Crewkerne and Ilminster Review Financial Impact Assessment

Home , Crewkerne, Ilminster, Wadham School

CREWKERNE AND ILMINSTER REVIEW FINANCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and context ...... 1 Options considered ...... 3 Summary ...... 4 Financial impact ...... 5 Formula cost ...... 5 Scope for formula change – Option 2 ...... 9 Financial risk ...... 11 Non-ISB implications ...... 12 Cost-effectiveness and curriculum efficiency ...... 13 Appendix A: Extract from operational guidance for 2019/20, Teachers Pay and Conditions document 2018 and the Early Years and School Finance Regulations 2018 ...... 15 Appendix B: Formula and funding variations ...... 20 Appendix C: Summary of financial analysis and scoring ...... 24

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Susan Fielden is a qualified accountant with over 25 years’ experience working with schools and education leaders. After many years as strategic finance lead for education and children's services in Somerset she joined the DfE to work on national funding policy for schools. Establishing Effervesce during 2016 has given her the additional opportunity to work with individual schools and to improve the cost-effective use of resources for children.

DISCLAIMER This report (including any enclosures and attachments) has been prepared for the exclusive use and benefit of Futures for Somerset as part of the review of educational provision in Crewkerne and Ilminster. It is solely for the purpose for which it is provided. Unless we provide express prior written consent, no part of this report should be reproduced, distributed or communicated to any third party, other than, as agreed, to Somerset County Council and the Regional School Commissioner’s office. We do not accept any liability if this report is used for an alternative purpose from which it is intended, nor to any third party in respect of this report.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 1. Somerset County Council launched a review of the education provision in the Crewkerne and Ilminster area in March 2019. The intention is to ensure that provision is “financially viable and has the capacity to provide the range of curriculum opportunities to equip the children and young people in the area with the skills and qualifications that they will need for the future”. 2. This financial impact assessment has been commissioned by Futures for Somerset to inform the production of a report that looks at a range of alternative structures, setting out the pros and cons of each. The report will also address a number of factors including “the educational impacts of each model at each Key Stage. They will also look at the impact on pupils with Special Educational Needs, early years provision (pre-school and nursery), staffing implications, transport costs, impact on communities and the costs of making any change”. 3. This first stage is an Options Appraisal which will help the Local Authority decide which model(s) to take forward for further consultation. The Regional Schools Commissioner will also consider the Options Appraisal in making decisions about academies in the area. 4. The scope of the review affects the following schools and academies: • Ashlands Church of England First School • Greenfylde Church of England First School • Haselbury Plucknett Church of England First School • Hinton St George Church of England School • Merriott First School • Misterton Church of England First School • Shepton Beauchamp Church of England Primary School • St Bartholomew's Church of England First School • St Mary and St Peter's Church of England Primary School • Maiden Beech Academy • Swanmead Community School • Wadham School 5. The scope of the financial assessment for the Options Appraisal stage will focus on delegated budgets but will also include comment on non-ISB1 financial implications, financial risk, the revenue costs associated with implementing change and overall cost-effectiveness. At this stage, transport costs have not been assessed 6. Guidance from a number of DfE publications has been used and relevant sections are provided at Appendix A to this report. 7. Benchmarking data has been drawn from published DfE sources and information about the Somerset funding formula accessed from the local authority’s website. No additional information about spending patterns in the schools or non-ISB spending by the local authority was provided to inform this analysis.

1 The ISB is the Individual Schools Budget and is the term used to describe the budget allocated to schools through the funding formula

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

OPTIONS CONSIDERED 8. The five options considered within this financial analysis have been identified by Futures in consultation with Somerset County Council. Within the five options, there are a number of variations. They are set out in the table below: Options Description 1 As is 2 As is with formula change 3B Consolidated Primaries Including first and Middle school options - Secondary single site at Wadham 4A Split Site or Consolidated Primaries Including first and Middle school options - Secondary Single Site at Wadham 4B Split Site or Consolidated Primaries Including first and Middle school options - Secondary Split Site Wadham and Swanmead 4C Split Site or Consolidated Primaries Including first and Middle school options - Secondary Split Site Wadham and Maiden Beech 4D Split Site Primaries Including first and Middle school options - Secondary Single Site at Wadham 4E Split Site Primaries Including first and Middle school options - Secondary Single Site at Wadham 5A Existing First Schools with Combined Middle / Upper across 3 existing sites 5B Existing First Schools with Combined Middle / Upper across Swanmead and Maiden Beech 5C Existing First Schools with Combined Middle / Upper across Wadham and Maiden Beech 5D Existing First Schools with Combined Middle / Upper at Wadham The table above shows all of the options evaluated, but those that were subsequently identified as not being viable from a capacity perspective have been shaded and struck through. 9. Clarification from Futures identified that initial planning had assumed a series of stand-alone schools, albeit with differentiation over age range. Whilst the description referred to split site provision, this translated to provision over a number of sites, rather than single schools operating in multiple locations. A further set of options could be explored involving two or more sites operating as a single school. The combinations are extensive and have not been specified sufficiently to allow for full financial evaluation. The potential impact of extending the options to include split site provision is addressed in the assessment, to aid further refinement of the options. 10. Formula change could, and probably should, be considered against all options. The formula is the vehicle for local authority to resource a school to deliver quality education to a population of children as defined by the organisation of the education service. The local authority has a duty to do as much as it can to ensure that a school meeting a basic need for places in a location is theoretically financially viable. There are mechanisms for funding small schools and for addressing exceptional circumstances that need to be considered for all options. Option 2 relates specifically to formula change and as such, has a dedicated section of this report. However, where there are formula change possibilities these are highlighted elsewhere in the report. 11. The key issues relating to formula change are summarised at Appendix B.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

SUMMARY 12. A summary setting out the financial implications, risks and curriculum efficiency conclusions against each option is provided at Appendix C. 13. Judgements were made on the basis of the following assessments: • The cost to the public purse – recognising that some options present considerable revenue savings but that the benefit would accrue to the DfE not Somerset • Other financial implications, in terms of the loss of funding to the area and the scope for further savings • Financial risk, including where the responsibility for bearing costs was uncertain or the risk of financial failure • Curriculum efficiency – a measure of the likely proportion of revenue spend that would be for class teaching, educational support and resources rather than leadership and management, administration and premises costs, based on benchmark data 14. During the process of considering the financial implications, it became clear that site and capacity restrictions meant that a number of options were no longer deliverable. Of the remaining viable options, the two judged to provide the greatest financial and curriculum efficiency are: • Option 3B – two tier provision with 4 medium/large primary schools and one secondary school at Wadham) • Option 4D – two tier provision with 6 primary schools and one secondary school at Wadham 15. Options 4A (two tier provision with 10 primary schools and one secondary school at Wadham) and 5D (all existing first/primary schools operating as first schools with a single 9-16 combined middle/upper school at Wadham) scored slightly lower overall. 16. Further savings could be achieved, for options 4A and 5D in particular, through amalgamating schools whilst retaining multiple locations, however, the majority of the saving would accrue to the DfE2 with the local Dedicated School Grant (DSG) picking up the knock-on split site costs. An area-based multi-academy trust would be a good alternative, reflecting existing federations, maximising the scope for cost-effective collaboration through close proximity and retaining funding within the local area. 17. As any change in structure would take time to implement, serious consideration should be given to all options for formula change, particularly sparsity funding, to support a number of the schools through a transition period. 18. For any option involving school closure, the requirement to fund the remaining school with 85% of the closing school’s lump sum needs to be clarified with the DfE to confirm that this is replicated in the grant funding provided to the local authority. If this is the case, then it will make a significant contribution to meeting the cost of change.

2 The terms DfE and ESFA are used throughout this document to represent the government, in so far as it is the main grant funding body for educational provision in Somerset. The DfE sets the policy and the Education and Skills Funding Agency implements it.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

FINANCIAL IMPACT FORMULA COST

BASIC FUNDING 19. Somerset County Council school funding formula mirrors the National Funding Formula. As such it involves a single lump sum, per pupil values for primary, KS3 and KS4 and additional funding for deprivation, low prior attainment and other special characteristics. For the purposes of assessing the financial implications of the various options it is necessary to assume that pupil characteristics and overall numbers in each key stage will remain the same. The risks associated with these assumptions are dealt with later in this report. 20. As such, the difference in basic formula cost for each option relates to the number of schools and resultant lump sum payments. The current funding arrangement for a lump sum payment to each school is for a single payment of £110,000 regardless of type of school. This value reflects the factor include in the National Funding Formula. The table below shows the cost of the lump sum element of the formula for each option: Total cost of lump sum Variation from “as is” Options Number of schools element only Option 1 1 12 £ 1,320,000 No change 2 12 £ 1,320,000 No change 3B 5 £ 550,000 £ (770,000) 4A 11 £ 1,210,000 £ (110,000) 4B 12 £ 1,320,000 No change 4C 12 £ 1,320,000 No change 4D 7 £ 770,000 £ (550,000) 4E 11 £ 1,210,000 £ (110,000) 5A 12 £ 1,320,000 No change 5B 11 £ 1,210,000 £ (110,000) 5C 11 £ 1,210,000 £ (110,000) 5D 10 £1,100,000 £ (220,000) The table above shows all of the options evaluated, but those that were subsequently identified as not being viable from a capacity perspective have been shaded and struck through. 21. Any savings indicated above are savings to the DfE and do not release savings for spending elsewhere in Somerset. The savings would translate into a reduction in the funding coming to Somerset through the National Funding Formula. 22. It is worth noting that the DfE regulations3 allow for a lump sum of up to £175,000 and a different value can be set for each phase. In addition, in the year after the amalgamation of two schools, the new school in entitled to receive 85% of the lump sum for the school that has closed. A further transitional payment can be agreed for

3 The Early Years and Schools Finance Regulations are updated every year and govern the arrangements for school funding in England.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

the second year, subject to approval by the ESFA. This has implications for the assessment of the cost of change. 23. Advice has been sought from the DfE as to whether the additional lump sum following amalgamation is funded through the NFF or would be a cost to Somerset DSG in general.

SPLIT SITE PROVISION 24. The current funding arrangement for schools with a split site is for an allocation for additional costs of: • 0 – 50 pupils £0 • 51 – 200 pupils £10,000 • 201 – 400 pupils £20,000 • 401 – 800 pupils £35,000 • 801 or more pupils £50,000 Funding is allocated where there is a minimum distance of 250 metres between sites and each site provides a minimum of 30% curriculum space. A split site allocation will not apply where the decision to change the circumstances of the school premises originates from the Governing Body.i 25. The split site allocation is designed to cater for a school with provision either side of a road, or similar physical obstacle. Two schools in Somerset currently receive funding through this factor. They are: • Ilchester Community School - £20,000 (infant and junior school, approximately 300 metres apart, each with an office and other whole school facilities) • Holyrood Academy - £50,000 (large site with specialist subject rooms spread across different buildings) The factor is not currently designed to cater for provision split across two or more villages or towns, where staff or pupils travelling between sites would require a car or bus journey or where health and safety/safeguarding requirements might demand greater staff capacity than a single school of the same size. 26. Primary provision organised as a single school with sites in two or more villages, whether configured as infant/junior or a group or first or primary schools, is likely to need split site funding to reflect the maintenance of multiple whole school spaces (school hall, playgrounds and fields, etc), duplicate office staff to provide a point of access for parents, whole school equipment and services and locally based teacher capacity to act in place of the Head if required. 27. In small primary schools, where the headteacher will traditionally be teaching for much of the week, the real deliverable saving through amalgamated provision across multiple sites can be marginal. In addition, where schools are already collaborating and/or in a Federation, leadership and other savings may already have been achieved. For example, there are already three pairs of schools with a shared headteacher. 28. For middle and secondary provision split across two or more sites, the savings could be significant, with senior and middle leadership and management roles shared. However, the impact of duplicate whole school spaces and specialist classrooms will result in a higher per pupil cost for premises than if the same number of pupils were all on one site.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

29. It would be reasonable to assume that the current formula arrangements for split site provision have not been designed to accommodate locations in two or more villages or towns and a new formula factor would need to be designed and consulted on, before approval can be sought from the ESFA. It is worth noting that whilst the current split site allowance is based around a lump sum, the DfE regulations also allow for the factor to be based on a per pupil or floor area basis (the appendix to this report contains more information). 30. Advice has been sought from the DfE as to whether an increase in split site payments would be funded through the premises factor on a lagged basis or would be a cost to Somerset DSG in general.

SPARSITY FUNDING 31. The current sparsity funding arrangement for schools in very rural areas is based on DfE criteria as shown in the table below: Minimum average distance to Maximum average number of School phase second nearest compatible pupils per year group school Primary 21.30 2 miles Middle 69.10 2 miles Secondary 119.00 3 miles All-through 62.40 2 miles

There are exceptions to the above parameters. Schools that do not have standard admissions criteria, (i.e. where pupils are admitted via an interview process) and/or are single sex schools are not eligible for sparsity funding, even if they fall within the sparsity parameters. Pupil numbers include Years R to 11 only i.e. excluding nursery and 6th Form pupils. Allocations are based on a tapered amount, related to school size, up to a maximum value for each school phase as follows: • Primary: £25,000. • Middle: £45,000. • Secondary: £65,000. • All through schools: £65,000. It is worth noting that the factor is allowed, within the Regulations, to be as much as £100,000 and can be a lump sum, a tapered amount or a hybrid, as used in the National Funding Formula (NFF), in which a school with fewer than half the threshold number of pupils would receive a lump sum, but those above that level would receive a tapered value. 32. The sparsity funding data is provided by the ESFA and is based on distances as the crow flies between a pupil’s closest and second closest school. The schools used for the calculation must provide for pupils of that age but there is no requirement for them to be within the same educational system, for example, one school may be a first school and the comparator may be a primary. This is problematic in that a school around the edge of a three tier area will be subject to different comparators than one in the centre. 33. The sparsity calculation is also problematic in that whilst the DfE specify the adjustment to the threshold for middle schools, they make no similar adjustment for

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

first and upper schools or infant and junior schools. Whilst a seven year group primary school could qualify for sparsity funding if overall numbers fell below 149, a five year group first school would only be eligible up to 106 pupils and an infant school with three year groups would only be eligible up to 64 pupils. This means that, without an application to the DfE to vary the thresholds, a small school with a high proportion of fixed costs, will not be fairly funded. 34. The DfE specify the year group size for a middle school at 69.10, which means that a Somerset middle school, with four year groups, would no longer qualify if the number on roll exceeded 276 pupils. An 11-16 secondary school would be small up to 595 pupils whereas an upper school would be above the threshold when pupil numbers exceeded 357. There is no guidance as to how to calculate the threshold for a 9-16 school. 35. The sparsity distances for all of the first and primary schools are below the distance threshold, however, the middle and upper school have distances that exceed the DfE minimum but are outside of the size criteria: • Swanmead – 3.59 miles (average year group 69.5, overall size 278) • Maiden Beech – 3.79 miles (average year group 98.75, overall size 395) • Wadham – 4.72 miles (average year group 141, overall size 423) 36. In 2012 Somerset successfully sought permission to use the sparsity factor to ensure that a school with fewer than 35 pupils had sufficient funding to run 1.5 classes (e.g. two in the mornings and a combined class in the afternoons) regardless of whether it was a first or primary school. Whilst this no longer features in the Somerset formula, the precedent has been set. This is particularly relevant for Wadham School and this is covered in more detail in respect of Option 2. 37. An extract from the Regulations describing the elements of the formula around which the LA could apply for a variation is set out in Appendix A. 38. Advice has been sought from the DfE as to how the sparsity distances are calculated following a reorganisation and whether any increase cost would be funded through the NFF in year, on a lagged basis or would be a cost to Somerset DSG in general.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

SCOPE FOR FORMULA CHANGE – OPTION 2

LUMP SUM 39. The maximum allowable lump sum is £175,000. Differentiation by phases is allowed and this was one of the concessions Somerset successfully argued for when formula simplification was implemented by the DfE in 2013. The Somerset formula has adopted the NFF value of £110,000 for all schools. The DfE has no secure evidence to demonstrate that a lump sum of £110,000 reflects fixed costs in a school. The previous Somerset Activity Led Funding Formula estimated the value in excess of £250,000 for secondary schools, in order to secure minimum curriculum coverage. 40. Applying the maximum value of £175,000 for secondary schools, with a pro-rata increase for middle schools, would cost the local authority approximately £2.2m, before adjustments for minimum funding and capping. This is unlikely to be affordable, unless accompanied by a corresponding reduction in per pupil funding. Basic per pupil funding in the secondary sector costs a total of £103.8m and so this would equate to a 2.1% reduction in per pupil funding values – approximately £80 per pupil for KS3 and £90 for Key Stage 4. 41. The net impact of a switch of funding from per pupil to lump sum for Wadham would be an increase of approximately £28k. This change would, however, represent a very significant move away from the NFF and would be unlikely to be supported by larger schools.

SPARSITY 42. The Somerset guidance states quite clearly that sparsity funding is intended “to enable funding to be targeted at ‘necessary’ small rural schools to ensure their continued financial viability”. A middle school and an upper school in a three-tier system could reasonably be argued to be “necessary”. 43. The DfE specify the maximum average year group size for a small school to qualify and a minimum average distance threshold. The LA can reduce the year group size and increase the distance threshold. The maximum value for the sparsity factor is £100,000 and it can be applied as a lump sum, tapered or mirror the NFF approach. 44. For secondary schools, Somerset uses the following values, compared to the national parameters: Minimum average Maximum average Comparison for distance to second number of pupils Value secondary schools nearest compatible per year group school £65,000 tapered as Somerset 119.00 3 miles per the NFF approach £100,000 lump sum, DfE thresholds 120.00 3 miles tapered or as in the NFF

45. When the sparsity factor changed from being related to overall school size to average year group size, Somerset successfully applied for a disapplication to use a larger maximum year group for first schools, as the DfE default assumption was that

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

a primary school would have seven year groups. Applying the same logic for the secondary sector, if a small secondary school is assumed to have five-year groups of 120 pupils in order to be of sufficient size to provide a full range of subjects for pupils, an upper school average year group equivalent would be 200 pupils. 46. The two secondary schools currently receiving sparsity funding are listed in the table below, together with the two upper schools that would qualify if the local authority successfully applied to increase the maximum average year group size for upper schools to 200. School NOR Distance Current Using taper Using the Using taper Using lump sparsity and NFF taper, at 600 sum and 600 funding maximum maximum pupils pupils value and value and 550 pupils 550 pupils

King Arthur’s 344 4.37 £54,840 £37,455 £74,909 £42,667 £100,000 Wadham 423 4.72 £0 £22,951 £45,902 £29,500 £100,000 Ansford 574 3.78 £4,588 £0 £0 £4,333 £100,000 Whitstone 514 4.70 £17,697 £6,545 £13,091 £14,333 £100,000 West 590 11.89 £0 £0 £0 £1,667 £100,000 Somerset Total £77,125 £66,951 £133,902 £92,500 £500,000

47. A modification of this approach could be to reduce the maximum year group size for secondary schools to 110 pupils, apply for disapplication to allow for protection of upper schools of a similar size, i.e. 550 pupils or an average year group size of 183 pupils, and to use the maximum allowable value on the NFF basis. This would allocate an additional £20k to King Arthur’s, £46k to Wadham and £4k less to Whitstone and £5k less to Ansford. The overall net increase would be £57k. Using the lump sum, the net increase would be £223k, targeting Wadham, Whitstone and King Arthur’s, at £100k each. 48. There are currently no middle schools qualifying for a sparsity allocation in Somerset. Considering a threshold of a similar size, i.e. 440 pupils in total or an average year group size of 110 pupils would allow three middle schools to qualify for additional funding. The financial implications, as set out in the table below: School NOR Distance Using taper at 110 Using NFF taper Using lump sum and pupils per year group at 110 pupils per 110 pupils per year and maximum value of year group and group £100,000 maximum value of £100,000 Swanmead 278 3.59 £36,818 £73,636 £100,000 Fairlands 483 3.61 £0 £0 £0 Oakfield 638 1.24 £0 £0 £0 Maiden Beech 395 3.79 £10,227 £20,455 £100,000 Minehead 566 7.35 £0 £0 £0 Selwood 635 1.28 £0 £0 £0 Danesfield 318 5.21 £27,727 £55,455 £100,000 Hugh Sexey 588 3.98 £0 £0 £0 Total £74,772 £149,545 £300,000

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

49. Any change in the sparsity calculation would require support from the Schools Forum and a disapplication request to the DfE. The tables above demonstrate what is theoretically possible if the LA wishes to attempt to provide more support for small schools in the three tier system.

MINIMUM FUNDING LEVELS 50. For 2019/20 the DfE made a change to the arrangements for protecting schools within the NFF. Following lobbying from the middle school sector, the methodology for calculating a minimum funding level for middle schools was changed and on the back of that, an additional minimum level was added for schools with only Key Stage 4 pupils. Somerset does not have any such schools. 51. It could be possible to apply to the DfE for a disapplication to allow this higher rate (£5,100 rather than £4,800) to upper schools, or to use a combined average value of £4,933 (one year at the KS3 rate of £4,600 and two at £5,100). 52. This would not make a significant difference to Wadham, Frome College or West Somerset College but could significantly increase funding for Kings of Wessex and Sexey’s, adding £106k and £66k respectively if using the £4,933 minimum level rather than the current £4,800. 53. It could be, however, that making a case for this adjustment is valuable in securing support from the Schools Forum and DfE, say, for a change in the sparsity calculation, as part of an overall case for fair funding for upper schools. 54. Making a case for this adjustment may also be valuable in lobbying the DfE for fair treatment for upper schools, as the minimum funding level is part of the NFF and so a national change would affect funding for Somerset and be cost neutral overall. 55. Any variation in the minimum funding level from that used by the DfE in the NFF would be at a cost to the overall DSG and therefore all schools.

FINANCIAL RISK 56. The financial analysis assumes no overall demographic change. Any change in the organisation of school provision may result in drift to or from outside of the immediate Crewkerne and Ilminster area, resulting in a change in deprivation/need profile and an impact on the sparsity calculation. This has not been modelled, however, this would be neutral for Somerset as any change in school level data would affect both the DSG allocation through the NFF and the local formula allocation. 57. Any change in organisation of provision could impact on levels of attainment, with a resultant change in funding (prior attainment factor) and cost. This would be neutral for Somerset as any change in school level data would affect both the DSG allocation through the NFF and the local formula allocation. It could also be assumed to be cost neutral for individual schools as a change in funding would follow a change in the need for support. 58. Lagged pupil funding will place a strain on any school within any option where numbers are growing over the planning period unless the LA growth funding applies or, if an academy, the ESFA can be persuaded to switch the academy to funding on estimated or real time numbers. 59. The last few years have seen schools facing cost pressures that have exceeded funding increases. Funding levels beyond 2019/20 are not known and are subject to the decisions made by the government in the next Spending Review, however, it is

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

possible that the situation will persist, albeit at a lower level. Any school without the capacity to adapt staffing levels, or significant reserves, will be at risk of financial failure. Where this is a local authority school, there is a risk that an irrecoverable deficit remains a call of LA funds. Any deficit remaining after a school becomes a sponsored academy cannot be charged to DSG funding. This risk can be mitigated through timely withdrawal of delegation. 60. The chart below shows the in-year balance for all schools in the area, for the financial year 2017/18 from the DfE Benchmarking website:

NON-ISB IMPLICATIONS 61. Transport implications could be considerable for options involving a significant shift of location of provision. Data on pupil residence has not been provided for this stage of the options appraisal and so transport costs have not been calculated. It is important to note that home to school, transport costs fall to the LA and are outside of the DSG funding. 62. Schools with pupils in years 1 to 6 receive an allocation of the PE and Sports Premium grant. This is based on £16,000 per school plus £10 per pupil. Any reduction in the number of schools will reduce the funding coming into Somerset by £16,000 per school. The DfE expect the funding to be spent by schools on “making additional and sustainable improvements to the provision of PE, physical activity and sport for the benefit of all pupils to encourage the development of healthy, active lifestyles” rather than cover for PPA, core PE teaching or capital expenditure. As such, they would expect that the lump sum is only required for small schools to compensate for diseconomies of scale. 63. The administration of admissions arrangements is a cost to the overall schools budget with school and central implications. A reduction in the points of transition would contribute to increased overall efficiency. 64. The revenue cost associated with any change, beyond that which would fall to the delegated school budget relate mainly to consultation and stakeholder engagement. A special arrangement may be appropriate to support schools with redundancy and recruitment costs, however, where a school is closing, the LA will be able to draw on residual balances to meet closure costs.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND CURRICULUM EFFICIENCY 65. A measure of curriculum efficiency has been derived from analysis of spending in schools in 2017/18. Data from maintained schools in England has been used as the majority of the schools involved in this review are not academies. Spending on teaching staff, education support staff and educational resources has been compared to total spend. An adjustment has been made to the spend on teaching staff to reflect benchmark contact ratio. As a result, the curriculum efficiency metric is an indicator of the proportion of total spend that is used for teaching and learning. 66. Data has been analysed for primary schools, middle deemed secondary and secondary schools and the data shown in the charts below:

Curriculum efficiency - maintained middle schools 2017/18 61%

60%

59% R² = 0.7083

58%

57%

56%

55% 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Number on roll

Curriculum efficiency - maintained secondary schools 2017/18 69% 68% 67% 66% 65% 64% 63% 62% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% R² = 0.7489 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49% 48% 47% 46% 45% 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Number on roll

67. Spend data for 2017/18 was also scrutinised to explore any significant differences in expenditure on buildings for schools of different sizes. As would be expected, smaller schools are spending a greater amount per pupil on premises related costs. This will be more significant for a school with surplus capacity or significant premises challenges. For options with significant surplus capacity or buildings with a substantial maintenance backlog, any spending above these benchmark levels will draw from capacity for teaching and learning.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Spend per pupil on building maintenance, premises staff and cleaning - infant, junior and primary schools £450

£400

£350

£300

£250

£200

£150

£100

£50

£0 <200 or (blank) 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-1300 1600-1700

Spend per pupil on building maintenance, premises staff and cleaning - middle and secondary £600

£500

£400

£300

£200

£100

£0 <200 or 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-1300 1300-1400 1400-1500 1500-1600 1600-1700 1700-1800 >1800 (blank)

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

APPENDIX A: EXTRACT FROM OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR 2019/20, TEACHERS PAY AND CONDITIONS DOCUMENT 2018 AND THE EARLY YEARS AND SCHOOL FINANCE REGULATIONS 2018

SPARSITY 1. Schools that are eligible for sparsity funding must meet two criteria: • they are located in areas where pupils are a significant distance from an alternative should the school close • they are small schools

2. For the pupils for whom the school is their closest compatible school4, the factor measures the distance (as the crow flies) from their home to their second nearest compatible school and the mean distance for all pupils is then calculated. Since the pupil population changes each year, it is possible for a school to be eligible for sparsity funding in one year but not in the next. 3. The school eligibility criteria for sparsity funding are as follows:

Minimum average distance to Maximum average number of School phase second nearest compatible pupils per year group school

Primary 21.4 2 miles

Secondary 120 3 miles

Middle 69.2 2 miles

All-through 62.5 2 miles 4. Pupil numbers include reception to years 11 only; that is, excluding nursery and sixth form pupils. 5. The maximum value for the sparsity factor is £100,000 (including the London fringe uplift), which can be applied as a taper or as a lump sum. If a taper methodology is used, a school will attract sparsity funding in inverse proportion to its average year group size. Different values and methodologies can be used for the primary, middle, all-through, and secondary phases. 6. Local authorities can apply a full continuous taper by using the following formula: ( ) "#$%&'& )*+,#-+ .+#, /,0'1 2)34'#5 )*+,#-+ .+#, /,0'1 × 89:;<=< >=

7. Alternatively, the taper mirroring the methodology used in the national funding formula is now permissible and does not require a disapplication. Under the national funding formula methodology, schools with an average year group size of less than half the year group threshold receive 100% of the sparsity funding for their phase. 8. The sparsity distance for each school has been calculated as a crow flies distance. Local authorities are able to make exceptional applications for schools not meeting

4 A school is compatible if the pupil is within its age range and the school accepts pupils of this pupil’s gender. Selective schools and those in Wales and Scotland are discounted when identifying the second nearest school.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

the distance criterion where they would have significantly higher mileage if road distances had been used. 9. Local authorities can also make an application to ESFA to include an exceptional factor of up to £50,000 for very small sparse secondary schools which would otherwise be unable to attract sufficient funding to remain viable. Local authorities can only apply for an exceptional factor where schools have: • pupils in years 10 and 11 • 350 pupils or fewer • a sparsity distance of 5 miles or more

10. ESFA will produce sparsity distances for all schools in the schools block dataset and make them available to each local authority. • If a school opens after the sparsity distances have been calculated, the local authority can make an exceptional application for the school. • The process is the same for schools that are affected by neighbouring schools closing. • The ESFA will not recalculate the figures during the year in these situations as it should be possible for an estimate to be made for individual schools. • An existing school, qualifying for sparsity funding, would not lose the funding in-year if a new school opened nearby. • Local authorities should agree exceptional applications with their Schools Forum before submitting to ESFA for consideration.

LUMP SUM 11. The lump sum may be different for primary and secondary schools and the maximum permitted value for either phase continues to be £175,000 (including the London fringe uplift) in local formulas. All-through schools will receive the secondary lump sum value and middle schools will receive an average lump sum value based on the number of primary and secondary year groups in the school. 12. Where schools have amalgamated5 during the financial year 2018 to 2019, or on 1 April 2019, they will retain the equivalent of 85% of the predecessor schools’ lump sums for the financial year 2019 to 2020. 13. Where schools amalgamate after 1 April 2019, the new school will receive funding equivalent to the formula funding of the closing schools added together for the appropriate proportion of the year. This means that they receive the combined lump sum for the remainder of the year and 85% in the following year, as outlined above. 14. Local authorities may apply to ESFA to provide a second year of protection. Applications must specify the level of protection sought, although in general we would not expect the additional protection to exceed 70% of the combined lump sums. We will consider applications on a case-by-case basis.

5 The definition of an “amalgamated school” includes one that has extended its age range as a direct consequence of another closing (for example, an infant school closes and the junior school extends to become a primary school).

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

SPLIT SITES 15. A local authority formula can include a factor to provide additional funding to schools that operate on more than one site. • Criteria for providing extra funding should be clear and transparent, incorporating clear and objective trigger points, and a clear formula for allocating additional funding. • All schools and academies that meet the criteria will be eligible for split site funding. • Schools sharing facilities, federated schools and schools with remote sixth forms or remote early years provision are not eligible for split site funding. 16. Examples of clear trigger points are: • the sites are a minimum distance apart, as the crow flies, and the sites are separated by a public highway • the provision on the additional site does not qualify for an individual school budget share through the DSG • the school has remote playing fields, separated from the school by a minimum distance, and there is no safe walking route for the pupils • a percentage of staff are required to teach on both sites on a daily basis, to support the principle of a whole school policy and to maintain the integrity of the delivery of the national curriculum • a minimum percentage of pupils are taught on each site on a daily basis

17. Examples of a clear formula for funding schools with split sites are: • a lump sum payment • a per pupil rate • a rate per square metre of the additional site

18. Values for primary and secondary schools may be different. There may be one rate of payment for the first additional site, and a separate rate for each additional site. Payment rates may be stepped, for example as the distance between sites increases.

EXTRACT FROM THE TEACHERS PAY AND CONDITIONS DOCUMENT RELATING TO HEADTEACHERS RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR MORE THAN ONE SCHOOL ON A PERMANENT BASISii 19. When a headteacher is appointed to be permanently responsible and accountable for more than one school, the relevant body should base the determination of the headteacher group on the total number of pupil units across all schools, which will give a group size for the federation in accordance with paragraphs 6 or 7. 20. Consideration also needs to be given to the remuneration of other teachers who, as a result of the headteacher’s role, are taking on additional responsibilities. This will be based on any additional responsibilities attached to the post (not the teacher), which should be recorded. An increase in remuneration should only be agreed where

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

the post accrues extra responsibilities as a result of the headteacher’s enlarged role; it is not automatic.

EXTRACT FROM THE SCHOOL AND EARLY YEARS FINANCE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2018 – REGULATIONS 25 AND 29

NEW SCHOOLS, MERGED SCHOOLS AND CLOSING SCHOOLS 25.—(1) Where in the funding period, but excluding 1st April 2018, a new maintained school opens, and is a replacement for two or more maintained schools that are discontinued during the funding period, a local authority must calculate the budget share of the new school by adding together the budget shares of the schools that have been discontinued. (2) Except where paragraph (1) applies, a local authority must determine a budget share for— (a)any new maintained school in its area, and (b)any school that has opened since 1st April 2011 and does not yet have pupils in each year group for which the school proposes to provide education, from the date of the school’s opening on the basis of expected pupil numbers during the funding period estimated by the authority, and regulation 13 does not apply. (3) Where a school to which paragraph (2) applies was funded on the basis of estimated pupil numbers in the previous funding period, the local authority may take account of any difference between estimated and actual pupil numbers in the previous funding period when estimating pupil numbers for the funding period. (4) Where in the previous funding period or on 1st April 2018 a new maintained school opened or opens and is a replacement for two or more maintained schools that were discontinued during the previous funding period or on 1st April 2018, a local authority must include in the budget share of the new school an amount equal to 85% of the total amount which the schools that it replaced would have been allocated in their budget shares under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 (single sums) if the schools had not been discontinued. (5) Where paragraph (4) applies, no single sum is to be included in the new school’s budget share under paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 3. (6) A local authority must determine a budget share for any maintained school in its area which is to be discontinued in the funding period up to the date when the school is discontinued in accordance with this Part. (7) Where in the funding period, but excluding 1st April 2018, a maintained school is subject to a prescribed alteration as a result of a closure of a school, a local authority must redetermine the budget share of the enlarged school by adding to it the budget share of the school that has been discontinued. (8) Where in the previous funding period or on 1st April 2018 a maintained school is subject to a prescribed alteration as a result of a closure of a school during the previous funding period or on 1st April 2018, a local authority must include in the budget share of the enlarged school an amount equal to 85% of the total amount which the schools whose provision it has replaced would have been allocated in their budget shares under paragraph 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 if the school had not been discontinued.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

(9) Where in the funding period, but excluding 1st April 2018, a school has been established or is subject to a prescribed alteration as a result of the closure of a school, a local authority may add an amount to the budget share of the new or enlarged school to reflect all or part of the unspent budget share (including any surplus carried over from previous funding periods) of the closing school for the funding period in which it closes. (10) A local authority may change the operation of this regulation where authorised to do so by the Secretary of State under regulation 29 (alternative arrangements).

ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE 29.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), on application by a local authority, the Secretary of State may authorise the authority to— (a)disregard the limits referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 when deducting any expenditure referred to in regulation 8(3) (historic commitments); (b)deduct any expenditure referred to in regulation 8(11)(a) (expenditure falling outside Schedule 2); (c)alter the operation of regulation 11(3) (additional expenditure on children with special educational needs); (d)determine or redetermine budget shares of schools maintained by it; (e)determine or redetermine amounts to be allocated in respect of nursery classes in schools maintained by it; (f)determine or redetermine amounts to be allocated to relevant early years providers in its area; (g)include additional factors or criteria in its formula under regulation 10(1) (formula for determining budget shares) where the nature of a school’s premises exceptionally gives rise to significant additional cost; (h)include additional factors or criteria that the authority proposes to include in its formula under regulation 10(3) (early years single funding formula); (i)vary the amount by which a school’s redetermined adjusted budget share must be reduced for the purpose of determining the guaranteed level of funding in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4; (j)disregard regulation 13 (pupil numbers); (k)alter the operation of regulation 25 (new schools, merged schools and closing schools) in respect of particular schools; (l)alter the operation of paragraphs 14 (primary sparsity) and 15 (secondary sparsity) of Schedule 3 in respect of particular schools; and (m)alter the operation of regulation 22 (early years 95 per cent requirement). (2) The Secretary of State may authorise the matters in paragraph (1) to such extent as he or she may specify in accordance with arrangements approved in place of the arrangements provided for by these Regulations.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

APPENDIX B: FORMULA AND FUNDING VARIATIONS

Formula variations Change in funding to LA and to schools Change in funding to schools (general Uncertain charge to DSG) Closure of a school Saving to LA of local lump sum (£110,000 Any variation to the sparsity factor to for all schools in Somerset), with make it more generous in terms of corresponding saving to DfE equivalent thresholds or value would be at a cost to to NFF lumpsum (£110,000) the overall DSG

Closure of a school might affect the sparsity factor for remaining schools, if they are below the size threshold Amalgamation of Saving to LA of local lump sum (£110,000 Any variation to the sparsity factor to Operational guidance from the DfE states two schools for all schools in Somerset), with make it more generous in terms of that transitional funding equivalent to corresponding saving to DfE equivalent thresholds or value would be at a cost to 85% of the saved lump sum is due to the to NFF lumpsum (£110,000) the overall DSG residual school but it is not clear if the LA is funded at this level. Whilst new school might have a sparsity distance that exceeds the threshold, it is likely that the school will exceed the size threshold

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Formula variations Change in funding to LA and to schools Change in funding to schools (general Uncertain charge to DSG) Closure of one Saving to LA of local lump sum (£110,000 Any variation to the sparsity factor to Operational guidance from the DfE states school and extension for all schools in Somerset), with make it more generous in terms of that transitional funding equivalent to of age range at corresponding saving to DfE equivalent thresholds or value would be at a cost to 85% of the saved lump sum is due to the another to to NFF lumpsum (£110,000) the overall DSG extended school but it is not clear if the accommodate pupils LA is funded for this. Whilst new school might have a sparsity distance that exceeds the threshold, it is The change in age range may affect the likely that the school will exceed the size calculation of the Minimum Funding threshold Levels or sparsity Amalgamation of Saving to LA of local lump sum (£110,000 The split site funding is part of the Operational guidance from the DfE states two schools but for all schools in Somerset), with premises factor. For 2019-20 this is that transitional funding equivalent to educational corresponding saving to DfE equivalent funded to LAs on the basis of spend in 85% of the saved lump sum is due to the provision retained to NFF lumpsum (£110,000) 2018-19. As such, if split site funding residual school but it is not clear if the LA on both sites increased in the future, it would be a call is funded at this level. on the schools budget overall and would not attract more funding. Logic would Also, it is not at all clear how the sparsity suggest that it might be picked up the calculation would be affected. following year and it might be possible to argue a case for this, if the DfE has benefitted from a saving on a lump sum. Change of age range No change in non-pupil led factors at a school Change in the lump Any change in the local lump sum will not The LA could use a different lump sum sum affect DSG funding coming into Somerset for primary and secondary schools. The through the NFF lump sum for all other variations would be pro-rata to year groups. Any variation from the £110k used in the NFF would be a cost or saving to the local DSG

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Formula variations Change in funding to LA and to schools Change in funding to schools (general Uncertain charge to DSG) Change in split site The split site funding is part of the allocations or premises factor. For 2019-20 this is thresholds funded to LAs on the basis of spend in 2018-19. As such, if split site funding increased in the future, it would be a call on the schools budget overall and would not attract more funding. Logic would suggest that it might be picked up the following year. An application to the ESFA is likely to be required. Change in sparsity Any change in the local sparsity Any variation to the sparsity factor to It is not at all clear how the sparsity thresholds or values thresholds or values will not affect DSG make it more generous in terms of calculation would be affected by school funding coming into Somerset through thresholds or value would be at a cost to reorganisation. the NFF the overall DSG Change in minimum Any local change will not affect DSG Any variation would be at a cost to the It is possible that the DfE could be funding levels funding coming into Somerset through overall DSG persuaded to regularise the national the NFF minimum funding level for upper schools

Change in minimum Any local change will not affect DSG Any variation would be at a cost to the A disapplication request may be funding guarantee funding coming into Somerset through overall DSG necessary to ensure that the MFG applies the NFF fairly following any restructuring of provision.

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND SCORING

Retaining this configuration risks irrecoverable deficits which could be, in the event of educational failure, be left for the LA to write off, from the LA budget not DSG. A deficit in an academy could lead to withdrawal of the funding agreement.

0 0 0 0 0

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 2 Any divergence from the Net cost to The most significant The process of seeking In Option 2 the basic National Funding Formula will DSG (time financial risk to an these sorts of changes to configuration of As is with be at a cost to the Somerset limited) individual school is year the local formula requires educational provision is formula change DSG and therefore affect all on year loss of pupils, local consultation and an as for Option 1. There is schools. The most targeted leading to a level of application to the DfE to no change in predicted approach would be to seek operation that is disapply the Regulations. curriculum efficiency as support from the DfE to vary significantly under Failure to carry the any beneficial change in sparsity thresholds and capacity. support of the Schools the formula for Wadham minimum funding levels to Forum places other school in particular would fairly reflect the three tier Implementing a formula aspects of the Schools reduce the deficit rather system. This combined with change to support the Budget at risk, than allow for increased the use of a lump sum rather three tier system would particularly strategies to curriculum spend. than tapered sparsity value for encourage community address High Needs secondary/upper schools confidence in the schools demands. could provide relief for and reduce pupil drift. Wadham until pupil numbers Changes to formula increase. A similar approach funding for Wadham in could be considered for the particular may increase first and middle schools. in-year viability but will not address cumulative deficits.

Formula change has the effect of reducing financial risk to LA funds through adding a planned additional charge to the DSG. This shifts from uncertain to known, and from LA funds to DSG.

-1 1 1 0 0.25

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 3B This option represents the £ (882,000) This option represents It is not clear if the Whilst there is evidence greatest saving overall, but it the largest reduction in expectation of 85% of that very large schools Consolidated will be for the DfE - funding DSG and grant funding lumpsum saving passing demonstrate a decline in Primaries into Somerset will reduce in coming into Somerset to the newly curriculum spending as a Including first line with formula and grant and the Crewkerne and amalgamated schools in proportion of total spend, and Middle saving. Ilminster area. Assuming year one would be at a this may be as a result of school options that significant savings cost to the DfE or financial efficiency, with - Secondary The additional lump sum could be realised through Somerset DSG. educational support staff single site at payment in the year following reductions in premises and resources shared Wadham amalgamation would and administrative costs, It is not clear if any efficiency across multiple contribute to the cost of the saving is still likely to additional split site costs classes in each year change. translate to a reduction in would be funded by the group. Despite the drop the number of teachers. DfE, and if funded there off in the curriculum Use of a split site primary Whilst this will mainly may be a lag of one year efficiency metric for larger option rather than using an affect leadership posts, if and/or an application schools, this option has existing middle school site the saving is broadly process. close to the top weighted would add cost through the proportionate to school metric. split site factor. spending generally, it The larger schools in this could be assumed that option bring increased this would translate to a resilience and viability. reduction of 6 to 8 teachers.

This option also reflects a significant reduction in specific grant for PE and Sports, which may be mitigated by more efficient provision in larger schools.

3 -2 2 3 1.5

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 4A This option would deliver a £ (126,000) Development of an area- It is not clear if the This option achieves a saving on lumpsum costs, but based multi-academy expectation of 85% of better score than the Split Site OR it will be for the DfE - funding trust would build on lumpsum saving passing baseline position due to Consolidated into Somerset will reduce in existing federations and to the newly the improved curriculum Primaries line with formula saving. allow for further amalgamated schools in efficiency in secondary Including first The additional lump sum improvements in cost- year one would be at a provision. and Middle payment in the year following effectiveness and cost to the DfE or school options amalgamation would efficiency without the loss Somerset DSG. - Secondary contribute to the cost of of funding associated Single Site at change. with school closure or the It is not clear if any Wadham extra cost associated with additional split site costs Further net savings could be split-site provision. would be funded by the achieved through DfE, and if funded there amalgamation of primary may be a lag of one year schools with multiple site and/or an application provision retained. The process. saving on the lump sum would fall to the DfE, with some The larger secondary doubt over whether any school in this option increased costs for a split site brings increased payment would be funded. resilience and viability.

1 1 1 2 1.25

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

0 1 0 1 0.5

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 4C Potential net savings could be £ - Development of an area- It is not clear if any In this option the achieved through based multi-academy additional split site costs improvements in Split Site OR amalgamation of primary trust would build on would be funded by the secondary provision are Consolidated schools with multiple site existing federations and DfE, and if funded there offset by the retention of Primaries provision retained. The allow for further may be a lag of one year small primary schools. Including first saving on the lump sum would improvements in cost- and/or an application Formal amalgamation and Middle fall to the DfE, with some effectiveness and process. with split site provision school options doubt over whether any efficiency without the loss would increase the score - Secondary increased costs for a split site of funding associated as leadership costs would Split Site payment would be funded. with school closure or the be reduced overall, Wadham and extra cost associated with allowing a greater Maiden Beech split-site provision. proportion of budget to be spent on teaching and Site restrictions learning. within this configuration result in an inability to deliver required primary capacity and so this option is not viable and has been discounted

0 1 0 1 0.5

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 4D This option would deliver a £ (630,000) This option represents a It is not clear if the This option achieves the significant saving on lumpsum large reduction in DSG expectation of 85% of highest weighted Split Site costs, but it will be for the DfE and grant funding coming lumpsum saving passing curriculum efficiency Primaries - funding into Somerset will into Somerset and the to the newly metric due to the medium Including first reduce in line with formula Crewkerne and Ilminster amalgamated schools in to large primary provision and Middle saving. area. Assuming that year one would be at a and cost-effective school options The additional lump sum significant savings could cost to the DfE or secondary provision size. - Secondary payment in the year following be realised through Somerset DSG. Single Site at amalgamation would reductions in premises Wadham contribute to the cost of and administrative costs, The larger schools in this change. the saving is still likely to option bring increased translate to a reduction in resilience and viability. the number of teachers. Whilst this will mainly affect leadership posts, if the saving is broadly proportionate to school spending generally, it could be assumed that this would translate to a reduction of 4 to 6 teachers.

This option also reflects a large reduction in specific grant for PE and Sports, which may be mitigated by more efficient provision in larger schools.

3 -2 2 3 1.5

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 4E This option would deliver a £ (126,000) Development of an area- It is not clear if the In this option the saving on lumpsum costs, but based multi-academy expectation of 85% of improvements in Split Site it will be for the DfE - funding trust would build on lumpsum saving passing secondary provision are Primaries into Somerset will reduce in existing federations and to the newly offset by the retention of Including first line with formula saving. allow for further amalgamated schools in small primary schools. and Middle The additional lump sum improvements in cost- year one would be at a Formal amalgamation school options payment in the year following effectiveness and cost to the DfE or with split site provision - Secondary amalgamation would efficiency without the loss Somerset DSG. would increase the score Single Site at contribute to the cost of of funding associated as leadership costs would Wadham change. Further net savings with school closure or the It is not clear if any be reduced overall, could be achieved through extra cost associated with additional split site costs allowing a greater amalgamation of primary split-site provision. would be funded by the proportion of budget to be Site restrictions schools with multiple site DfE, and if funded there spent on teaching and within this provision retained. The may be a lag of one year learning. configuration saving on the lump sum would and/or an application result in an fall to the DfE, with some process. inability to doubt over whether any deliver required increased costs for a split site The larger secondary infant capacity payment would be funded. school in this option and so this brings increased option is not resilience and viability. viable and has been discounted

1 1 1 3 1.5

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 5A Potential net savings could be £ - Development of an area- It is not clear if any Benchmark data for 9-16 achieved through based multi-academy additional split site costs schools is not available Existing First amalgamation of first and/or trust would build on would be funded by the and so the combined Schools with 9-16 schools with multiple site existing federations and DfE, and if funded there middle/upper combination Combined provision retained. The allow for further may be a lag of one year is treated as a secondary Middle / Upper saving on the lump sum would improvements in cost- and/or an application school for this across 3 fall to the DfE, with some effectiveness and process. assessment. existing sites doubt over whether any efficiency without the loss increased costs for a split site of funding associated Small middle/upper Swanmead is at payment would be funded. with school closure or the provision contributes to a max capacity - extra cost associated with low curriculum efficiency both split-site provision. score, but this could be Swanmead and enhanced through M Beech too combining schools and small to be delivering provision viable for KS4 across a number of sites, etc - option facilitating sharing of discounted leadership, support staff and specialist teachers.

0 1 0 0 0.25

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 5B This option would deliver a £ (126,000) Development of an area- It is not clear if the Benchmark data for 9-16 saving on lumpsum costs, but based multi-academy expectation of 85% of schools is not available Existing First it will be for the DfE - funding trust would build on lumpsum saving passing and so the combined Schools with into Somerset will reduce in existing federations and to the newly middle/upper combination Combined line with formula saving. allow for further amalgamated schools in is treated as a secondary Middle / Upper The additional lump sum improvements in cost- year one would be at a school for this across payment in the year following effectiveness and cost to the DfE or assessment. Swanmead and amalgamation would efficiency without the loss Somerset DSG. Maiden Beech contribute to the cost of of funding associated One small middle/upper change. Further net savings with school closure or the It is not clear if any school contributes to a Both sites at could be achieved through extra cost associated with additional split site costs reduced curriculum max expanded amalgamation of first and/or split-site provision. would be funded by the efficiency score, but this capacity cannot 9-16 schools with multiple site DfE, and if funded there could be enhanced meet demand - provision retained. The may be a lag of one year through combining the option not saving on the lump sum would and/or an application schools and delivering viable. fall to the DfE, with some process. provision across two doubt over whether any sites, facilitating sharing increased costs for a split site of leadership, support payment would be funded. staff and specialist teachers.

1 1 0 0 0.5

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 5C This option would deliver a £ (126,000) Development of an area- It is not clear if the Benchmark data for 9-16 saving on lumpsum costs, but based multi-academy expectation of 85% of schools is not available Existing First it will be for the DfE - funding trust would build on lumpsum saving passing and so the combined Schools with into Somerset will reduce in existing federations and to the newly middle/upper combination Combined line with formula saving. allow for further amalgamated schools in is treated as a secondary Middle / Upper The additional lump sum improvements in cost- year one would be at a school for this across payment in the year following effectiveness and cost to the DfE or assessment. Wadham and amalgamation would efficiency without the loss Somerset DSG. Maiden Beech contribute to the cost of of funding associated Two modest sized change. with school closure or the It is not clear if any middle/upper schools extra cost associated with additional split site costs contributes to a reduced Further net savings could be split-site provision. would be funded by the curriculum efficiency achieved through DfE, and if funded there score, but this could be amalgamation of first schools may be a lag of one year enhanced through with multiple site provision and/or an application combining the schools retained. The saving on the process. and delivering provision lump sum would fall to the across two sites, DfE, with some doubt over facilitating sharing of whether any increased costs leadership, support staff for a split site payment would and specialist teachers. be funded.

1 1 0 1 0.75

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

Curriculum efficiency (score is the sum of Saving to the Other financial curriculum efficiency Options Funding implications Financial risks public purse implications percentages for each school, weighted by pupil numbers) Other Curriculum Revenue financial Financial Efficiency Combined cost implications Risk score average score Score Score (weighted) score 5D This option would deliver a £ (252,000) Development of an area- It is not clear if the Benchmark data for 9-16 saving on lumpsum costs, but based multi-academy expectation of 85% of schools is not available Existing First it will be for the DfE - funding trust would build on lumpsum saving passing and so the combined Schools with into Somerset will reduce in existing federations and to the newly middle/upper combination Combined line with formula saving. allow for further amalgamated schools in is treated as a secondary Middle / Upper The additional lump sum improvements in cost- year one would be at a school for this at Wadham payment in the year following effectiveness and cost to the DfE or assessment. amalgamation would efficiency without the loss Somerset DSG. contribute to the cost of of funding associated The single large change. with school closure or the It is not clear if any middle/upper school extra cost associated with additional split site costs delivers the prospect of Further net savings could be split-site provision. would be funded by the enhanced curriculum achieved through DfE, and if funded there efficiency. amalgamation of first school A multi-academy trust may be a lag of one year provision with multiple site with a large middle/upper and/or an application provision retained. The school and feeder first process. saving on the lump sum would schools provides a fall to the DfE, with some configuration that easily The large middle/upper doubt over whether any allows for centralised school in this option increased costs for a split site administrative functions brings increased payment would be funded. and specialist support for resilience and viability. additional and high needs as well as wider early intervention and family support. The benefits also accrue in the case of a hub within a larger MAT.

These potential financial benefits are offset by the reduction of funding into the area, with resultant loss of educational staff and funding for PE.

1 1 1 2 1.25

www.schoolfinancespecialists.com

iGuidance Notes For 2019/20 - School Funding Formula Allocations, Somerset County Council, March 2019 iiSchool Teacher Pay and Conditions 2018: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/740575/School_teachers__pay_and_conditions_document_2018.pdf