snsecondaryfinancesnsecondaryfinance Page:1

Template 20172017Template Template 2017

This report was generated on 20/11/17, giving the results for 17 respondents. A filter of 'All Respondents' has been applied to the data.

The following charts are restricted to the top 12 codes. Lists are restricted to the most recent 100 rows.

I'm responding to this survey as....

A Headteacher (5) 31%

A School Governor (3) 19%

Other (8) 50%

If other, please specify Deputy Headteacher School Business Manager Assistant Head Deputy Headteacher Academy Business Director School Business Manager on behalf of the Governing Body Agreed response with Governing Body

School name/Other- please specify Marple Hall Marple Hall School School Marple Hall The Kingsway School Kingsway school The Kingsway School The Kingsway High School Priestnall School St James' Catholic High School

SnapSnap snapsurveys.com snsecondaryfinancesnsecondaryfinance Page:2

Template 20172017Template Do you support the LA proposal to implement the NFF model values into the local funding formula model for secondary schools from April 2018?

Yes (16) 100%

No (-)

Please provide any further comments or observations in relation to this consultation matter. I support the decision to offer models where all schools gain at least some additional funding, rather than a model where some gain more and others (such as Marple Hall) would lose funding. As for the bigger picture I do not think that Stockport as a whole should accept the proposed NFF as either fair or acceptable and I would be keen to work with colleagues and council officers/elected members to lobby for a better deal for Stockport overall. I would like to see a model where all scholls benefit from some additional funding; i.e. not a model where some gain and others (like Marple Hall) lose financial support. I think that Stockport should not accept the proposed NFF in its current form as it seems neither fair nor acceptable, but should lobby for an imporved deal for the authority as a whole. I support a model where all schools gain at least something and where there are not perceived winners and losers. More broadly, I do not think that the NFF model is fair to all schools. I support the model where all schools would gain some additional funding, not the model where some loose / some gain. Moving to the NFF ensures there is no future income shocks if a hard formula is announced This will minimise the impacts of future income shocks. I think it will buffet us if there is a hard formula announced in the future. This will prepare schools budgeting for when a hard formula is introduced.

Should the LA increase the split site factor allocation provided to secondary schools from £18,290 per school to £50,000 from April 2018?

Yes (13) 81%

No (3) 19%

Please provide any further comments or observations in relation to this consultation matter. I can empathise with the situation at the Kingsway, especially as Marple Hall is a split site in every way apart from not having a road between the two schools. I would support this proposal but only on the assumption that the principles of increasing the split site factor are also applied to other schools with dual sites such as MHS. If this is not the case then I do not support the proposal. If this increase is implemented it should apply to all types of split site - i.e. those where buildings are divided by a road and those where the sscholl occupies multiple buildings Yes, I agree however that the split site factor is allocated to all secondary schools with split sites, even if there is not a road between the sites, ie Marple Hall is included within this. This is fair given the considerable costs which Kingsway incur related to the split site. The existing factor does not reflect actual costs. The consultation doesn't detail the actual costs provided by Kingsway which may lead to unknowledgeable parties rejecting this proposal nor does the proposal detail the impact in subsequent years which may be cost neutral. Operating either side of the A34 incurs a range of additional costs and therefore, greater split site factor funding should be made available.

SnapSnap snapsurveys.com snsecondaryfinancesnsecondaryfinance Page:3

Template 20172017Template Please provide any further comments or observations in relation to this consultation matter. I believe there are significant costs due to operating on two sides of a dual carriageway. The obvious need to provide 2 receptions, reception staff are only part of the impact. There are additional security needs, including personnel, but also costs in providing infrastructure. These are not the same as a large site because some lower-cost solutions are prevented by the A34. Duplication of equipment and additional staffing is required, above those obvious staff identified earlier. As a school who currently manages with a split site, the current £18290 does not cover the additional costs incurred by our split site. Whilst we continue to work hard to mitigate the impact of having two campuses separated but he A34, there are some unavoidable additional costs not incurred by single site schools. This includes the need for a school van to transport heavy items from one site to another, the costs of operating two full time receptions and the salary for a security office whose responsibility is to manage the student traffic across the road and through the public subway. There are further IT related issues and curriculum costs e.g. where departments are unable to share resources due to the split site. This doesn't seem too big an ask, bearing in mind that we have the 2 sites with the A34 in the middle of them. The additional costs that this generates is in excess of £200,000 when everything eg additional staffing ,and equipment for both sites is considered We support this proposal in principal, as long as this does not have a detrimental effect on the per pupil funding that our students receive. We oppose the proposal to increase the value of the Split Site factor. There is already a lump sum element to the formula which is meant to recognise some of the “fixed” operational costs. Kingsway, as a larger school, is already indirectly benefiting from the lump sum element of the allocation being set at an unrealistically low level (because the current approach leaves a larger element to be allocated on a per-pupil basis), so in our view an increase in the split site allocation would be double- counting. Whilst we could have supported their proposal if it were linked to a more general review of the lump sum element, we cannot support it as it stands. If it is decided that this adjustment should proceed, we would prefer this to be funded on a per-pupil basis, so that the smallest schools are not asked to contribute a greater proportion of their budget to this subsidy.

Do you support the LA proposal to adjust the MFG protection level to 0% per pupil?

Yes (16) 100%

No (-)

SnapSnap snapsurveys.com snsecondaryfinancesnsecondaryfinance Page:4

Template 20172017Template Please provide any further comments or observations in relation to this consultation matter. I feel very strongly that this is the right thing to do. When Stockport is so under funded already it would be a disaster for individual schools to lose money during the transition to the NFF, and so I agree that the MFG should be set at 0% to prevent this from happening. This does mean that some schools will gain less than they might have done were the MFG to be set higher, but as we are all so under funded it would be clearly unfair for some schools to lose just for others to gain more, when in reality all schools in Stockport deserve much more money that the NFF is proposing. Those schools that will be hit by a cap are those who are gaining the most already and so I am sure won't mind helping out those with a less fortunate situation. I strongly support this. Stockport is already underfunded and any further financial losses during transition to NFF would be devastating. This will mean smaller gains for some schools, but will reduce losses for others - i.e. it will be fairer overall. Stockport as a LA is poorly underfunded already, for schools to be placed into a position where they would lose money during the transition would have a disastrous impact upon students, teachers and schools. All schools in Stockport are underfunded, and it would not be fair for some schools to gain by other schools loosing. Income stability should be provided to all schools. We need income stability. I believe this would provide stability for schools. All schools agree that no one school should lose as a result of the NFF. Schools need to know that they have some income stability

Do you support the LA proposal to apply the MFL of £4,600 per pupil based on the calculation inclusive of the premises related factors?

Yes (16) 100%

No (-)

Please provide any further comments or observations in relation to this consultation matter. Makes sense to use the same method as will be applied under NFF A minimum funding level is fair to ensure each school can provide basic provision. To ensure adequate provision, a minimum funding level is needed. A minimum funding level is fairer for all schools. Schools need stability in order to plan for delivering a good education. All schools have a legal right to give pupils a basic provision and a minimum funding level is the fairest way to ensure this

Do you support the LA proposal to re-distribute any available “Headroom” monies via a release of the capping level up to 2.35% (i.e. Option A)

Yes (10) 63%

No (6) 38%

SnapSnap snapsurveys.com snsecondaryfinancesnsecondaryfinance Page:5

Template 20172017Template Please provide any further comments or observations in relation to this consultation matter. I disagree with this proposal and would prefer a cap of 1.4%, enabling all schools to reach the £4700 per pupil level. As a low-funded school I would prefer to see as big an increase as possible, and the cap of 2.35% restricts the amount of additional funding that MHS will receive. Schools that are already gaining gain even more. Whilst this is in line with NFF, there are significant flaws in the NFF model itself and so I do not hold to the argument that we should be trying to meet NFF regardless of the consequences. Using a 1.4% cap effectively narrows the gap between the most and least funded schools in Stockport which seems the most equitable solution in my mind. However, I am a realist and I understand that compared to other possible outcomes not in the consultation, the proposed model with a 2.35% cap does see MHS gain a reasonable amount of funding and so I would not strongly argue against this proposal. I disagree and would rather see a cap 1.4% to give all schools £4700 per pupil. As MHS is poorly funded I would like to see as big an increase as possible; a cap would restrict this. Givenn the flaws accociated with the NFF I don't think we should feel constrained to meet it. A 1.4% cap would narrow the gap between Stockport schools and would therefore be fairer. That said, the proposed 2.35% cap would a least give some gain to MHS. Marple Hall is already a low funded secondary school and the cap of 2.35 would significantly reduce the amount of funding we would receive. A cap of 1.4 would enable all schools to have the 4700 per pupil level - making it a fairer playing field across the secondary schools in Stockport and reducing the gap between the most and least funded schools in Stockport It is fair that all gaining schools receive more of their gain and do not subsidise a few schools It is fair that all gaining schools share the headroom. It is fair that all schools benefit from this. Headroom monies should be shared by those schools which benefit. It is fair that the headroom monies are shared across schools. It is fair that all schools that gain share the " Headroom" We would welcome an increase in the minimum funding level to £4700 as this would place additional funds in to the schools that currently have the higher levels of SEND pupils and are struggling to provide the appropriate resources to these students.

Do you support the LA proposal to top-slice the schools block allocation up to the 0.5% level and share the cost of such top-slice equally across the primary/secondary sector?

Yes (15) 94%

No (1) 6%

SnapSnap snapsurveys.com snsecondaryfinancesnsecondaryfinance Page:6

Template 20172017Template Please provide any further comments or observations in relation to this consultation matter. I consider this to be a 'no option' question given the current situation in high needs provision. Therefore I support this proposal but would like to be involved in further discussions about how high needs are catered for (and funded) across the LA. Yes, considering the concerns in Stockport for High need provision This is required to meet budgetary pressures This is required due to budgetary pressures. This is required due to budgetary pressures within SEN. SEN provide additional needs which must be funded and this is a sensible approach. It will relieve budget pressures within SEN The LA’s proposal to remove 0.5% (some c£400k) from the Secondary part of the Schools Block to fund the deficit within the High Needs block is extremely concerning at a time of catastrophically low funding levels within the Schools Block. For those pupils requiring High Needs top-up funding within mainstream schools, the school is required to fund the first £6,000 of the costs associated with educating the pupil. There is a historical assumption that incidence of SEN coincides with the depr

SnapSnap snapsurveys.com