases will gain these at the expense of the majority, and this is hugely positive. Nevertheless we are acutely aware that overall levels of funding will not obviate our schools’ financial pressures, and too little regard has yet been paid to address basic running functions. It is disappointing that despite constructive and cogent argument that the formulaic weighting to deprivation and additional needs was too high, and the proposed lump sum too low to adequately represent reality, none of these warnings have been heeded. It does seem strange that despite many months spent in formulating a response to the consultation, the modification to the original proposals has been merely to funnel the additional funding via the basic per pupil entitlement, with no other amendment other than a technical adjustment to IDACI banding. A hybrid approach should have been taken, and we feel that an opportunity has been somewhat lost. We are very much happier with this second iteration of NFF, as the previous version was detrimental to our local schools system. It is still, we contend, a missed opportunity.
Our final substantial reservation continues to be the wide spread of the Area Cost Adjustment, which will perpetuate the very geographical discrepancies NFF purports to address. These relative inflators significantly lessen the redistributive effect necessary to provide true fairness.
High Needs Block - in common with many Local Authorities, is experiencing unprecedented pressure on its High Needs commitments, with largely static settlements compared to the increased demands from both the national SEND reform and its own local structural issues. The 50% of the future settlements allocated on a formula basis we don’t consider to be reflective of the current High Needs environment, largely because the formula factors, and the data which drive it, are inadequate proxies of the true causes of the financial pressures – i.e. the higher end of SEND. We understand that transitioning High Needs funding to a formulaic model is a complicated exercise, so we hope that the effectiveness of the new model is kept under review.
5
West Sussex County Council
By the time we deduct growth fund and the top slice for HN (subject to consultation), the indicative increase reduces significantly. We hope that it will be sufficient to meet the 0.5% per pupil increase let alone school cost pressures such as full year ESG, AL etc., pay awards.
Worcestershire County Council
Worcestershire will see a predicted funding increase of 2.4% in 2018/19 and a further 1.5% in 2019/20 as a consequence of the new National Funding Formula (NFF) and Dedicated Schools Grant.
The extra money for Worcestershire schools has today been welcomed by Cllr Marcus Hart, Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education and Skills. He said: "This announcement is welcomed and is good news for Worcestershire and its schools. It is a testament to all the years of campaigning for Fairer Funding by headteachers, governors, schools, parents and the local authority. We will be working through the detail of the announcement to consider the implications for Worcestershire schools.”
• The LA is planning to start its consultation with schools in October with a view to getting local formula approval for 2018-19 in December. • It is unclear at this stage whether it will be a continuation of the current local formula or whether the NFF will be implemented. • The DfE exemplifications are useful but the actual formula detail needs to be available to allow LAs to see how the NFF works especially the floors and ceilings. • The baselines for academies in the NFF illustrations differ to the APT due to the effect of rates allocations being excluded and some academies MFG/Capping being different in their GAG allocations – this makes modelling any options from the APT meaningless as it is comparing different baselines. No sure whether this has been considered by the ESFA?
6
f40 Executive Committee Meeting Saturday, 23 September 2017 at Amerton Farm, Staffordshire
1. Attendance and apologies Present: Ivan Ould, Leics (Chair); Doug Allan, (Secretary); Margaret Judd, (Dorset CC); Gillian Hayward, (Gloucs Schools Forum); Joe Jefferies, (NASUWT, Notts) Chris Chapman, (Cheshire governor rep).
Apologies:); Alex Chalk MP, (Vice Chair); Vernon Coaker MP, (Vice Chair): Sally Bates, (Notts NAHT & Headteacher); Bernadette Hunter, (Staffs Headteacher); Gillian Allcroft, (NGA): Sue Alexander, (Worcs CC): Caroline Brand (Worcs CC); Jon Pearsall, (independent rep); Stewart King, (Gloucs CC); Christine Atkinson, (ERYC); Edwina Grant, (LGA); Eunice Finney, (Staffs parent); Richard Soper, (Worcester Community Trust); Linda Piggott-Vijeh, (Somerset) and Grant Davis, (Wiltshire CC).
The Chair expressed disappointment that so few members of the Executive were able to attend today’s meeting.
2. Minutes of the meeting held 20 May 2017 The minutes of were approved as a correct record of the meeting. IO expressed disappointment about the way in which his letter to the Prime Minister (dated 10 March 2017) had simply been passed to the Secretary of State for Education for a response.
3. National Funding Formula 3.1 f40 updated formula proposals DA reported that f40’s updated proposals had been delivered to the DfE. 3.2 MP’s Briefing in Parliament – 14 July 2017 DA reported that a further MP’s Briefing held in Parliament on 14 July was well-attended and considered successful. An updated Briefing Paper had been prepared and circulated. 3.3 Secretary of State’s announcement – 17 July 2017 DA reminded the committee that the initial announcement following the fair funding consultation was made by the Secretary of State in Parliament on 17 July. 3.4 Meeting with the Secretary of State’s Policy Adviser – 25 July 2017 This meeting was requested by Education Policy Adviser, Victoria Crawford and Education Funding Unit Director, Tony Foot. It was attended by Ivan Ould, Margaret Judd and Alex Chalk MP from f40. The main purpose of the meeting was about the recent fair funding announcement, providing some clarification, discussion of the implications and gauging f40’s reaction to the fact that the government, because of the volatile national political situation, would not be delivering what the group had hoped for. 3.5 News Release issued by f40 on 28 July 2017 DA reported that in consequence of the Secretary of State’s announcement of 17 July and after the meeting with advisers on 25 July, f40 issued its considered statement on the current position on school funding. The statement largely welcomed the announcement, particularly relating to extra cash, but regretted the delay in publishing details on the introduction of a national funding formula (which was delayed until September). 3.6 Chairs letter to all Lead Members in f40 member authorities – 31 July
7
Noted
3.7 Chairs letter to all MPs representing f40 areas – 31 July 2017 Noted 3.8 Chairs letter to the Secretary of State - 21 August 2017 DA reported that a letter had been sent to the Secretary of State welcoming the additional cash being made available to schools and the pledge relating to secondary school funding. The letter highlighted concerns that fair funding will not be achieved under the government’s proposals and that the balance of funding between basic per pupil and disadvantage is wrong. We presented our own calculations, pointing out that these have been worked out based on a bottom-up and rational calculation, not upon an average figure. The response dated 6 September 2017 stated “that the government is committed to introducing national funding formulae for schools and high needs to address the unfairness of the current funding system”. The letter also referred to the “constructive discussions” had with f40 and “invaluable views” the group has put forward. More detail about the proposed formulae would be available on publication of the full response to the second stage consultation. 3.9 Government’s NFF announcement – 14 September 2017 Essentially, the announcement by The Secretary of State for Education presented arrangements for school funding in England for 2018–19 and 2019–20. Additional annual funding of around £1.3billion by 2019–20 (up by £900m compared with pre-election figures) was confirmed and the amended plans for NFF were revealed. Under these new proposals, LAs funding for schools will be linked to local area characteristics.
In previous announcements the government had suggested that: All LA funding formulae would be replaced with one single national funding formula, with the effect of eradicating the differences in funding levels between apparently similar schools. From 2019-20 LAs would no longer have a say in allocating school funding but in the mean- time would still play some role. In order to avoid large changes in funding over a single year, there would be protection caps on the gains and losses schools could experience., thus slowing down the transition to the new formula. About 40% of schools would have still had funding levels that reflected historical factors in 2019-20, including a quarter of schools that were “overfunded” relative to the formula. Little was said about what would happen after 2019–20.
The finalised approach is markedly different to what had been suggested in earlier announcements and a number of key factors have changed. The most important change is that the NFF will not be fully implemented until at least 2020–21.
Other changes include: There will be a school-level formula, but it will only be used to calculate how much each LA receives. They will then be free to allocate it (subject to certain regulations) to the schools in their area according to their own funding formulae for at least 2018-19 and 2019-20. The average cash-terms increase in funding between 2017–18 and 2019–20 is now around 3% rather than just under 1%. There are new absolute minimum levels of funding per pupil for both primary and secondary schools. Protections against losses have been extended. Now no school will experience a cash-terms increase of less than 0.5% per year between 2017–18 and 2019–20 (as opposed to a cash- terms fall of 1.5% per year).
8
The maximum any school can gain has increased from 5.6% to 6.1% in cash-terms per pupil.
But the above changes will not, at this point, affect schools directly. They will affect the amount that each LA receives and which, in consultation with their Schools Forum, allocates to each school. Crucially, the minimum funding levels for primary and secondary schools are not obligatory and LAs will be able to reduce individual schools’ funding per pupil by up 1.5% per pupil via the MFG if they wish, so allowing LAs to respond to the changing circumstances of schools in its area.
Members of the Executive acknowledged that the launch of the NFF was a move in the right direction, but that it must be seen as just the first step towards really fair funding. They reiterated the sentiments expressed in the news release issued in response to the Secretary of State’s announcement, welcoming the extra funding over the next two years, the guarantee of minimum funding that primary and secondary schools can potentially attract, and that the lowest funded LAs will achieve faster uplift in per pupil funding. They also welcomed the fact that LAs will have control over the formulae for a longer period, thus allowing local flexibility.
However, there was general disappointment that the government has not listened to f40’s well- constructed arguments concerning the balance of allocation between basic per pupil funding and disadvantage. We argued that a greater amount should be expended on per pupil funding and a lesser amount on deprivation and other add-ons. F40’s figures were based on a rational, real cost calculation, unlike the government’s which is based on averages.
Members also expressed the view that unless significantly more additional cash can be applied to school funding a degree of redistribution is required. The fact that no school is to lose under the new proposal suggests that the government “bottled out” on creating a fairer and more equitable allocation arrangement. Members felt that the poorest funded could have had more significant increases if something had been taken away from the most generously funded.
And members also acknowledged that the move towards a national funding formula completely fails to take account of new and increasing cost pressures faced by schools.
Various members indicated the potential impacts of the new formula in their areas. It was recognised that member LAs would not have a full picture of the impact on their LA/schools until the technical details are made available on “Collect”, now understood to be released Friday 29 September.
IO said that in the past week he had had several conversations with Tony Foot at the DfE. Tony has suggested that the increase for the lowest funded areas would not have happened without f40’s campaigning. He hopes that f40 will continue to lobby for further improvements and he is keen for the relationship that has developed over recent years to continue. Worth noting that when high needs is taken into account, this increase is reduced slightly and is much closer to many other LAs nationally.
IO suggested that f40 had failed to shift the mindset of government ministers who have failed to grasp the fair funding issue and have fudged the response. In addition, many MPs representing poorly funded areas appear unwilling to raise their heads above the parapet or rock the political boat. The predominance of London in the fair funding debate and its impact on the outcome was noted.
All f40 member LAs are likely to agree that the new NFF will not provide fair funding for at least the next two years. We don’t know anything, however, about government plans after 2019–20, either in
9 terms of continued transitional protections or the full introduction of a school-level national funding formula. This is a source of major uncertainty. No doubt the government will state that it intends to implement a ‘hard’ formula but whether or not it actually does, bearing in mind that it would require primary legislation to pass through parliament, remains to be seen. IO suggested that all f40 member LAs must take a long-term view of school funding under the new arrangements and ensure that the government/media/public are fully aware of the continuing inequity and uncertainly.
The urgent question for f40 is where does it go from here? After a comprehensive discussion it was agreed that it is really a question that our member authorities must collectively answer. It was AGREED that DA and MJ would draft a questionnaire which, once approved, will be circulated to the Lead Member in all 42 f40 member authorities. The aim would be to ascertain views on: Whether f40 had gone as far as it can in campaigning for fairer funding? If yes, whether the group should fold or morph into something different (if so, what?) If no, what objectives and focus should the group set for a continuing campaign? What specifically has the government failed to address? What appetite is there among member authorities for an on-going campaign? What active support will member authorities give to the campaign (why are so few LAs represented on the Executive? Why is it that just a few finance managers give the most technical support?). Our current Chair will retire in the Autumn of 2018 and his place will need to be taken by another Lead Member. Our Secretary intends to retire no later than the end of 2018: what steps can be taken to ensure a similar level of service can be maintained? What can member authorities do to ensure more active involvement of their MPs?
Other NFF points:
IO will approach former education Minister Tim Laughton MP to see if he would be prepared to advise f40. IO to follow up on approaches from the CCN about joint activity on fair funding. Consideration to be given to staging a Fair Funding Conference in the New Year.
3.10 Views of Jules White, WorthLess Campaign DA reported on correspondence with JW who has expressed concern that f40’s news release had been “disproportionately positive”. IO said that f40’s main concern is fair funding whilst WorthLess’s campaign is essentially concerned with the quantum of funding. The two campaigns have separate aims and objectives and different approaches to campaigning.
3.11 Westminster Education Forum – Seminar on NFF – 16 January 2018 DA reported that he had received and circulated to all f40 members, information about a half-day seminar to discuss NFF, its impacts and associated issues. Noted.
4. Retirement of Chair and Secretary It was agreed at the last Executive Meeting that this item be brought forward for consideration. Committee members were reminded that the Chairman, Cllr Ivan Ould, will be stepping down as Chair of the group in the Autumn of 2018 and that consideration must be given in the near future to identify a replacement chairman. DA also reminded the group that he is minded to “retire” at the same time, and certainly no later than December 2018, and that f40 and DTW would need to consider how the secretarial service is provided thereafter. It was noted that this matter would be a major consideration in the discussion on the future of f40 – see Section 3.9.
5. Membership Report & Financial Update
10
DA reported that the number of members in 2017 is 42 and that all have paid their annual subscription. The group has a substantial balance in the bank.
11
6. Any Other Business JJ reported that he may not be able to attend f40 meetings as an NASUWT representative but will attend in a private capacity if this is the case. Agreed.
7. Dates of future Executive Committees DA asked if the meeting scheduled for 20 January 2018 could be altered as he would be unable to attend that day. IO suggested that it could be cancelled as it is most likely that an earlier meeting of the Executive would be desirable. Agreed that the next meeting should be scheduled for 11am, Saturday 25 November 2017.
DA suggested the following dates for the next financial year: 21 April 2018 21 July 2018 20 October 2018 19 January 2019
12
AGENDA ITEM 8c) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 12th OCTOBER 2017
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) SCHOOLS BLOCK LOCAL CONSULTATION ISSUES FOR 2018-19 AND 2019-20
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To share and discuss with the WSF the proposed Schools Block Local Consultation Issues for 2018-19 and 2019-20.
1.2 To obtain WSF approval for launching the local consultation.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 On 14th September 2017 the Education Secretary made an announcement on the National Funding Formula (NFF) and requirements on LAs for local consultation issues.
2.2 The LA, in conjunction with the Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) now has to commence its annual school funding consultation. As a consequence of the EFSA Operational Guidance for 2018 to 2019 this will need to include consideration of the: - Impact of the DfE NFF notional illustrations on the current Worcestershire Local Schools Funding Formula (LSFF). National DfE protection requirements. Decisions required by the WSF on the centrally retained services and maintained schools de-delegation.
2.3 In all of this there is likely to be a complex interplay between the 3 different levels of guarantees available:- The LSFF Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) between 0% per pupil and -1.5% per pupil to be determined locally. The DfE guarantee that there will be a 0.5% per pupil cash increase for every school for 2018-19 and 2019-20. The DfE further guarantee of a minimum funding level in for per pupil funding for primary £3,300 in 2018-19 and £3,500 in 2019-20; secondary £4,600 in 2018-19 and £4,800 in 2019-20 – note that this is not the same thing as Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) funding but the overall per pupil rate for each school.
3. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
3.1 Schools have been advised of all the above issues in a communication sent on 18th September 2017.
3.2 Attached at Appendix A is the draft consultation document together with the consultation questionnaire at Appendix B. The proposed consultation timeline is detailed at Table 1.
Table 1: Proposed Consultation Timeline
DETAIL DATE Meeting of the WSF to discuss and agree consultation issues 12 October 2017 Formal consultation for 2018-19 starts 13 October 2017 Formal consultation for 2018-19 ends 24 November 2017 Further Meeting of the WSF to consider the results of the consultation and to 29 November formulate recommendations to Cabinet 2017 Report to Cabinet making recommendations for the Local Schools Funding 14 December Formula (LSFF) 2018-19, de-delegated and centrally retained budgets 2017 Confirmation by the DfE/ESFA of: - October 2017 census data ) Late Final LSFF Authority Proforma Tool (APT) for 2018-19 ) December Schools Block DSG 2018-19 ) 2017 LA to consider impact of the new October 2017 data sets for LSFF APT Late December submission for 2018-19 2017/Early January 2018 Meeting of the WSF to: - Consider impact of the new October 2017 data sets ) 16 January Agree submission for the final LSFF APT 2018-19 to the EFA ) 2018 LA to submit final data for Schools Budget DSG LSFF APT for 2018-19 By 19 January 2018 LA to confirm School Budget Shares 2018-19 for their maintained schools By 28 February 2018 LA to confirm School Budget Shares 2018-19 for their maintained specialist By 31 March providers 2018 ESFA to confirm General Annual Grant (GAG) 2018-19 to academies By 31 March 2018
As in previous years, this consultation process has to take place prior to the receipt of the October 2017 data sets and the issue of the final DSG for 2018-19. This is not anticipated until late December 2017.
3.3 This provides for a special WSF meeting on Wednesday 29th November 2017 for the WSF to consider the consultation outcomes and to make their decisions on the designated responsibility areas prior to WCC Cabinet on 14th December 2017. The WSF are reminded the approval of the LSFF is for the WCC Cabinet following consideration of all the consultation outcomes not the WSF.
3.4 At its meeting on 7th September the WSF discussed the LSFF options that could be available. The WSF concluded Depending there were probably two options to consider – stay with the current LSFF and allocate any additional DSG into the local formula probably via the AWPU or move to the NFF as soon as possible.
3.5 As a consequence, the consultation contains the following areas: - On the LSFF 2 options: - In line with previous policy to support stability to retain the current LSFF but complying with any NFF mandatory requirements and to include any additional DSG into the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) as in previous years; or To move to the NFF in 2018-19 and 2019-20. Support or not for continued central retention for: - De-delegated services for maintained mainstream schools. The Central School Services Block (CSSB) for all maintained schools and academies.
3.5 At the time of writing this report the full NFF detailed calculations were still to be made available to LAs and schools. The consultation provides a copy of the NFF exemplifications and an indication of including any extra DSG in the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) as the policy in previous years.
3.6 The WSF are reminded the DfE published workbook showing the DfE NFF impact on every Worcestershire mainstream school compared to the 2017-18 baselines are DfE and not Worcestershire illustrations. For any LSFF chosen for 2018-19 and 2019-20 the actual funding a school will receive will be subject to data changes from the 2017 and 2018 October census and other 2017 and 2018 data sets.
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The WSF notes and discusses the proposed Schools Block Local Consultation Issues for 2018-19 and 2019-20.
4.2 The WSF approves the circulation of the local consultation on the timescales included in this report agreeing any amendments to the current draft.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy Children, Families and Communities
October 2017
APPENDIX A
CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES DIRECTORATE
FAIR FUNDING CONSULTATION PAPER OCTOBER 2017
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION FOR: - THE NEW NATIONAL FUNDING FORMULA (NFF), THE LOCAL SCHOOLS FUNDING FORMULA (LSFF) AND CENTRALLY RETAINED SERVICES FOR WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (WCC) IN 2018-19 AND 2019-20
Page Section Subject Numbers
Part A Introduction 2 – 4
Part B Issues for consideration in respect of the new National 5 – 14 Funding Formula (NFF), the Local Schools Funding Formula (LSFF) and Centrally Retained Services for Worcestershire County Council (WCC) in 2018-19 and 2019-20
Appendix A Department for Education (DfE) Confirmed Funding 15 –19 Arrangements for 2018-19 and 2019-20 (background information)
Appendix B DfE National Funding Formula (NFF) Exemplifications (separate paper)
Appendix C Response Form (separate paper)
Contact Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy Education and Skills Directorate of Children’s Services County Hall, Spetchley Road Worcester WR5 2YA
01905 846285
Please respond to this consultation by: - 2pm on 24 November 2017 using the following email address: -
1
PART A – INTRODUCTION
1. The purpose of this consultation paper is to advise on the national framework for School Funding for 2018-19 and to set out the issues for consideration in respect of new National Funding Formula (NFF), the Local Schools Funding Formula (LSFF) and Centrally Retained Services for Worcestershire County Council (WCC) in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
2. On 17 July 2017, the Education Secretary made an announcement on School Funding for 2018-19 and 2019-20. The statement is on the attached link as follows: - https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/justine-greening-statement-to-parliament-on-school- funding
3. The key issues from the statement were as follows: - A new National Funding Formula (NFF) will be introduced in 2018-19 as planned. Every LA to see a rise in its per pupil funding for schools as a result of the NFF. Increases in the basic amount that every pupil will attract in 2018-19 and 2019-20. Increase the percentage allocated to pupil led factors – the proposed formula settlement to 2019-20 to provide at least £4,800 per pupil for every secondary school. Allow for gains of up to 3% per pupil for underfunded schools for the next two years. Provide at least a 0.5% a year per pupil cash increase for every school in 2018-19 and 2019-20. In 2018-19 and 2019-20, the NFF will set indicative budgets for each school, and the total schools funding received by each LA will be allocated according to the NFF. LAs will be able to continue to set a Local Schools Funding Formula (LSFF) for individual schools’ budgets in 2018-19 and 2019-20, in consultation with schools in their area to allow longer transition to provide stability for schools. Continue to protect funding for pupils with additional needs. Ring-fence the vast majority of funding provided for primary and secondary schools although LAs, in agreement with their local schools forum, will be able to move some limited amounts of funding to High Needs, where this better matches local need. The PE and Sports Premium Grant for primary schools to double. Spending plans for the years beyond 2019-20 will be set out in a future spending review.
4. This detailed the overall position but not LA and individual school exemplifications or the DfE response to their Stage 2 NFF consultation.
5. On 4 August 2017: - The Department for Education (DfE) published the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Baselines for 2018-19 for the School and High Needs Blocks based upon the DSG 2017-18. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) published its Schools Revenue Funding 2018 to 2019 Operational Guidance.
The details are in the attached link and summarised at Appendix A. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pre-16-schools-funding-guidance-for-2018-to-2019
2
6. A summary of key issues is follows: -
6.1 DSG Baseline 2018-19 For WCC this has been set at £4,264.17 per pupil, which is the guaranteed minimum amount for the Schools Block in 2018-19.
6.2 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) This will be determined by a separate National Funding Formulae (NFF). It will include the introduction of a 4th Block called the Central School Services Block (CSSB).
6.3 National Funding Formula (NFF) The DfE will introduce a NFF in 2018-19 to determine LAs DSG allocations for Schools, High Needs, Early Years and Central Schools Services. The Schools Block will be ring-fenced from 2018-19 with transfers out limited to 0.5% with agreement of local schools forums.
6.4 Local Schools Funding Formula (LSFF) LAs can still use a LSFF in the two years 2018-19 and 2019-20, so the local factor values and parameters may continue to differ from those used in the NFF for this period. A new factor will be allowed in LA formulae for secondary schools to set a transitional amount of per pupil funding in 2018-19, as a step towards £4,800 per pupil in 2019-20. LAs will be able to use both current and Ever 6 Free School Meals (FSM) measures within their deprivation factors – previously this has been limited to one of these measures. There will no longer be a deduction to Schools Block pupil numbers for High Needs places in mainstream schools – the place funding of £10,000 will be allocated by a combination of per pupil and place funding of £6,000.
6.5 Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) This will continue, but LAs will have the flexibility to set a local MFG between 0% and minus 1.5% per pupil.
6.6 Central School Services Block (CSSB) and De-delegated Services The existing arrangements for these will continue and required local consultation and Schools Forum approvals remain for 2018-19 and 2019-20.
7. On 14 September 2017 the Education Secretary made a further announcement on School Funding for 2018-19 and 2019-20. The statement is on the attached link as follows: - https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/justine-greening-statement-on-national-funding- formula
8. Schools have been provided with a summary of the key headlines issues within the statement, which confirmed the issues made in the July 2017 statement. The main issues are as follows: - The Government announced their decisions on their education funding consultation. Confirmation of baseline levels of funding for each Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Block (Schools, High Needs and Central Services, no changes to Early Years). Details are provided in Table 1.
3
Table 1: DfE NFF Illustrations
Detail 2017-18 2018-19 Variance to 2019-20 Variance to Baseline Provisional 2017-18 Illustrative 2017-18 £'m £'m £'m £'m £'m Schools Block 304.569 311.840 +7.271 315.772 +11.203 (see note)
Centrally Services 3.796 3.742 -0.054 3.742 -0.054 Schools Block (CSSB)
High Needs Block 47.353 48.716 +1.363 50.018 +2.665
TOTAL 355.718 364.298 +8.580 369.532 +13.814
+2.4% +3.9%
Note
Local Schools Funding Formula including SEN Unit Transfer £303.869m plus Pupil Growth Fund £0.700m.
The DfE confirmed guaranteed minimum funding levels for overall per pupil funding by sector of £4,600 for secondary and £3,300 primary in 2019-20 rising to £4,800 and £3,500 in 2019-20. Illustrative NFF notional budgets have been for every mainstream school for 2018-19 and 2019-20. These illustrations show: - For 2018-19 compared to 2017-18 baseline cash increases of £2,890,000 (1.9%) for primary; £870,000 (2.4%) for middle; £3,161,000 (2.8%) for secondary; £144,000 (2.2%) for all through – totalling £7,065,000 (2.3%). For 2019-20 compared to 2017-18 baseline cash increases of £4,100,000 (2.7%) for primary; £1,205,000 (3.3%) for middle; £5,311,000 (4.8%) for secondary; £167,000 (2.6%) for all through – totalling £10,783,000 (3.5%).
9. Issues for consideration in 2018-19 for maintained schools and academies are detailed in Part B.
4
PART B – ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION FOR 2018-19 AND 2019-20
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The LA has been endeavouring to forward plan for 2018-19 assuming that a new NFF would begin to be introduced from 2018-19 following the DfE Stage 1 consultation in March and April 2016.
1.2 However, the outcomes of DfE Stage 2 consultation launched in December 2016 and final NFF proposals for 2018-19 and 2019-20 were only published on 14 September 2017.
1.3 Following this WCC will now commence the required local statutory consultation with WCC maintained schools and academies on the consideration of issues for the LSFF, de-delegated and centrally retained services for 2018-19 and 2019-20.
1.4 Please note the significant delay in the DfE announcement has severely restricted the ability of the LA to engage schools earlier in the process.
1.5 The remaining timeline is detailed in Table 2.
Table 2: Consultation Timeline
DETAIL DATE Meeting of the WSF to discuss and agree consultation issues 12 October 2017 Formal consultation for 2018-19 starts 13 October 2017 Formal consultation for 2018-19 ends 24 November 2017 Further Meeting of the WSF to consider the results of the consultation and to 29 November formulate recommendations to Cabinet 2017 Report to Cabinet making recommendations for the Local Schools Funding 14 December Formula (LSFF) 2018-19, de-delegated and centrally retained budgets 2017 Confirmation by the DfE/ESFA of: - October 2017 census data ) Late Final LSFF Authority Proforma Tool (APT) for 2018-19 ) December Schools Block DSG 2018-19 ) 2017 LA to consider impact of the new October 2017 data sets for LSFF APT Late December submission for 2018-19 2017/Early January 2018 Meeting of the WSF to: - Consider impact of the new October 2017 data sets ) 16 January Agree submission for the final LSFF APT 2018-19 to the EFA ) 2018 LA to submit final data for Schools Budget DSG LSFF APT for 2018-19 By 19 January 2018 LA to confirm School Budget Shares 2018-19 for their maintained By 28 February maintained schools 2018 LA to confirm School Budget Shares 2018-19 for their maintained specialist By 31 March providers 2018 ESFA to confirm General Annual Grant (GAG) 2018-19 to academies By 31 March 2018
5
As in previous years, this consultation process has to take place prior to the receipt of the October 2017 data sets and the issue of the final DSG for 2018-19. This is not anticipated until late December 2017.
2. LOCAL SCHOOLS FUNDING FORMULA (LSFF) 2018-19 AND 2019-20
THIS SECTION IS APPLICABLE TO ALL MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS ONLY BOTH LA MAINTAINED AND EFA ACADEMIES
2.1 Following the Government announcements on 17 July 2017 and 14 September 2017 the DfE will be implementing their NFF arrangements from 2018-19.
2.2 In terms of the existing LSFF, schools are reminded of the period of LSFF stability supported in previous local statutory consultations. This has resulted in a consistent formula from 2015-16 that only varied annually due to effects of the October census, other DfE prescribed data changes and the statutory Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) and capping requirements.
2.3 The LA in conjunction with the WSF has continued to consider the national issues and the often competing and conflicting aspects raised by schools. There has always been anticipation, given the DfE Stage 1 consultation in April 2016, of a long awaited NFF now confirmed to be in place in 2018-19. However, LAs can still use a LSFF in the two years 2018-19 and 2019-20, so the local factor values and parameters may continue to differ from those used in the NFF for this period.
2.4 At its meeting on 7 September 2017 the WSF discussed in detail the LSFF issues and potential for change. They concluded that although stability was in the best interest of schools the NFF has the potential to significantly affect that policy. However, at that time it was not possible to make a definitive judgement on principles without the detailed NFF being available, the WSF requested WCC to consider stability vs. the NFF.
2.5 In considering the NFF and the LSFF key considerations include: - The potential impact of the DfE NFF in terms of DSG and individual school allocations for LAs and schools and how does this compare to the current LSFF. How quickly the WCC and its school will want to move from the existing LSFF to the NFF during the 2 year period. The current policy of LSFF stability apart from annual data changes vs. the impact of the NFF and the potential conflict of this for individual schools. The use or not of any additional factors e.g. secondary school amount per pupil, the ability to use current and ever 6 FSM, etc. The LSFF Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) between 0% per pupil and -1.5% per pupil to be determined locally. The DfE guarantee that there will be a 0.5% per pupil cash increase for every school for 2018-19. The DfE further guarantee of a minimum per pupil funding levels for the primary and secondary sectors. The impact of the DfE policy change for the funding of High Needs places in mainstream schools. The continuing impact of budget and funding pressures for all schools. The NFF having to be implemented in full from 2020-21 so not moving towards it will create a potential cliff edge in two years.
6
2.6 The detailed NFF exemplifications for the LA DSG and for mainstream maintained schools and academies were made available by the DfE on 14 September 2017 and have been circulated to schools.
2.7 As in the local consultation in the Autumn Term 2014 for the LSFF 2015-16 there is the potential to have a number of different and often competing and conflicting consultation options. However, the view of WCC and the WSF is that although it was useful in 2014 it is not so now. This is because the current LSFF was based upon DfE Minimum Funding Levels (MFLs) and given the NFF is due in 2020-21 having a range of options will merely create more anxiety and confusion.
2.8 There are further considerations as follows: -
(a) Deprivation Free School Meal (FSM) Data The LSFF will be able to use both current and Ever 6 Free School Meals (FSM) measures within their deprivation factors – previously this has been limited to one of these measures. The current LSFF only uses the current FSM given the Pupil Premium on Ever 6 is in place. The NFF uses both FSM data sets.
(b) Primary and Secondary Per Pupil Funding As detailed above there are requirements on per pupil funding for the primary and secondary sectors in the next two years. This is this is not the same thing as Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) funding but the overall per pupil rate for each school defined by the total budget divided by the number on roll. On the 2017-18 baselines there are a number of schools already above the stipulated amounts. To implement this policy will further Schools Block DSG but those schools above the thresholds would see no impact.
(c) Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) and Minimum Increase in Funding Per Pupil The LSFF can have a MFG between -1.5% per pupil and 0% per pupil, with more protection being offered as this approaches 0% per pupil. To implement a MFG of 0% per pupil in the current LSFF 2017-18 baselines would require a cap of 0% i.e. all school gains would have to be clawed back. The DfE guarantee that there will be a 0.5% per pupil cash increase for every school for 2018-19 and 2019-20.
(d) School Baselines 2017-18 The start point for these for all mainstream schools both maintained and academies is the WCC LSFF 2017-18 submission made to the ESFA in its Authority Proforma Tool (APT) in January 2017. However, these differ to NFF published baselines as a consequence of: - For maintained schools and academies those schools with funded places for special units and resourced provision. For academies due to the effect of rates allocations being excluded and some academies MFG/Capping being different in their General Annual Grant (GAG) allocations.
7
(e) LSFF Authority Proforma Tool (APT) Another significant consideration is that the DfE have yet to reissue the APT for 2018-19 to reflect both the revised schools baselines although the individual school exemplifications of the NFF are now available. This means any local modelling work using the current LSFF APT 2017-18 to compare the individual schools NFF is spurious.
2.9 Given all the above DfE requirements and issues in sections 2.5 to 2.8 there will need to be consideration if the Schools Block DSG allocated will be able to fund the full NFF in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
2.10 On this basis and in line with the previous policy of LSF stability, WCC and the WSF feel there are effectively only 2 options of principal to consider: - Option 1 – Retain the current WCC LSFF for 2018-19 and 2019-20 with a MFG of - 1.50% and after the NFF requirements for the primary and secondary minimum funding levels and that all schools receive a 0.5% per pupil cash increase allocate any additional Schools Block DSG into the LSFF via the AWPU as in previous years. [Note – On current DfE illustrations the additional DSG would provide approximately £100 per pupil in 2018-19 prior to any protection requirements required for the NFF – however schools in MFG currently will not see the full effect of the increase]. Option 2 – Introduce the NFF as far as is practicable and affordable as the WCC LSFF in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
PLEASE NOTE IN EITHER OPTION IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE DFE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF PER PUPIL FUNDING FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY IN IN 2018-19 AND 2019-20 AND THE MINIMUM PER PUPIL INCREASES AS PRESCRIBED. BOTH OF THESE WILL IMPACT ON THE AMOUNT OF SCHOOLS BLOCK DSG AVAILABLE TO FUND EITHER OPTION.
2.11 Considerations for Mainstream Schools
(a) Overall In doing this it is recognised schools will make individual judgements based on the effect on them. However, given the cost pressures on all schools the WSF requests schools to consider the collective view where possible and the effect on all schools as well as their own.
(b) School Budget Shares With either option, schools are reminded that their final budget allocations will differ between current in 2017-18 and 2018-19/2019-20 from the DfE exemplification in Appendix B due to: - The MFG baseline having to roll forward with its start point being the 2017-18 budgets. Data not yet available from the October 2017 census and other 2017 updated data sets that have to be used for the 2018-19 allocations. The revised MFG per pupil and associated capping calculation for 2018-19 having to be based upon this revised data. For some academies the EFA will use a different 2017-18 baseline for the calculation of the MFG and capping. The final Schools Block DSG for 2018-19 will be based upon the October 2017 pupil numbers and NFF arrangements.
8
The final Schools Block DSG quantum for 2018-19 which will not be notified by the DfE until late December 2017.
2.12 With all the above issues and details of the individual school exemplifications comparing the current baseline 2017-18 i.e. the LSFF compared to the DfE NFF detailed as part of Appendix B, schools are requested to consider the following consultation question.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 1
APPLICABLE TO MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS ONLY BOTH LA MAINTAINED AND EFA ACADEMIES
Please indicate on the response form at Appendix B.
Q1 – Do you support the LSFF in 2018-19 and 2019-20 being: -
Please indicate your preference
Option 1 – Retaining the current WCC LSFF for 2018-19 and 2019-20 with a MFG of - 1.50% per pupil and after the NFF requirements for the primary and secondary minimum funding levels and that all schools receive a 0.5% per pupil cash increase, allocate any additional Schools Block DSG into the LSFF via the AWPU on a straight per pupil basis as in previous years.
Option 2 – The LSFF in 2018-19 and 2019-20 being the DfE NFF as far as is practicable and affordable subject to the Schools Block DSG available.
3. Centrally Retained Services and Provisions
3.1 De-delegation for Services
THIS SECTION IS APPLICABLE TO LA MAINTAINED MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS ONLY
There is a requirement to consider again for 2018-19 the existing arrangements in place in 2017-18 for delegation and de-delegation. The de-delegation decisions approved by the maintained school members of the WSF for 2017-18 are detailed in Table 3. These will continue to only be able to be de-delegated from the primary and/or secondary maintained schools. De-delegation is not an option for academies, special schools, nursery schools or Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). The de-delegation option is again available in 2018-19 and LAs are required to review their arrangements with schools. This is because the DfE have confirmed that current decisions on de-delegation were for 2017-18 only and so will be required again for each service for 2018-19. Following consultation, it would be for the WSF maintained schools members in the relevant phase (primary or secondary) to decide for each service whether it should be provided centrally. The decision will apply to all maintained mainstream schools in that phase and would mean that the funding for these services will be removed from the formula before school budgets are issued. There could be different decisions made for each phase. Middle schools have to be treated according to their deemed phase.
9
Table 3: Delegation/De-Delegation Decisions for Maintained Mainstream Schools for 2017-18
Phase/Service Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Delegation De- Delegation De-delegation [Formula Factor for De- delegation delegation indicated] School Specific No Yes No Yes Contingency (SSC) [Per Pupil (AWPU)] Support for Schools in Yes No Yes No Financial Difficulty [Per Pupil (AWPU)] Behaviour Support N/A N/A Yes No Services [Low Prior Attainment] 14-16 Practical Learning N/A N/A Yes No Options [Per Pupil (AWPU)] Support for Minority No Yes No Yes Ethnic Pupils/ Underachieving Groups – (See Note 1)
English as an Additional No Yes No Yes Language [EAL 3 Years] Traveller Children [Low Prior Attainment] Free School Meal (FSM) No Yes No Yes Eligibility (See Note 1) [FSM Annual] Schools Insurance Yes No Yes No [Per Pupil (AWPU)] Licences and No Yes No Yes Subscriptions [Per Pupil (AWPU)] Staff Costs/Duties Supply Cover –
Civic No Yes No Yes Trade Union No Yes No Yes HR Related No Yes No Yes [Per Pupil (AWPU)] Additional School Improvement Services No No No No
Note 1 – These services are now part of the Education & Skills (E&S) Contract with Babcock International PLC from 1st October 2015.
10
For these above approved arrangements for 2017-18 it is not proposed to make any changes for 2018-19 and so the current delegation and de-delegation will continue to apply. This position will require the approval of the maintained mainstream school members of the WSF.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 2
APPLICABLE TO LA MAINTAINED MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS ONLY
Please indicate on the response form at Appendix B.
Q2 – Do you support the arrangements for delegation and de-delegation for 2017-18 as detailed in Table 3 to continue for 2018-19 and 2019-20?
3.2 Education Services Grant (ESG) General Duties Considerations
THIS SECTION IS APPLICABLE TO ALL LA MAINTAINED SCHOOLS ONLY
The DfE will continue to allow LAs to retain some of their Schools Block funding to cover the statutory duties that they carry out for maintained schools which were previously funded through the ESG. Further details of the duties to be included under this arrangement are included in the ESFA School Revenue Funding 2018 to 2019 Operational Guidance. The amount to be retained by the LA will need to be agreed by the maintained schools members of the WSF. This additional de-delegation was not approved for 2017-18. If LAs and schools forums are unable to reach consensus on the level of the DSG to be retained by the LA, the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State. LAs should set a single rate for all mainstream maintained schools (both primary and secondary) and they may choose to establish differential rates for maintained special schools and PRUs if the cost of fulfilling the duty is substantially different for these schools. As with de-delegation, the amount to be held by the LA will be determined after MFG has been applied.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 3
APPLICABLE TO ALL LA MAINTAINED SCHOOLS ONLY
Please indicate on the response form at Appendix B.
Q3 – Do you support further de-delegation in 2018-19 and 2019-20 to allow central retention of some Schools Block funding to cover the statutory duties for maintained schools carried out by the LA which were previously funded through the general duties ESG?
11
3.3 Other Central Retention
THIS SECTION IS APPLICABLE TO ALL SCHOOLS BOTH LA MAINTAINED AND EFA ACADEMIES
The decisions approved for 2017-18 are detailed in Table 4. It is not proposed to change any of these arrangements for 2018-19. This will mean the current central retention arrangements are proposed to continue to apply. Following consultation, it is for the WSF to approve the central funding for some of these services as indicated below. As part of this current position, the budget for Contributions to Combined Services relates to the Early Intervention Family Support (EIFS) service. The continued central retention for EIFS is fundamental in supporting the delivery of WCCs Early Help strategy and is well supported by schools and the WSF and so is recommended to continue.
Table 4: Centrally Retained Services Decisions for All Maintained Schools and Academies 2017-18
For the LA to decide
WSF approval is not required High Needs Block provision Central Licences negotiated by the Secretary of State [Note – the cost is notified to LAs by the DfE – current cost £0.38m] CSSB and de-delegated services
WSF approval is required on a line School Admissions – current by line basis NOT LIMITED by central budget £0.69m previous budget provision Servicing of Schools Forum – current central budget £0.06m Services previously funded by the ESG retained duties that LAs hold for all schools – current central budget £1.16m Services previously funded by the ESG general duties that LAs hold for maintained schools only – no current central budget no de- delegation approved for 2017-18 De-delegated services for maintained schools only – see Table 2 above Other Services
WSF approval is required Central early years block provision – current central budget £0.75m Any movement of funding out of the schools block – new for 2018-19
12
Any deficit from the previous funding period that reduces the amount of the schools budget – not currently required Any brought forward deficit on de- delegated services which is to be met by the overall schools budget – not currently required CSSB services
WSF approval is required on a line Contribution to Combined Budgets by line basis LIMITED by previous (Early Intervention Family Support budget provision Service) – current central budget £1.5m Approved to be centrally retained before allocating formula
Subject to WSF approval including Funding for significant pre-16 criteria where appropriate pupil growth to meet basic need and to enable all schools to meet the infant class size requirement – current central budget £0.7m [Note – the criteria have been previously agreed by the WSF] No current provision made as no historic budget commitment or this has now time expired
WSF approval is required on a line Back-pay for equal pay claims by line basis LIMITED by previous Remission of boarding fees at budget provision where NO NEW maintained schools/academies COMMITMENTS can be now Places in independent schools for entered into non-SEN pupils Prudential borrowing costs SEN transport costs Funding to support falling rolls to prepare for future population growth meeting specific criteria for good or outstanding schools where growth in pupil numbers is expected within 3 years Capital Expenditure Funded from Revenue (CERA) Existing Termination of Employment/ Redundancy Costs [Note – there is no central budget provision for any of these areas]
13
CONSULTATION QUESTION 4
APPLICABLE TO ALL SCHOOLS BOTH LA MAINTAINED AND EFA ACADEMIES
Please indicate on the response form at Appendix B.
Q4 – Do you support the arrangements for centrally retained services as detailed in Table 4 for 2017-18 to continue in 2018-19 and 2019-20?
14
APPENDIX A
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DfE) DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) BASELINES 2018-19 FOR SCHOOLS AND HIGH NEEDS
EDUCATION AND SKILLS FUNDING AGENCY (ESFA) SCHOOLS REVENUE FUNDING 2018 TO 2019 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE SUMMARY OF ISSUES
1. DfE DSG BASELINE 2018-19
1.1 In Table A1 this confirms the DSG Baseline 2018-19 from the DSG 2017-18.
Table A1: DSG Baseline 2018-19 Schools and High Needs Blocks Based Upon the DSG 2017-18
Detail Original Adjustment Revised Notes December £'m August 2016 2017 £'m £'m SCHOOLS BLOCK Schools 303.84 +0.73 304.57 A.
CENTRALLY SERVICES SCHOOLS BLOCK (CSSB) Central School Services 2.30 0.00 2.30 B. Historic Commitments 1.50 0.00 1.50 C. TOTAL 307.64 +0.73 308.37
HIGH NEEDS (HN) BLOCK Schools and Services 47.52 -0.73 46.79 A. Hospital Education 0.56 0.56 TOTAL 48.08 -0.73 47.35
TOTAL DSG SCHOOLS AND HIGH NEEDS 355.72 0.00 355.72
Schools Block £307.64m £304.57m Guaranteed Unit of Funding ÷ ÷ (SB GUF) £ 71232 = 71425 = DSG ÷ Pupil Numbers £4,318.80 £4,264.17
Notes
A. This reflects the transfer by the DfE of funding to the Schools Block from the High Needs Block for core funding for pupils in SEN Units and Resourced provision. B. Central School Services £2.30m for ongoing functions for: - Co-ordinated Admissions – £0.70m Servicing of the Schools Forum – £0.06m Retained Duties Former ESG – £1.16m National Licenses and Subscriptions – £0.38m
15
C. Ongoing Historic Commitments £1.50m for: – Early Intervention Family Support Service (EIFS) – £1.50m
1.2 The key issues are: - The overall position is unchanged and the baselines are based on the information LAs returned to the ESFA through the 2017-18 baselines exercise. They reflect the fact that the DSG is now being distributed in four blocks, so schools block figures are not directly comparable to actual allocations in 2017-18 – there LAs received a single SBGUF, which included both the schools block and the central school services block. The baselines represent a change in national policy by the DfE for the funding of SEN places in mainstream schools. Each LA's minimum amount for the schools block in 2018-19 is a £ per pupil figure. This is the guaranteed minimum LAs will receive per pupil in 2018-19. For each LA it is calculated by dividing the schools block adjusted baseline total by the LA's 2017-18 schools block pupil count (without deductions for pupils in high needs places).
2. ESFA SCHOOLS REVENUE FUNDING 2018 TO 2019 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Introduction of a Central School Services Block (CSSB) 4th DSG block including Historic Commitments. Each of the four blocks of the DSG will be determined by a separate National Funding Formula (NFF). LA level allocations for 2018-19 for the Schools, CSSB and High Needs Blocks will be published in September. Final allocations will follow as usual in December, on the basis of pupil numbers recorded in the October census. The government has confirmed that there will be an additional £1.3 billion for schools and high needs across 2018-19 and 2019-20, in addition to the schools budget set at the Spending Review 2015. This will mean that, in 2018-19, all LAs will receive some increase over the amount they plan to spend on Schools and High Needs through the DSG in 2017-18. These increases will be reflected in the provisional allocations published in September.
2.2 National Funding Formulae (NFF) The DfE will introduce a NFF in 2018-19 and this will determine LAs DSG allocations for Schools, High Needs and CSSB for the first time. The Early Years DSG has already been allocated through a NFF since 2017-18. The DSG blocks have been re-baselined to reflect current spending patterns. The Schools Block will be ring-fenced from 2018-19, but LAs will be able to transfer up to 0.5% of their Schools Block funding out with the agreement of their schools forum. Schools Block allocations will be expressed as separate per pupil primary and secondary rates for each LA. They will also include funding at LA level for premises, mobility and pupil growth, based on historic spend. Within the Schools Block, the Government will provide for at least a 0.5% per pupil increase for each school in 2018-19 through the NFF. LAs Schools Block NFF allocations will be calculated by aggregating schools’ notional allocations under the NFF and these notional allocations will reflect these increases. For the Schools Block Final 2018-19 allocations for LAs will then be confirmed as usual in December, taking into account pupil numbers recorded in the October census. Two calculations will be made: -
16
First, the guaranteed minimum amount, where the pupil numbers will be multiplied by the overall per-pupil guaranteed minimum for each LA. Second, the pupil numbers will be multiplied by the primary/secondary NFF rates and added to the historic factors cash amount. LAs will receive the higher of the two. The NFF will provide LAs with per pupil funding of at least £3,500 for all primary schools and £4,800 for all secondary schools by 2019-20. Funding for growth and falling rolls will be allocated through the Schools Block in 2018- 19, on the basis of historic spend in 2017-18. Within the High Needs Block, the Government will provide for at least a 0.5% overall increase in 2018-2019 through the High Needs NFF.
2.3 Local Schools Formula Factors (LSFF) Although the DSG quantum will be determined by the NFF LAs can still use a LSFF in the two years 2018-19 and 2019-20, so the local factor values and parameters may continue to differ from those used in the NFF for this period. A new factor will be allowed in LA formulae for secondary schools to endeavour to set a transitional amount of per pupil funding in 2018-19, as a step towards £4,800 in 2019- 20; otherwise the list of allowable factors remains the same in 2018-19. There will no longer be a deduction to Schools Block pupil numbers for High Needs places in mainstream schools. An adjustment has been made between the High Needs block and Schools Block for each LA to reflect this change. Instead: - The school’s budget share (or the equivalent academy funding) will be determined on the basis of the total number of pupils on the roll of the school, including those in the special unit or resourced provision. The balance of funding for this kind of special provision will come from the place funding decided in accordance with the local authority’s commissioning decisions, and the top-up funding for individual pupils. The place funding will be £6,000 per place where the place is occupied by pupils in year's reception to 11 on the roll of the school at the time of the October school census return. Places not filled by such pupils will still be funded at £10,000. LAs will be able to use both current and Ever 6 Free School Meals (FSM) measures within their deprivation factors – previously this has been limited to one of these measures. The DfE will be increasing the Pupil Premium Plus rates for 2018-19 rather than including a LAC factor in the NFF. LAs may want to consider whether they reflect this in their local formulae LPA – for the KS2 assessment used for secondary aged pupils the ESFA will continue to use a national weighting to dampen the effect. LAs will not be able to change this but adjust the unit of resource in the normal way. LAs will no longer have to request approval to vary pupil numbers for school reorganisations and changes in school age ranges – existing approvals can be carried forward. Existing exceptional premises factors already approved can continue providing they still meet the EFA thresholds. LAs are again only required to submit one Local Authority Proforma Tool (APT) for 2018- 19 by 19th January 2018 and must ensure they have built in the relevant statutory consultation and political approvals as required. Confirmation by LAs of Schools Block School Budget Shares (SBS) for its maintained schools is required by 28th February 2018.
17
Confirmation by the EFA of General Annual Grant (GAG) statements for academies is required by 31st March 2018.
2.4 Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) The MFG for schools will continue, but LAs will have the flexibility to set a local MFG between 0% and minus 1.5% per pupil. It is a statutory EFA calculation and will be part of the APT calculation but the EFA will re-calculate for academies. LAs will continue to be able to request MFG disapplication for exceptional local circumstances as now by the end of November 2017. Capping and scaling for gaining schools will continue to be permitted limited to the cash requirement of the MFG as now.
2.5 Central School Services Block (CSSB) Will include funding: - Previously allocated through the retained duties element of the Education Services Grant (ESG). For ongoing central functions, such as admissions, previously top-sliced from the schools block. For historic commitments, previously top-sliced from the schools block.
2.6 De-delegated services The list of current services that can be subject to delegation remains for maintained primary, middle and secondary schools. However, De-delegation is still not an option for special schools, nursery schools and PRUs. Funding for de-delegated services must be allocated through the formula but can continue be passed back, or ‘de-delegated’, for maintained primary, middle and secondary schools with schools forum approval by primary and secondary phase as now. Any decisions made to de-delegate in 2017-18 related to that year only, so new decisions will be required for any service to be de-delegated in 2018-19. As with de-delegation, the amount to be held by the LA will be determined after the MFG has been applied.
2.7 Education Services Grant (ESG) The split of former ESG duties to be funded from CSSB (for all pupils) and from the mechanism set out below (for maintained school pupils only) has been set out in the ESFA Operational Guidance. Retained Duties for All Maintained Schools and Academies: - Funding previously allocated through the ESG retained duties rate is included in the CSSB in 2018-19. LAs will need to ensure they retain sufficient funding centrally to cover duties previously funded by the ESG retained rate in addition to the responsibilities that are already funded from CSSB DSG. General Duties for Maintained Schools Only: - LAs will continue to be able to fund services for maintained schools – primary, middle, secondary, special and PRUs – previously funded from the general funding rate of the ESG. This can be by de-delegation from maintained school budget shares and will need the agreement of the maintained school members of the schools forum.
18
If the LA and Schools Forum are unable to reach consensus on the level of the DSG to be retained by the LA, the matter will need to be referred to the Secretary of State. LAs should set a single rate for all mainstream maintained schools (both primary and secondary) and they may choose to establish differential rates for special schools and PRUs if the cost of fulfilling the duty is substantially different for these schools. Any decisions made to de-delegate in 2017-18 related to that year only, so new decisions will be required for any service to be de-delegated in 2018-19. As with de-delegation, the amount to be held by the LA will be determined after the MFG has been applied.
2.8 For High Needs Block Funding For 2018-19, every LA will receive at least a 0.5% increase to the amount of its DSG that it plans to spend on high needs in 2017-18, subject to the following adjustments for the: - Change in the funding of special units and resourced provision in mainstream schools from April 2018. Change between the 2016-17 and 2017-18 academic years in the number of pupils and students in maintained special schools, special academies, non- maintained special schools (NMSSs) and special post-16 institutions (SPIs). Placement of pupils and students in schools and colleges located in other LA areas – i.e. 'import/export' amendments. LAs will continue to be able to make changes to the number of funded places in maintained schools and PRUs for 2018-19. Any changes for academies will continue to need agreement from the institutions and the ESFA.
19
APPENDIX B
FAIR FUNDING CONSULTATION PAPER OCTOBER 2017
RESPONSE FORM
Please fill in the details below and return the response sheets electronically, to:
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy Children, Families and Communities Worcestershire County Council at [email protected]
REPLIES SHOULD BE RETURNED BY 2pm ON 24 NOVEMBER 2017
FULL Name of School or Consultee:
Name of the person completing this form:
Position in school or organisation:
The views recorded on the attached forms are those of:
Date completed:
1
LOCAL SCHOOLS FUNDING FORMULA (LSFF) 2018-19
CONSULTATION QUESTION 1
APPLICABLE TO ALL MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS ONLY BOTH LA MAINTAINED AND EFA ACADEMIES
Q1 – Do you support the LSFF in 2018-19 and 2019-20 being: -
Please indicate your preference: -
Option 1 – Retaining the current WCC LSFF for 2018-19 and 2019-20 with a MFG of -1.50% per pupil and after the NFF requirements for the primary and secondary minimum funding levels and that all schools receive a 0.5% per pupil cash increase, allocate any additional Schools Block DSG into the LSFF via the AWPU on a straight per pupil basis as in previous years.
Option 2 – The LSFF in 2018-19 and 2019-20 being the DfE NFF as far as is practicable and affordable subject to the Schools Block DSG available.
Please note in either Option it will be necessary to comply with the DfE mandatory requirement of per pupil funding for Primary and Secondary in in 2018-19 and 2019-20 as prescribed. So, this will impact on the amount of DSG available. Please give your comments if you wish on this question. ------
2
OTHER CONSULTATION ISSUES
CONSULTATION QUESTION 2
APPLICABLE TO LA MAINTAINED MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS ONLY
Q2 – Do you support the arrangements for delegation and de-delegation for 2017-18 as detailed in Table 3 to continue for 2018-19 and 2019-20?
Yes / No Please give your comments if you wish on this question. ------
CONSULTATION QUESTION 3
APPLICABLE TO ALL LA MAINTAINED SCHOOLS ONLY
Q3 – Do you support further de-delegation in 2018-19 and 2019-20 to allow central retention of some Schools Block funding to cover the statutory duties for maintained schools carried out by the LA which were previously funded through the general duties ESG?
Yes / No Please give your comments if you wish on this question. ------
3
CONSULTATION QUESTION 4
THIS IS APPLICABLE TO ALL SCHOOLS BOTH LA MAINTAINED AND EFA ACADEMIES
Q4 – Do you support the arrangements for centrally retained services as detailed in Table 4 for 2017-18 to continue in 2018-19 and 2019-20?
Yes / No Please give your comments if you wish on this question. ------
4
Please detail any further comments you wish to make on any of the consultation issues: ------
Thank you for your time in completing this and outcomes will be considered by members of Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) in November 2017 and the WCC Cabinet in December 2017.
5
AGENDA ITEM 9 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 12th OCTOBER 2017
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) SCHOOLS FORUM OPERATIONAL AND GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF of the updated publication of the Schools Forum Operational and Good Practice Guidance.
1.2 To request the WSF considers the revisions to their powers and responsibilities and WSF members discuss the continued use of the self-assessment toolkit.
2. CURRENT POSITION
2.1 On 27th September 2017 the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) published an update to the above documents. The details can be accessed on the attached link: - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schools-forums-operational-and-good- practice-guide-2015
2.2 As with the previous documents the guidance is in two parts: -
(a) Section 1 – Information on the constitutional abs organisational requirements for Schools Forums dealing with: - Schools Forum Regulations – detailed in the Schools Forum (England) Regulations 2012. Schools Forum Powers – detailed in the ESFA amended list (section 2.3 below). Membership – size of schools forums and type. Terms of Office – stipulation on length. Schools Members – number at least 2/3rd of total membership, phases, type, election and nomination. Non-School Members – number no more than 1/3rd of total membership, 16-19, PVI sector, etc. Other Membership Issues – restrictions on LA executive members and LA officers. Role of Executive Elected Members – participation permitted. Recording the Composition of Schools Forums – responsibility of the LA. Observers – representative of the ESFA. Participation of LA Officers at Meetings – limited to key people and issues on the agenda. Procedures – quorum, election of Chair, voting procedures, schools forum powers, substitutes, vacancies, timing of meetings and local constitutions. Public Access – public meetings and publication of papers, etc on dedicated web site. Working Groups – permitted. Urgent Business – arrangements for discussion and decision between meetings. Resources of the Schools Forum – a call on Central Services Schools Block (CSSB) DSG.
(b) Section 2 – Effective Schools Forums dealing with: - Relationships with the LA – partnership, effective support, openness, responsiveness, strategic view, challenge and scrutiny. Induction – circulation of materials e.g. membership list, constitution, web site address, etc. Training – local and national events. Agenda Setting – agree meetings timetable a year in advance, items for discussion and decision making points. Meeting Preparation – papers in advance, publication, etc. Charing – independence, relationship with the LA and pre meetings. Clerking – link between the LA and the schools forum, maintaining records, etc. Good Practice – clear debate, use of name plates, consultation arrangements, etc. Meeting Notes and Recording Decisions – minutes, voting arrangements, decisions taken, etc. Communication – between schools forum members and the groups they represent, Headteacher representative groups, etc. News Update – circulation of regular information.
2.3 Although Schools Forums generally have a consultative role there are situations in which they have decision making powers. The respective roles of schools forums, LAs and the DfE are summarised in Appendix A. The only change to the existing powers is following the NFF where schools forums have to power to approve proposals from the LA to move up to 0.5% from the schools block to other blocks. On this, the DfE adjudicates where schools forums do not agree the LA proposal.
2.4 The guidance also continues to provide for a useful self-evaluation tool to be used by schools forum members to assess their strengths and weaknesses. This has been used by the WSF previously.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the WSF notes the revised publication, considers the revision to their powers and responsibilities and discusses the use of the self-assessment toolkit.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
October 2017 APPENDIX A
Schools forum powers and responsibilities
A summary of the powers and responsibilities of schools forums.
Function Local authority Schools forum DfE role
Formula change (including redistributions) Proposes and decides Must be consulted (voting Checks for compliance restrictions apply). See with regulations schools forum structure document that informs the governing bodies of all consultations
Adjudicates where schools Movement of up to 0.5% from the schools block to Proposes Decides forum does not agree LA other blocks proposal
Proposes at least one Gives a view and informs Contracts (where the LA is entering a contract to be month prior to invitation to the governing bodies of all None funded from the schools budget) tender, the terms of any consultations proposed contract
Financial issues relating to: Consults annually Gives a view and informs None
Published September 2017 1 Function Local authority Schools forum DfE role
arrangements for pupils with special the governing bodies of all educational needs, in particular the places to consultations be commissioned by the LA and schools and the arrangements for paying top-up funding
arrangements for use of pupil referral units and the education of children otherwise than at school, in particular the places to be commissioned by the LA and schools and the arrangements for paying top-up funding
arrangements for early years provision
administration arrangements for the allocation of central government grants
Proposes any exclusions from MFG for application Approval to application for Minimum funding guarantee (MFG) Gives a view to DfE exclusions
Maintained primary and De-delegation for mainstream maintained schools for: secondary school member Will adjudicate where contingencies representatives will decide Proposes schools forum does not for their phase. Middle administration of free school meals agree LA proposal schools are treated according to their deemed
Published September 2017 2 Function Local authority Schools forum DfE role
insurance status
licences/subscriptions
staff costs – supply cover
support for minority ethnic
pupils/underachieving groups
behaviour support services
library and museum services
School improvement
General Duties for maintained schools Would be decided by the relevant maintained Adjudicates where schools Contribution to responsibilities that local Proposes school members (primary, forum does not agree LA authorities hold for maintained schools secondary, special and proposal (please see operational guide for more PRU). information)
Central spend on and the criteria for allocating funding from: Adjudicates where schools funding for significant pre-16 pupil growth, Proposes Decides forum does not agree LA including new schools set up to meet basic proposal need, whether maintained or academy
Published September 2017 3 Function Local authority Schools forum DfE role
funding for good or outstanding schools with falling rolls where growth in pupil numbers is expected within three years
Central spend on: early years block provision funding to enable all schools to meet the infant class size requirement back-pay for equal pay claims remission of boarding fees at maintained Adjudicates where schools schools and academies Proposes Decides forum does not agree LA places in independent schools for non-SEN proposal pupils admissions servicing of schools forum Contribution to responsibilities that local authorities hold for all schools
Central spend on: Proposes up to the value capital expenditure funded from revenue: committed in the previous Adjudicates where schools projects must have been planned and decided financial year and where Decides for each line forum does not agree LA on prior to April 2013 so no new projects can expenditure has already proposal be charged been committed.
Published September 2017 4 Function Local authority Schools forum DfE role
contribution to combined budgets: this is where the schools forum agreed prior to April See table four page 31 to 2013 a contribution from the schools budget to 35 for Information on services which would otherwise be funded historic commitments. from other sources Read establishing local authority DSG baselines existing termination of employment costs for more information. (costs for specific individuals must have been approved prior to April 2013 so no new redundancy costs can be charged) prudential borrowing costs – the commitment must have been approved prior to April 2013
Central spend on: high needs block provision None, but good practice to Decides None central licences negotiated by the Secretary of inform forum State
Carry forward a deficit on central expenditure to the Adjudicates where schools next year to be funded from the schools budget Proposes Decides forum does not agree LA proposal
Any brought forward deficit on de-delegated services Adjudicates where schools which is to be met by the overall schools budget. Proposes Decides forum does not agree LA proposal
Published September 2017 5 Function Local authority Schools forum DfE role
Proposes and consults the Adjudicates where schools Approves (schools Scheme of financial management changes governing body and Head forum does not agree LA members only) of every school proposal
None (but good practice Membership: length of office of members Decides would suggest that they None gave a view)
Determine voting Voting procedures None None procedures
Elects (may not be an Chair of schools forum Facilitates elected member of the None Council or officer)
Published September 2017 6 AGENDA ITEM 10 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 12th OCTOBER 2017
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) HIGH NEEDS FUNDING 2018 TO 2019 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) High Needs (HN) Funding Operational Guidance for 2018/19.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 On 28th September 2017 the ESFA published their Operational Guidance for HN Funding for 2018/19.
2.2 The document is on the attached link: - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-needs-funding-arrangements-2018-to- 2019
2.3 The guide describes how the 2018/19 HN funding system will work for all types of provision. It provides key dates and activity for the delivery of 2018/19 HN funding.
3. KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
3.1 Changes in 2018/19 Although there are some significant changes to the 2018/19 HN funding system the underpinning operational processes and principles remain largely unchanged from 2017/18. From 2018/19 for the first time the National Funding Formula (NFF) will determine LAs HN DSG Block allocations. For 2018/19 every LA will receive an increase of at least 0.5% per head of 2-18 population to its HN DSG. The allocation is for the overall HN DSG to LAs. The DfE have no plans at this stage for a NFF for individual specialist providers. A baseline cost neutral adjustment for each LA between its Schools and High Needs Blocks has been made to reflect a change in the place funding arrangements of both special units and resourced provision in mainstream schools. Adjustments will be made to: - Reflect changes between 2016/17 and 2017/18 academic years in the numbers of pupils in maintained special schools and special academies. Changes in pupils in non-maintained special schools (NMSS) and special post 16 institutions (SPIs). Import/export to reflect inter LA placements. LAs will be able to propose to transfer up to 0.5% of their schools block funding to other blocks with the approval of their schools forum.
3.2 Changes to 2018/19 Academic Year HN Place Numbers
(a) For LA Maintained Providers: - Under the School and Early Years Finance Regulations 2017, LAs have the flexibility to determine the place funding on the basis of the number of pre-16 places in maintained schools/PRUs, without reference to ESFA. This will continue for 2018/19. This same flexibility will be extended to post-16 high needs places in maintained schools. As in previous years, the funding for these places will be deducted from the HN Block and will be allocated back to LAs via the 16-19 grant funding agreements. The funding allocation will be made at LA level rather than at individual school level and LAs will be able to agree post-16 place numbers in maintained schools without reference to the ESFA. As a consequence these institutions will therefore not be in scope of the 2018/19 place change notification data collection.
(b) For Academies and FE: - A change request process managed by the ESFA will continue to apply. The ESFA will collect information on changes to place numbers via the place change notification process. This will be similar to the 2017/18 place change request process and will inform 2018/19 funding allocations to ESFA funded institutions as well as the deductions applied to LAs HN Block DSG. Further details will be available when the place change notification process launches later in October 2016. Returns on this are required by 17th November 2017.
3.3 Overall Issues There are considerable ongoing budget pressures in 2017/18 on the HN Block evidenced by: - Increased placement demand for special schools. Increase in the complexity of need and the increased life chances of children with complex needs. Increase in the overall number of children with SEND. Although an increase in the HN DSG is anticipated for 2018/19 the impact of the current position and future demographics evidenced in the High Needs Commissioning Review (HNCR) will only put more pressure on the current HN DSG with more commissioned places required and more than offset any allocated NFF increase.
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The WSF notes and comments on the key issues in the HN funding guidance.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy Children, Families and Communities
October 2017 AGENDA ITEM 11 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 12th OCTOBER 2017
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) DfE s251 BENCHMARKING TABLES 2017-18
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF of the publication of the DfE s251 benchmarking tables for all LAs for 2017-18.
1.2 To share with the WSF some sample comparative analysis.
2. CURRENT POSITION
2.1 On 27th September 2017 the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) published the annual comparative tables for LA s251 budget statements for 2017-18. The details can be accessed on the attached link: - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/section-251-2017-to-2018
2.2 There is a lot of comparative data which can be analysed in a number of ways e.g. all LAs, areas, statistical neighbours, etc.
2.3 A sample of some of the comparative statistics are detailed in Appendix A.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the WSF notes the publication and the sample comparative statistics.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Policy
October 2017 SECTION 251 BENCHMARKING TABLES 2017/18 - KEY STATISTICS APPENDIX A
PER CAPITA (NET) FOR ALL, UPPER TIER, WEST MIDLANDS AND STATISTICAL NEIGHBOUR LA'S
Category Table Worcestershire All LA Upper Tier LA W Mids.LA Stat. Neigh. LA Comments Change Worcestershire vs. Average (Median) Column LA Average Average Average Average All LA UTier LA W Mids.LA S Neigh LA (WCC) (Median) (Median) (Median) (Median)
ISB * 1 £4,248 £4,453 £4,176 £4,493 £4,133 WCC varies -£205 £72 -£245 £115
De-delegated Items 12 £17 £31 £28 £19 £17 WCC always < average -£14 -£11 -£2 £0 except SNeigh
High Needs Total 26 £234 £325 £305 £283 £305 WCC always < average -£91 -£71 -£49 -£71
Central Expenditure Under 5s 27 £6 £15 £14 £10 £14 WCC always < average -£9 -£8 -£4 -£8
Total Schools Budget * 51 £4,679 £5,053 £4,759 £5,030 £4,710 WCC always < average -£374 -£80 -£351 -£31
* = Prior to Academy Recoupment
YEAR ON YEAR % CHANGE FOR ALL, UPPER TIER, WEST MIDLANDS AND STATISTICAL NEIGHBOUR LA'S
Category Table Worcestershire All LA Upper Tier LA W Mids.LA Stat. Neigh. LA Comments Change Worcestershire vs. Average (Median) Column LA Average Average Average Average All LA UTier LA W Mids.LA S Neigh LA (WCC) (Median) (Median) (Median) (Median)
High Needs Budget 1 2% 4% 4% 5% 7% WCC always < average -2% -2% -3% -5%
School Improvement 5 -43% -25% -26% -39% -34% WCC always < average -18% -17% -4% -9%
Statutory/Regulatory Duties Education 7 -21% 17% 47% 12% 31% WCC always < average -38% -68% -33% -52%
Home to School Transport 10 16% 1% 1% -2% 2% WCC always > average 15% 15% 18% 14%
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ALL, UPPER TIER, WEST MIDLANDS AND STATISTICAL NEIGHBOUR LA'S
Category Table Worcestershire All LA Upper Tier LA W Mids.LA Stat. Neigh. LA Comments Change Worcestershire vs. Average (Median) Column LA Average Average Average Average All LA UTier LA W Mids.LA S Neigh LA (WCC) (Median) (Median) (Median) (Median)
DSG 2017/18 Schools Block Guaranteed Unit of Funding 1 £4,319 £4,528 £4,319 £4,484 £4,279 WCC < average -£209 £0 -£165 £40 except for UTier & SNeigh
LA Additional Contribution 2 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 No Variation £0 £0 £0 £0
% of schools with MFG 2017/18 Primary 3 11% 23% 22% 18% 21% WCC always < average -12% -11% -7% -10% Secondary 4 17% 14% 12% 0% 7% WCC always > average 3% 5% 17% 10%
Home to School Transport SEND 9 £2,543 £2,169 £2,763 £1,834 £2,565 WCC varies £374 -£220 £709 -£22
LA GROUP DEFINITIONS FOR COMPARISONS PURPOSES
All LA means all LA's in England except City of London and Isles of Scilly Upper Tier LA means 27 shire county LA's including WCC West Midlands LA means 14 geographical LA's - 9 mets , 2 shires and 2 unitaries including WCC as follows: - Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Stoke-on-Trent, Telford & Wrekin, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire Statistical Neighbour LA means 11 Statistical Neighbour LA's including WCC as follows: - Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Dorset, South Gloucestershire, Essex, Hampshire, Leicestershire, East Sussex, West Sussex, North Somerset and Worcestershire Count of Count of Converted schools As At 1st September 2017 School Type Type School AGENDA ITEM 12 Grand Total 90 Grand Total 91 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 12th OCTOBER 2017 Advance Trust 4 First 16 Newbridge Secondary Short Stay School 1 AP Primary 32 Riversides 1 Special MDP 2 The Kingfisher 1 Special MDS 9 Vale of Evesham 1 Special Secondary 24 Bishop Anthony Trust 1 All Through 1 Tenbury CE Primary 1 Primary Special 4 Oasis Community Learning 1 AP 3 Oasis Academy Warndon 1 Primary Avonreach MAT 4 Pershore High School 1 Secondary Cherry Orchard First 1 Primary Norton Juxta Kempsey First School 1 Primary Inkberrow First 1 Primary Ormiston Academies Trust 1 Tenbury High School 1 Secondary Our Lady of Lourdes MAC 4 Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic First 1 First St Augustine's Catholic High 1 Secondary St Bede's Catholic Middle 1 MDS St Peter's Catholic First 1 First RSA Academies 4 Abbeywood First 1 First Arrow Vale 1 Secondary Church Hill Middle 1 MDS Ipsley CE Middle 1 MDS Saint Nicholas Owen Catholic MAC 3 Hagley Catholic High 1 Secondary St Ambrose Catholic Primary 1 Primary St Wulstan's Catholic Primary 1 Primary The Griffin Schools Trust 1 Perry Wood Primary 1 Primary The Rivers CofE MAT 7 Cranham Primary 1 Primary Cutnall Green CE First 1 First Great Witley CE Primary 1 Primary Heronswood Primary 1 Primary Northwick Manor Primary 1 Primary St Clement's CE Primary 1 Primary St Peter's CE First, Droitwich 1 First The Severn Academies Educational Trust 6 Baxter College 1 Secondary Stourport Primary 1 Primary The Stourport High School & Sixth Form Centre 1 Secondary Hartlebury Primary 1 Primary St Bartholomew's CE Primary 1 Primary Wilden All Saints Primary 1 Primary The Vaynor First School 2 Crabbs Cross Academy 1 First The Vaynor First School 1 First Tudor Grange Academies (TGA) Trust 2 TGA Redditch 1 Secondary TGA Worcester 1 Secondary The Villages Multi Academy Trust 1 The Lyppard Grange Primary School 1 Primary Individual Academies 35 Astwood Bank First 1 First Bengeworth CE First 1 First Bishop Perowne High School 1 Secondary Bredon Hill Middle 1 MDS Christopher Whitehead Language College 1 Secondary ContinU Plus Academy 1 AP Droitwich Spa High School 1 Secondary Dyson Perrins CE High School 1 Secondary Great Malvern Primary 1 Primary Haybridge High School & Sixth Form 1 Secondary Holy Trinity International School 1 All Through Honeybourne First 1 First King Charles 1 High School 1 Secondary Lickhill Primary 1 Primary Matchborough First School 1 First Nunnery Wood High 1 Secondary Prince Henry's High 1 Secondary Regency High 1 Special Ridgeway Middle 1 MDS Somers Park Primary 1 Primary South Bromsgrove HS 1 Secondary St John's CE Foundation Middle 1 MDS St Matthias CE Primary 1 Primary Suckley Primary 1 Primary The Aspire Academy 1 AP The Chantry High School 1 Secondary The Chase School 1 Secondary The Coppice Primary 1 Primary Trinity High School & Sixth Form Centre 1 Secondary Walkwood Middle School 1 MDS Waseley Hills High 1 Secondary Webheath First School 1 First Woodfield Middle 1 MDS Woodrush Community High 1 Secondary Alvechurch CE Middle 1 MDS Diocese of Worcester MAT (DoWMAT) 8 Offenham CE First 1 First The Littletons CE First 1 First Malvern Parish CE Primary 1 Primary Pinvin CE First 1 First St Nicholas CE Middle 1 MDP Crowle CE First 1 First St Barnabas CE First and Middle 1 MDP Madresfield CE Primary 1 Primary Hanley and Upton Education Trust (HUET). 3 Hanley Castle High School 1 Secondary Hanley Swan St Gabriel's with St Mary CE Primary 1 Primary Kempsey Primary 1 Primary Holy Family Catholic MAC 2 St Mary's Catholic Primary, Broadway 1 Primary St Mary's Catholic Primary, Evesham 1 Primary The Black Pear Trust 2 Hollymount Primary 1 Primary Carnforth Primary 1 Primary