MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Friday 8th October 2010 at 2.00pm in the Council Chamber County Hall
*PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE OF ROOM*
A G E N D A 1. Apologies
2. Minutes of the Last Meeting 8th July 2010 (attached – blue)
3. Matters Arising
4. Any Other Business
5. Schools' Broadband and Harnessing Technology Grant (HTG) Issues (attached – green) (Dave Thomson in attendance for this item)
6. School Balances Update (attached – yellow)
7. Early Years Funding Update (attached – pink)
8. Results of the June 2010 Consultation on the Future Distribution of School Funding (attached – white)
9. Consultation on School Funding 2011-12: Introducing a Pupil Premium Colin Weeden a) Consultation Details (attached – blue) Programme Lead: b) Draft Response (attached – green) Policy and Transformation 10. Consultation on the School Finance (England) Children's Services Regulations 2011 (attached – yellow)
PO Box 73 County Hall 11. Academy Issues Spetchley Road a) Current Position Update (attached – pink) Worcester WR5 2YA b) Further Funding Issues (attached – white)
Tel 01905 766342 12. Section 251 Local Authority Fax 01905 766156 Minicom 01905 766399 Benchmarking 2010/11 (attached – blue) DX 29941 Worcester 2
E-mail [email protected]
13. Free Schools Update (attached – green)
Date of Next Meeting: Friday 10th December 2010 at 2pm, Kidderminster Room, County Hall
Please pass apologies to Andy McHale who can be contacted on Tel 01905 766285, fax 01905 766156 or e-mail [email protected]
AGENDA ITEM 5 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) SCHOOLS' BROADBAND AND HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY GRANT (HTG) ISSUES
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To discuss with the WSF future issues relating to the above ICT areas.
1.2 To request the WSF to consider options on future funding issues.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The WSF were advised at its last meeting in July 2010 of the issues relating o the withdraw by the DfE of 50% of the HTG during 2010/11.
2.2 As well as affecting the ICT plans of schools the WSF were advised that the reduction equally applied to the centrally retained element of the HTG. This significantly affects the LA's planned programme to maintaining the ICT infrastructures including the Broadband network.
2.3 The WSF requested that Dave Thomson be invited to the October 2010 meeting to discuss the issues.
3. BROADBAND ISSUES
3.1 Funding Background
(a) Prior to April 2008, the LA was allowed to retain 100% of the various Broadband related grants (NGFL, Broadband & National Digital Infrastructure) in order to establish Worcestershire's Wide Area Network (Networcs). The minimum requirement was for connections of 8Mb to High Schools and 2Mb to Primary Schools. Assessment of the cost benefits and demand growth indicated that a fully fibre-optic based Network would be more cost effective in the long term. This has proven to be the case as most schools would have exceeded the lower performance standards by 2010.
(b) Since 2001, a combination of LA and government funding of at least £4 million has been provided to establish the Schools Broadband infrastructure. This level of capital funding is unlikely to be available in the future and therefore careful consideration of how best to sustain the Broadband provision has underpinned the following analysis.
(c) The WSF are reminded that the availability of grant has meant that the Service Level Agreement (SLA) charge for Schools Broadband has remained the same since it was established in 2004, with only one inflationary increase in the most recent SLA for 2010/11.
3.2 Current Position
(a) The Broadband budget consists of capital and revenue elements. The historic DSG match funding and SLA charges to schools funds the BT revenue costs and the HTG funds the relevant capital items. Much of the capital expenditure has been used in establishing school connections, as these are acceptable capital expenditure under the grant rules. Such capital expenditure has depended on individual school locations and the availability of BT services in the area and therefore without the HTG, such connections to schools would not have been possible.
(b) External scrutiny of the Broadband cost model and design over the summer of 2010 was undertaken by Jon Hunt (Senior Architect - Connectivity Services) at BECTA. Jon confirmed that the use of funding is as efficient as possible for a rural Authority, where options for suitable standards of connectivity are limited. In addition, Jon confirmed that the network design provides the best possible basis for meeting the steadily increasing demands of bandwidth.
(c) In parallel, John Keen (Infrastructure Manager – WCC) has begun a review of Worcestershire's overall infrastructure of the County Council (Schools, Council, Districts, Health-NHS) with BT to ascertain the best forward plan, in light of BT's emerging 21st Century Network services.
(d) Consideration has also been given to alternative provision for equivalent Broadband services which meet the necessary performance and security requirements. It is clear that none of the ADSL (Home Broadband) services from any provider meet the minimum requirements of most schools. They are always shared connections with other Users, are not synchronous and do not provide true performance indicated in their advertised literature (such claims do not take into account distance from the exchange, which for Worcestershire, can be significant).
(e) Comparisons of the cost for equivalent services indicates that the Worcestershire broadband offering provides good value for money. Raw connectivity of a 100Mb service (without support, filtering or connections onward to the University network) cost around £150,000 per connection (based on a connection from Worcester to the nearest Point of Presence – POP which is in Birmingham). While this would be higher or lower depending on distance the figure would be much higher than current Broadband costs achieved through aggregation irrespective of the distance from the POP. Other LA's are achieving similar costs to that achieved in Worcestershire through their own aggregation model although some have not established fibre optic as the basis for the network service and therefore face significant cost to upgrade to fibre from the lower bandwidth connections they originally purchased.
(f) There is some potential for reducing costs through BT's new 21CN network service which is just rolling out but again the cost of a 100Mb raw connection would be £25,000 per annum. Only 6 exchanges are ready for this service within Worcestershire at present and the council's infrastructure manager will be keep all connections under review to see if they might benefit from moving to this new infrastructure within the current contract.
3.3 Broadband Budget
(a) The current budget model has been developed in light of the reductions in grant and therefore does not include any funding element for development or additional services. It also provides no contingency should a major failure occur on any non-BT but essential services.
(b) The Broadband capital budget remains in balance until 2012/13, when a deficit of as much as -£115,000 is envisaged. The Broadband revenue budget is in balance each year, assuming no charges are made by BT for network circuits (schools should be aware that any change to the entry location of their BT broadband service will result in higher charges for that circuit and this will need to be met by the school).
(c) The situation after 2012/13 will need to be kept under constant review but figures similar to those above are envisaged.
(d) In light of the above analysis and in the absence of any grant funding from government, which seems the most likely outcome, an increase in the £8.77 per pupil charge will be required, to ensure a continuation of the same level of service.
3.4 Future Risks
(a) Whilst everything has been done to incorporate all of the elements which go together to create the network there are some possible issues that could affect costs.
(b) Access to the internet (as opposed to connectivity within the infrastructure is provided by JaNet (Joint Academic Network – UK Universities infrastructure, as part of the National Educational Network (NEN)). The current contract for this service is fixed until March 2011 with the capability of extending the contract for an additional 12 months without re-procurement. This arrangement is being managed by the 14 West Midlands Authorities which utilise the JaNet service and it is hoped that the continuation of the contract does not alter the agreed charges. It is not possible at this stage to assess the outcome of these negotiations but a commercial BT circuit would cost significantly more than we are able to secure through our partnership with JaNet.
3.5 Recent Developments
(a) In the week beginning the 13th September LA officers and others were invited to attend a planning discussion regarding the funding of ICT as part of the coalition government's review of capital funding. The ICT grants and in particular the sustainability of high bandwidth connectivity was at the core of that discussion.
(b) LA's have been asked to provide information to aid that discussion. The feeling of the meeting was that there was a recognition of the importance of sustaining fibre broadband services as an aggregated procurement as this route provides significantly higher value for money than could be achieved by individual institutions on their own. No promises were made but it is clear that a spend to save option is not something that would not find support.
3.6 Options for Consideration for the Costs of Broadband 2011-13
Option 1. To increase the charge as per the SLA by inflation only for the period 2011/12 and 2012/13 (i.e. required inflationary increase only) and apply a further increase should circumstances demand that additional work or costs arise in year.
Option 2. To increase the charge by inflation in each year plus an additional 50p per pupil in 2011/12 and a further 50p per pupil in 2012/13, which would meet any shortfall identified and provide some resource for contingency and development.
Option 3. To increase the charge by inflation plus £1 per pupil from 2011/12, with only an inflation increase in 2012/13.
3.7 In addition we would recommend that school representation is involved in an exercise to re-procure a replacement infrastructure when the current contract with BT expires in 2014.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 That the WSF consider the above options to secure the sustainability of the broadband network over the three years remaining of the current BT contract.
4.2 That any decision will be reviewed in light of budget modelling and government announcements and schools informed of any reductions or increases for each SLA period.
Dave Thomson Education Improvement Adviser September 2010
AGENDA ITEM 6 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010
The Headteacher
27th August 2010
Dear Colleague
Management of School Surplus Balances 2009/10
As your school's uncommitted surplus balance for the financial year 2009/10 exceeded the limit as stated in the Local Authority's Scheme for the Management of Surplus Balances, you were asked to complete a revised Management of Schools Surplus Balances Pro-forma. Please refer to my letter dated 23rd June 2010.
This revised pro-forma has now been analysed and queries relating to the listed commitments have been clarified. As a result, I can confirm that the uncommitted surplus balance no longer exceeds the limit and is no longer subject to claw-back and redistribution.
In November 2010, the challenge process will commence for the financial year 2010/11. All schools will be asked to predict their carry forward for the year ending 31st March 2011 and to complete a new Management of Schools Surplus Balances Pro-forma.
This process will involve reviewing the spending to date, as well as considering commitments and expenditure for the remainder of the financial year. The completed pro-forma will be used as a benchmark against your school's actual year-end balance when it is confirmed in May 2011.
It is essential that you take the time to complete the pro-forma in full, even if you are predicting a deficit or zero balance at the year end. A number of schools provided no information regarding allowable commitments, for use of their surplus balance, in the belief that their year-end balance would be below the permitted level for their school sector. This is a risky strategy to adopt as schools Caroline Brand may not, in future, have the opportunity to revisit the information provided in the Principal Schools pro-forma, should they end the year with an excess surplus balance. Finance Officer Children's Services
PO Box 73 County Hall Spetchley Road Worcester WR5 2YA Tel 01905 766277Fax 01905 728577Minicom (01905) 766399DX 29941 Worcester 2 [email protected]www.worcestershire.gov.uk
P:\Management of Surplus balances 2009 10-decision letter1 (2).docx Effective budget monitoring throughout the year should provide you with valuable information about spending patterns and enable you to forecast your year-end balance with confidence.
We have introduced two new training courses to aid schools with their budget monitoring. The courses which explore the use of the Governors Finance Report Template are:
Completing the Governors Finance Report Template. This course will provide you with the knowledge and understanding required to produce the Governors Finance Report Template and is aimed at Headteachers, Business Managers and Finance Staff.
Interpreting the Governors Finance Report Template. This course will give you an understanding of budget monitoring responsibilities and provide guidance on how to interpret the information contained in the Governors Finance Report Template. It is aimed at Headteachers, SLT members and Governors.
Further information about these and our complete range of courses, is available on Edulink:
Leadership & Management/Schools Finance/Training & Guidance Notes/Schools Finance Training Programme & Information
Should you wish to discuss any of the points raised in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact your Lead Officer or myself.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Brand Principal Schools Finance Officer
Management of School Balances 2009/10 Unspent Revenue Income School Late Funding Reserves Held Total for Total Uncommitted Date Year End Standards Fund Contribution to Generation by Development Plan Changes in Allocation on behalf of Acceptable Surplus Balance after CC School Name Received Commitments Grant Capital Project School Commitments Demography Spring Term Other Schools Criteria (Total C) Acceptable Criteria (A- Total Resources permitted limit
10086 Bredon Hancock's Endowed First 28.1.10 - - - - 12,000.00 - - 12,000.00 28,246 489,924 39,194
10097 Charford First, Bromsgrove 7.12.09 0 15,783 813 4,055 22,000 47,702 0 0 90,353 66,024 1,303,354 104,268
10129 Cleeve Prior CE First 4.12.09 2,740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,740 35,368 278,284 37,100
10151 Defford-cum-Besford CE First 1.12.09 0 0 0 0 31,300 0 0 0 31,300 36,824 252,560 37,100
10177 Eldersfield Lawn CE Primary 24.11.09 0 0 0 0 17,000 0 0 0 17,000 36,265 377,113 37,100
10183 St Mary's Catholic Primary, Evesham 9.12.09 0 0 3,522 0 14,713 0 0 0 18,235 45,475 625,523 50,042
10201 Fairfield First, Bromsgrove 7.12.09 0 1,700 11,000 0 2,450 0 0 0 15,150 37,142 383,392 37,100
St Gabriel's with St Mary's Primary School, 10245 Hanley Swan 4.12.09 0 0 0 0 5,252 0 0 0 5,252 36,832 402,480 37,100
10349 Lindridge St Lawrence's CE Primary 11.12.09 6,289 0 4,246 0 0 0 0 0 10,535 33,979 316,196 37,100
10353 Longdon St Mary's CE Primary 4.12.09 0 5,361 0 0 17,000 0 0 0 22,361 30,216 269,242 37,100
10388 Martley CE Primary 4.12.09 0 6,487 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 10,487 37,142 471,422 37,714
10412 Ombersley Endowed First School 15,000 15,000 29,610 355,369 37,100
10454 St George's CE First, Redd 1.12.09 1,620 6,041 0 0 0 0 18,264 0 25,925 63,904 974,322 77,946
10466 Oak Hill First 11.12.09 22,775 8,852 0 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 41,627 93,698 1,455,640 116,451
10467 Matchborough First, Redd 3.12.09 0 5,189 1,417 12,000 737 0 0 0 19,343 76,853 1,154,458 92,357
10524 Tibberton CE First 8.12.09 0 0 0 0 5,548 0 0 0 5,548 36,466 275,168 22,013
10532 Upton-upon-Severn CE Primary 3.12.09 0 0 0 0 42,700 0 0 0 42,700 47,528 594,514 47,561
10582 Stanley Road Primary 5,000 17,000 13,000 15,000 50,000 74,758 1,111,850 88,948
10592 Wychbold First & Nursery School 15.12.09 1,000 900 0 2,700 8,000 3,500 3,000 0 19,100 34,029 336,943 26,955
10640 St Egwin's CE Middle, Evesham 5.2.10 40,000 45,000 0 15,000 40,000 0 0 0 140,000 28,625 1,383,668 69,183
10663 Ridgeway Middle, Redd 14.12.09 40,156 14,007 0 0 17,157 5,682 0 0 77,002 70,691 1,589,513 79,476 Unspent Revenue Income School Late Funding Reserves Held Total for Total Uncommitted Date Year End Standards Fund Contribution to Generation by Development Plan Changes in Allocation on behalf of Acceptable Surplus Balance after CC School Name Received Commitments Grant Capital Project School Commitments Demography Spring Term Other Schools Criteria (Total C) Acceptable Criteria (A- Total Resources permitted limit
10664 Walkwood CE Middle, Redd 8.12.09 11,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 99,959 111,119 66,008 2,543,747 127,187
10776 Woodrush Community High 9.12.09 0 0 10,000 0 77,817 0 0 0 87,817 182,318 4,210,213 210,511
10833 Tenbury High 3.12.09 6,894 34,790 60,000 52,806 50,000 53,057 2,618 5,250 265,415 49,999 2,050,413 102,521
10847 Blessed Edward Oldcorne Catholic College 2.12.09 0 48,163 194,250 0 79,133 0 0 0 321,546 184,655 4,233,455 211,673 AGENDA ITEM 7 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) EARLY YEARS FUNDING UPDATE
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the current issues in respect of Early Years Funding.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The WSF are reminded of the previous proposals for the introduction of a new Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) to be based upon participation. This process has been managed through the Early Years Reference Group (EYRG) with a significant amount of implementation work already completed.
2.2 After a full consultation in the Spring 2009 the County Council Cabinet agreed in November 2009 to introduce a new formula from April 2010. However, a subsequent change in the previous Government policy deferred this requirement to April 2011.
2.3 On this basis and on the recommendation of the EYRG the County Council Cabinet supported delaying the implementation until April 2011.
3. CURRENT POSITION
3.1 On 27th July 2010, as part of a further funding consultation, the DfE confirmed that LA's who have yet to do so will need to implement an EYSFF from April 2011.
3.2 Since the decision to delay the introduction of the EYSFF, the LA has continued to work on the implementation issues. In order to support this the EYRG met on 27th September 2010 to discuss these issues and the required timescales.
3.3 The key issues being considered include: -
Review of current provider models and consideration of a further model for school- run non maintained provision. Budget allocations and in-year adjustments for providers. Participation count arrangements and payments to providers. Deprivation supplement. Funding of low incidence high cost SEN. Other issues including admissions and provider designation.
3.4 Given there is the likelihood of a further provider category, this will require formal consultation and formal approval through the County Council Cabinet.
3.5 The financial detail will need to be considered as part of the notifications from the national spending review. Detailed information is expected in late November or early December. So there will need to be a confirmation of budgets before each model can be allocated a final figure as this will be dependent upon the total amount available.
3.6 When these details are finalised in the new year, early years providers across all sectors will be informed of the hourly funding rate for their type of provision. Then, eligible three and four year old children will be funded for a maximum of 15 hours per week over a period of 38 weeks for the actual termly participation. Each child will be allocated an designated hourly rate in accordance with their attendance at the early years setting.
3.7 Details of the discussions at the EYRG will be made available at the WSF meeting.
4. RECOMMENDATION
The WSF notes and comments on the issues.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development October 2010 AGENDA ITEM 8 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) RESULTS OF THE JUNE 2010 CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOL FUNDING
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the results of the above consultation.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 In March 2010 a consultation was launched by the previous Government on the future distribution of school funding. This followed a wide-ranging review of the mechanism for allocating the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) announced in January 2008.
2.2 The document set out the previous Government’s proposals for distributing school funding from April 2011 including the principles which would underpin a new funding system and options for operating the DSG allocation formula. The consultation closed on 7th June 2010.
2.3 The new coalition Government took office on 11th May 2010. It agreed that the consultation exercise should continue and that it would consider the responses in the development of its own funding proposals.
3. KEY RESPONSE ISSUES
3.1 The full document is attached for information at Appendix A.
3.2 It provides an analysis of responses to the consultation setting out: -
An overview of responses to the consultation and A summary of the responses to the questions in each chapter
3.3 An extract from Appendix A summarises the key results as: -
The vast majority of the 340 respondents to Question 1 on the principles agreed with all or some of the principles underpinning the formula with just 3% agreeing with none of them. There was general support for the policy of mainstreaming grants into the DSG, with nearly two thirds of the 321 responses to Question 2 agreeing, although there was some concern about the impact of mainstreaming specific grants such as EMAG or the school lunch grant. The majority of those who responded to the question about the methodology for calculating the basic entitlement, some 51%, supported the Activity Led Funding approach as opposed to 22% who supported the Judgemental approach. There was a mixed response to the question of which is the best indicator for distributing deprivation funding with none of the five indicators receiving overwhelming support. The most favoured Option 5, a mixed FSM and IDACI indicator received the most support with 32%. The second most favoured Option 4, average IDACI score of pupils received 28%. There was strong support for the proposal for LAs to develop their own pupil premium, with 83% in favour. There was a lot of interest in the issue of the fairest method of applying the Area Cost Adjustment. There were campaigns in Newham and Haringey which have significantly increased support for the hybrid option. However, even without the campaign responses the hybrid option still received most support (60%). There was strong support for the proposal to provide extra funding to schools catering for large numbers of Service children with almost two thirds in favour.
4. RECOMMENDATION
The WSF notes and comments on the issues.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development October 2010 APPENDIX A
Consultation on the Future Distribution of School Funding
15 March 2010 to 7 June 2010
Summary of Consultation Responses
Introduction
In March 2010 a consultation was launched by the previous Government on the future distribution of school funding. This followed a wide-ranging review of the mechanism for allocating the Dedicated Schools Grant announced in January 2008. The document set out the previous Government‟s proposals for distributing school funding from April 2011 including the principles which would underpin a new funding system and options for operating the DSG allocation formula. The consultation closed on 7 June 2010.
The new coalition Government took office on 11 May 2010. It agreed that the consultation exercise should continue and that it would consider the responses in the development of its own funding proposals.
This document provides an analysis of responses to the consultation. It sets out: an overview of responses to the consultation and a summary of the responses to the questions in each chapter
A total of 3,148 responses were received, 2,658 of which were in the form of responses and petitions from residents of Haringey and Newham, supporting a „hybrid‟ approach to the Area Cost Adjustment (Question 14 of the consultation). 22 members of the „4in10‟ project in Newham also sent in a submission supporting the hybrid approach. A separate 93 responses were received in a petition from Devon seeking „Fair Funding‟ for that county.
In total 748 responses, including 351 „campaign‟ responses, were loaded onto the e- consultation database1, broken down by organisation as follows:
Parent / Carer: 179 24% Campaign Group: 147 20% School: 100 13% Individual Local Authority: 91 12% Teacher: 70 9% Other: 46 6% Schools Forum: 44 6% Governor Association: 34 5% Local Authority Group: 20 3% Teacher Association: 10 1% Other Trade Union / Professional Body: 6 1% Early Years Setting: 1 0% Total: 748 100%
A list of the organisation that responded can be found at Annex A
1 „Campaign‟ responses received in the Department in hardcopy were counted, but not entered onto the database Overview
The responses to the consultation have been analysed and a short overview of some of the main comments is set out below:
o The vast majority of the 340 respondents to Question 1 on the principles agreed with all or some of the principles underpinning the formula with just 3% agreeing with none of them.
o There was general support for the policy of mainstreaming grants into the DSG, with nearly two thirds of the 321 responses to Question 2 agreeing, although there was some concern about the impact of mainstreaming specific grants such as EMAG or the school lunch grant.
o The majority of those who responded to the question about the methodology for calculating the basic entitlement, some 51%, supported the Activity Led Funding approach as opposed to 22% who supported the Judgemental approach.
o There was a mixed response to the question of which is the best indicator for distributing deprivation funding with none of the five indicators receiving overwhelming support. The most favoured option - Option 5, a mixed FSM and IDACI indicator - received the most support with 32%, but the second most favoured – Option 4 – received 28%.
o There was strong support for the proposal for LAs to develop their own pupil premium, with 83% in favour.
o There was a lot of interest in the issue of the fairest method of applying the Area Cost Adjustment. There were campaigns in Newham and Haringey which have significantly increased support for the hybrid option. However, even without the campaign responses the hybrid option still received most support (60%). o There was strong support for the proposal to provide extra funding to schools catering for large numbers of Service children with almost two thirds in favour. Summary of Consultation responses (NB – in some case percentages may add up to 99% or 101% due to rounding error)
Chapter 1 – Towards a new formula
The principles underlying the new funding formula are: that it should meet the needs of the 21st Century School; that “fairness” does not mean that everyone will get the same; that needs in individual schools are best assessed at the local level; that differences in funding between local authorities must be justified using robust evidence; that a Local Pupil Premium should be used to distribute deprivation funding, and that there should be protections at school and local authority level to reduce the level of short term changes to the distribution.
1. Do you agree with the principles we are applying to the formula?
340 responses of which:
50% All 43% Some 4% Not sure 3% None
Comments made
An overwhelming majority supported either all or some of the principles outlined in the consultation document which were around the issues of fairness, the use of robust evidence, the introduction of a local pupil premium and the need for funding protection arrangements. There was however some disappointment at the lack of detailed exemplifications which have for some prevented a more informed response.
Many of the specific comments were around questions covered later in the consultation. Others were around: (a) the need to ensure that there is sufficient funding for schools to enable them to meet pupil entitlements; (b) for differences in funding between areas to be backed up by robust evidence so that it is clear where there is the need for higher spend in particular cases, and (c) a more needs-led approach to allocating funding. Some argued that additional funding provided by local authorities over and above SFSS (Schools Formula Spending Share) in 2005-06 which were included in the base used for the spend-plus methodology for calculating the DSG should be protected within each LA or returned to the LA for local tax payers.
We intend to mainstream as many specific grants as possible into the DSG. At this stage we see the DSG as including: Dedicated Schools Grant (including London Pay Addition Grant); School Development Grant (Devolved) excluding Specialist Schools; School Standards Grant; School Standards Grant (Personalisation); School Lunch Grant; Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant; Extension of the Early Years Free Entitlement and Extended Schools – Sustainability and Subsidy. 2. Do you agree with the proposals to mainstream the grants specified into DSG?
321 responses of which:
63% Yes 21% No 16% Not sure
Comments made
A large majority of those who responded to this question supported the case for mainstreaming grants as a way of simplifying the funding system, both in terms of increasing its transparency and reducing its bureaucracy. There were particular concerns around the proposals to mainstream individual grants, EMAG and the School Lunch Grant being the main examples, but no consensus. Those against mainstreaming the School Lunch Grant felt that in a context of reduced public spending and tighter education budgets, this funding may be diverted into other areas of education, and preferred to retain a centrally managed source of funding for school meals. The converse view was that mainstreaming the grant would allow schools to have greater control and discretion over how they allocate funding for school food, allowing schools to be creative in how they invest and fund their school food service.
With EMAG some welcomed the proposed flexibilities to allow LAs to retain a portion of this funding to run centralised services, while others suggested that EMAG funding should be exempt from mainstreaming on the basis that there is a lack of a framework of accountability for LAs and schools in this area; that mainstreaming would diminish the focus on work supported by this specific funding stream, and that the existence of certain specific services (such as the Travellers‟ Education Service) was threatened by the proposals – a number of respondents commented on the need to maintain central specialised services in the LA.
There was general support for transitional arrangements to ease the effect of the mainstreaming of these grants.
We are clear that the elements of the formula will be: a basic entitlement; additional educational needs, including those associated with deprivation; high cost pupils; sparsity and an area cost adjustment.
3. Do you agree with the proposed elements of the formula?
320 responses of which:
70% Yes 15% No 15% Not sure
Comments made
Many recognised the proposed blocks as similar to those that existed before spend- plus, and were supportive of their continued relevance. There was widespread agreement that the weighting between the blocks was crucial, with some arguing that the ACA and AEN blocks should be reduced to enable more to be put into the basic entitlement. Chapter 2 – The Basic Entitlement
The basic entitlement is intended to cover the general costs of running schools - notionally just less than three quarters of the current DSG allocation. There are two approaches to calculating the basic unit of funding per pupil: a judgemental approach – in which the funding is based on an assessment about how best to divide up the overall sum planned by the Government into its main formula components, or a bottom-up approach – in which the funding is based on an assessment of how much a school needs to spend to provide education for pupils before any adjustments are made, known as activity-led funding (ALF).
4. Which methodology for calculating the basic entitlement do you consider would enable the fairest and most practical distribution of funding?
305 responses of which:
51% Activity-led funding 27% Not sure 22% Judgemental
Comments made
A majority supported an activity-led funding methodology, but a significant minority either supported a judgemental approach or were not sure. Those supporting ALF saw its advantages as being transparency and that it seemed the „right‟ approach to recognising which activities need to be reflected in the basic entitlement. Those arguing against felt that it was likely to be too bureaucratic and expensive to run and there was either a lack of data or the likelihood that data used would not be accurate. Some local authorities that have tried to introduce an ALF element in their local formulae commented on the difficulties.
Chapter 3 – Additional Educational Needs
Our proposed methodology for distributing AEN funding is to make an assessment of the national incidence of additional educational needs and, because we have no way of knowing exactly where each pupil with additional educational needs is located, to use proxy indicators to assess the likely incidence of these needs in each local authority. We propose to distribute funding using carefully chosen indicators that are associated with the individual need types identified in the PricewaterhouseCoopers survey.
5. Do you agree with the proposed methodology for distributing money for additional educational needs?
311 responses of which:
50% Yes 22% No 28% Not sure
Comments made There was, in general, agreement to the use of proxy indicators, though some debate on the detail of which indicators to use and, particularly, whether or not a „flat‟ distribution would reflect need. Several respondees felt that there should be greater transparency between AEN and deprivation, and that the current definition of „underperforming groups‟ does not take account of one of the lowest performing groups of all – white working class boys.
Within the distribution mechanism we have identified five options for the indicators to be used for distributing deprivation funding. These are: Option 1 Out of Work Tax Credit Indicator Option 2 Free School Meals (FSM) Option 3 Child Poverty Measure Option 4 Average IDACI (Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index) score of pupils educated within the local authority Option 5 FSM with the additional 500,000 pupils in most deprived areas by the IDACI score not on FSM
6. Which is your preferred indicator for distributing money via deprivation? Why? 258 responses of which: Option 1: 5% Option 2: 15% Option 3: 20% Option 4: 28% Option 5: 32%
Comments made
As can be seen from the results there was no agreement on which indicator to use. Those who favoured FSM did so mainly on the basis that it is the easiest to measure, directly pupil-related and provides the best correlation with attainment. Many felt, however, that because take up is known to be poor in some areas it was not the best measure of deprivation and preferred either the Child Poverty Measure, or IDACI. Overall, the dual approach of FSM + IDACI received most support, but not by a wide margin. Several alternatives, such as Education ACORN or MOSAIC were suggested, based on local authorities‟ experience of using these.
In the consultation document we have linked the non-high cost AEN need types to what we consider to be the most appropriate distribution indicator. This results in 49.5 per cent of AEN funding being distributed via a deprivation indicator, 24.6 per cent is distributed via underperforming groups, 13.5 per cent via English as an Additional Language and 12.4 per cent via a flat per pupil rate.
7. Do you agree with the indicators, other than for deprivation, that we have proposed for each need?
287 responses of which:
26% All 54% Some 15% Not sure 6% None
Comments made
80% of people who responded to this question agreed with either all or some of the indicators. Issues identified by respondents were that: (a) white working class boys (closely followed by white working class girls) are amongst the lowest performing groups nationally, yet do not feature in allocations for underperforming groups. (b) The proportion of AEN funding to be distributed via „English as an Additional Language‟ (13.5%) is high, given that pupils identified as having EAL may already be fully fluent in English. (c) The issues of Gypsy Roma and Traveller Education, Gifted and Talented and Children in Care are not given sufficient priority. (d) The High Cost pupil block uses achievement levels for Cognition & Learning, and it is not clear why the different measure of under performing groups is used here. (e) There seems no logic to using flat rates – more should be done to develop a suitable indicator.
To ensure the funding to support schools to meet the needs of deprived children is clearly identified and responsive to where these children are, the Government will require all local authorities to operate a Local Pupil Premium from 2012-13 onwards. This means that an amount of money in a school’s delegated budget must relate directly and explicitly to deprived pupils within the school, and should move around the system as necessary. Such a Local Pupil Premium would mean that if a school recruits a larger number of deprived pupils, they can see that they will get additional funds, which will be reflected in their budget.
8. Will the Local Pupil Premium mechanism help funding to be more responsive to changes in pupil characteristics?
294 responses of which:
55% Yes 13% No 32% Not sure
Comments made
While there was a majority agreeing that a pupil premium will make funding more responsive, many local authorities commented that they - in effect - already operate a local pupil premium for allocating their deprivation funding. It was thought that it might be helpful in rural settings, and with overcoming resistance from schools in admitting Gypsy Roma and Traveller children. In-year transfers and clawback were identified as disadvantages, and it was pointed out that because school budgets are delegated there is no audit trail to show that funding allocated to an individual pupil is actually spent on that pupil; it simply becomes part of the school budget. The Government believes that local authorities and schools are in a far better position than central Government to assess the levels of need within individual schools. Local authorities will have the freedom to agree with their Schools Forums how to operate a local pupil premium, rather than a process being mandated nationally. Local authorities will want to develop different systems depending on their local circumstances, and we will look to provide best practice as systems develop.
9. Is it right that local authorities should each develop their own pupil premium mechanism?
301 responses of which:
83% Yes 8% No 8% Not sure
Comments made
There was strong support for the pupil premium mechanism to be developed by each local authority, though it was pointed out that this might lead to a lack of parity between children in one LA compared to children with the same needs in another. It was recognised that LAs would need to work closely with their schools and school forums in developing the mechanism. It was suggested that largely rural LAs may decide relevant indicators for rural deprivation are different to those appropriate in an urban environment. Guidance from the Department on this would be seen as useful.
Chapter 4 – High Cost Pupils
We propose to use the same approach for the allocation of funding for the high cost pupil block to that proposed for the allocation of AEN funding – namely that based on the pupil need types identified in PwC school survey, but using the specific data for high cost pupils, and identifying the most appropriate distribution mechanism for allocating resources to local authorities for these need types. The effect of the formula is to distribute 14 per cent of the high cost pupils block via deprivation, 50 per cent distributed via a flat per pupil rate, 33 per cent distributed via a measure of those pupils not achieving higher than Level 2 at Key Stage 2, 2 per cent via the take-up of Disability Living Allowance and 1 per cent via English as an Additional Language.
10. Do you agree with the methodology for distributing money for High Cost Pupils?
282 responses of which:
43% Yes 18% No 39% Not sure
Comments made
Responses were mixed. Those who agreed tended to simply state that the proposed methodology was appropriate. There was little consensus amongst the 57% who were either against or not sure. Some respondents, for instance, welcomed the flat rate element; some felt that the percentage to be allocated by a flat rate was far too high. Differences in the methodology used to High-Cost Pupils pre- and post-16 were raised. And several respondents pointed out that using pupil achievement would not incentivise pupil progress as it would simply reward low attainment.
Chapter 5 - Sparsity
For sparsity funding we propose to use the home postcode data collected in the annual school censuses; these are collected annually and, as a pupil census, would more accurately reflect the sparsity of the pupil population. We also propose to use the Middle Super Output Area to provide a replacement to the ward geography, providing a comparable number of geographic units to that of wards
11. Do you agree that the school censuses and Middle Super Output Area are the right data source and geography to use to assess the sparsity of an area?
267 responses of which:
64% Yes 6% No 31% Not sure
Comments made
A large majority of respondents agreed with the use of home postcode data and the MSOA for the assessment of sparsity. It was pointed out, however, that although the home postcode of the child would reflect the distance a child has travelled to get to school, this may be as a result of the popularity of a school, whether it is selective, or parental choice for a particular type of school (e.g. faith). There was some support for the use of lower super output areas as MSOAs could cover both rural and urban areas.
Two options are proposed for calculating the sparsity factor – broad and narrow. The broad option would, at current figures, result in 104 local authorities receiving additional money for sparsity, with 1.07 million pupils deemed sparse or super-sparse. An alternative, narrow, option would mean that around 300,000 pupils are deemed sparse or super-sparse, a number similar to the 280,000 pupils who currently attend small (<150FTEs) rural primary schools. Under these altered thresholds 66 authorities would receive sparsity money, enabling us to increase the unit cost for each sparse pupil.
12. Which method for calculating the sparsity factor do you think will best enable additional funding to reach those local authorities that need to maintain small schools – the broad or narrow option? 264 responses of which:
25% Broad 42% Narrow 33% Not sure
Comments made
The largest percentage of responses supported the narrow option, but this was not overwhelming. Support for the narrow option were based on the view that the broad option would include too many LAs, some of which would not appear to have a strong justification for sparsity funding; that if sparsity funding is spread too thinly there will not be enough to guarantee the survival of village schools; and that for the broad option, using a threshold of 0.408 pupils per hectare, there would be approximately 1300 children within that area likely to attend the school. Support for the broad option was based on the view that it would create less turbulence; that as pupil numbers in small rural schools can vary significantly year-on-year, the narrow option has the risk of not reflecting these variations and that the narrow option creates cliff edges. Whichever option is chosen it was commented that it should not discourage local authorities from tackling the sensitive issue of inefficient small primary schools.
The case for a sparsity factor for small secondary schools was considered, having regard to:
Whether there are enough small secondary schools to warrant a dedicated sparsity factor and whether their occurrence can be predicted by a sparsity measure;
Whether or not small secondary schools require more teachers per pupil than other schools; and
If not, whether that means that small secondary schools are unable to deliver sufficient choice in the KS4 curriculum.
No robust link was found between small schools (below 600 FTE) and sparsity. No evidence was found that small secondary schools have disproportionately more teachers than other schools. And an analysis of the number of subjects on offer at each school showed a very wide variation in the number of subjects available in schools of similar sizes. This suggests that the need for a secondary sparsity factor has not been proven.
13. Do you agree that there should not be a secondary sparsity factor?
274 responses of which:
42% Yes 28% No 30% Not sure
Comments made
While there was no majority for a secondary sparsity factor, where there was support for one it tended to be a strongly held view. Most agreed that secondary schools were less affected by sparsity issues than primary, though strong arguments were put forward for a secondary factor based on the need for significant additional funding to ensure the full curriculum can be delivered, particularly with the Diploma. It was also pointed out that there are significant issues around providing extended services in sparsely populated areas and many commented on the additional home-to-school transport costs (though these are not covered by the DSG). Nonetheless the majority supported the analysis by the Department and did not feel the case for a secondary factor has been proved.
Chapter 6 – Area Cost Adjustment
The Area Cost Adjustment (ACA) reflects the need for schools in some areas to pay higher salaries and to pay more to recruit and retain staff. Two options are proposed for reflecting area cost differences for education: the general labour market (GLM) approach and a hybrid approach. The latter is based on the specific pay costs of teachers, details of which are available, and the GLM approach for the elements of staff costs where details are not available.
14. Which is the fairest method of applying the Area Cost Adjustment?
2,814 responses (including the campaigns from Haringey and Newham)
2% GLM 96 % Hybrid 2% Not sure
261 responses (excluding the campaigns from Haringey and Newham)
16% GLM 60% Hybrid 25% Not sure
Comments made
Responses to this question were dominated by the campaigns and petitions – mainly from residents in Haringey and Newham who strongly supported the hybrid approach This would, they felt, go some way to addressing an historical anomaly under which they are funded using an outer-London ACA for DSG purposes, whilst being required to pay inner-London teacher salaries.
Even without the large number of responses by the campaigns, however, the hybrid option was still the most popular, with the majority feeling that it was both fairer and easier to explain than the GLM. Some respondents, however, felt that there should not be any ACA (apart from an inner-London addition), and/or that the amount paid was too high and drained funding away from the basic entitlement. A number supported the GLM, arguing that it had the broadest recognition of variances faced by all local authorities and schools, and that as teachers are part of the wider labour market the GLM method should adequately reflect differences across the country. Chapter 7 – Transitional arrangements
As we are mainstreaming specific grants into the DSG we propose having a single set of transitional arrangements that applies to a baseline incorporating both the DSG and those grants. As the approach is likely to require local authorities to revise their formulae and as timing is tight to do this for 2011-12 we propose to amend the School Finance Regulations to enable local authorities to include previous specific grant payments as formula factors for 2011-13.
15. Do you support our plans for the transitional arrangements for mainstreaming grants?
285 responses of which:
67% Yes 16% No 17% Not sure
Comments made
Overall, respondents strongly supported proposals for a single set of arrangements to cover DSG and mainstreamed grants. The need for flexibility and the importance of agreeing a way forward with school forums was raised. As with question 2, some felt that EMAG should be retained as a discrete grant – at least for an interim period. The need for transparency was raised by several respondents, particularly in the childcare and early years‟ sector. It was suggested that replicating existing grant streams in the schools‟ local funding formula would defeat the principle of mainstreaming grants in the first place.
In order to protect local authorities from significant potential losses in the formula, we intend to have a per pupil cash floor which will be set above the level of the Minimum Funding Guarantee. This floor will need to be paid for by either a ceiling on large increases the formula generates for some authorities or by reducing the allocation to all other non-floor authorities (or a combination of the two).
16. Should floors be paid for by all local authorities or just the largest gaining authorities?
272 responses of which:
39% All Authorities 31% Largest Gaining Authorities 31% Not sure
Comments made
There was no consensus on this, with many respondents saying it was impossible to give an opinion until they can see exemplifications. A number of respondents did not support a cash floor or a MFG for authorities, commenting that they both extend inequity by protecting school budgets above the level the local formula would allocate, and that any transitional arrangements must not be complex or long-standing. Other options offered were a combination of both approaches or a sliding scale.
We have said that we will take this opportunity to consider if the operation of the Minimum Funding Guarantee can be improved.
17. Have you any suggestions as to how the Minimum Funding Guarantee could be improved?
247 responses of which:
45% Yes 37% No 19% Not sure
Comments made
Responses ranged from “It should be scrapped” to “works well and gives a sense of stability”. A number of respondents suggested abolishing it, though it was acknowledged that it had been useful in the past. Arguments against it were that it adds another layer of bureaucracy to the system and reduces the power of local authorities and their schools forums to make local funding decisions. If it is to continue, however it was felt that there should be more local discretion in setting the MFG as it currently dampens the effect of the local formula and that we should allow School Forums the flexibility to make changes to reflect local circumstances. It was suggested that in order to avoid the MFG acting as a force to stifle change, it should be retained but set at “a very low level” to allow more headroom. It was also suggested that pupil number changes have more of an impact on school budgets and schools generally manage the effects of these. A nationally set MFG builds in too much protection if, for example, there are local pay awards for non-teaching staff below the assumed rise. Several LAs thought that protection was built in for too long and should be tapered/time-limited or that it should be changed so there is just a minimum increase to the AWPU. Several respondents mentioned that more clarity is needed around Early Years settings and possible use of the MFG.
In 2008 we introduced the Exceptional Circumstances Grant (ECG). Its purpose was to assist local authorities who experience:
significant growth in the number of pupils between the January school census and the start of the academic year; or
significant growth over the spending period in the number of pupils with English as an Additional Language.
This grant is funded from the overall DSG settlement. In 2008-09 and 2009-10, no authorities received ECG for a general increase in pupil numbers, although several have received funding for increases in the proportion of pupils with EAL. We are seeking views on whether there is a case for a similar arrangement from 2011, funded from the DSG, and if so how it should operate and what circumstances should be covered. 18. If a contingency arrangement for local authorities is to continue, funded from the DSG, what areas should it cover and what should the criteria be for triggering eligibility?
Comments made
The vast majority of respondents supported the continuation of the ECG, though a few argued against the principle of holding contingency funds centrally and felt that all funds should be distributed to LAs and schools. On the whole respondents agreed with the current circumstances covered, though some felt that the criteria were too strict and should be relaxed and some argued that it should apply to EAL only. There were a number of additional suggestions for increases that could generate bids for funding, e.g. additional funding for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils and significant growth in pupils with AEN. A number of respondents felt that any underspend in one year should be added to the DSG in the next.
The review considered whether there is evidence that children of parents from the Armed Services are underachieving and need additional support. Evidence shows that such children do well compared to their non-Service children peers and this does not suggest the need to make specific provision for Service children in the DSG formula to support underachievement.
We consider there is a case for additional support for schools which traditionally cater for Service families, mainly those located near armed service establishments. Such schools are prone to pupil number fluctuations and therefore funding due to troop movements, which can affect their stability and sustainability. We are considering whether to allow local authorities with such schools to make a claim for additional pupils to be counted for DSG purposes where numbers have fallen significantly from one year to the next as a result of armed forces movements. These claims would be made directly to the Department and would be considered individually on their merits.
19. Do you support our proposals for Service children?
264 responses of which:
66% Yes 19% No 16% Not sure
Comments made
The majority supported the proposals, though a number of respondents felt that this was a local issue and should not complicate national funding arrangements. A significant number of respondents also felt that it was an appropriate use of the Exceptional Circumstances Grant, rather than setting up an additional discrete funding arrangement. A small number of respondents felt that the issue did not only apply to schools with service children but also coastal resorts, particularly those that attract large numbers of families on benefits in temporary accommodation, and schools that had high numbers of travellers. 20. Have you any further comments?
Many of the issues raised under this question reflected specific examples relating to earlier questions in the consultation, and have been covered by the summaries to these questions. A number of separate issues, however, were raised:
o The scope of the review was discussed, with suggestions that it should have been wider and included such subjects as transport costs, particularly in rural areas, and should have specifically looked into the funding for home education.
o The question of Looked After Children (LAC) was raised, with one authority saying that the funding allocated did not adequately reflect the very high levels of LAC placed in it by neighbouring (London) authorities
o Early years providers mentioned the difficulties caused by the decision not to implement EYSFF across all local authorities from April 2010.
o The importance of ensuring that the basic entitlement block is sufficient to meet all of the basic educational needs of all pupils was reiterated, as was the call for it to include a distinct block for local authority central expenditure.
o There were a number of calls for a National Funding Formula to be developed. It was commented that this should “build on the experience of the 16-19 funding formula developed though the LSC”, to provide a “national formula in the context of a national system for state education provision”.
o The position of PFI schools was raised. Many schools have agreements in relation to the charges they pay calculated as a proportion of between 10%-20% of DSG. If grants are mainstreamed into DSG that proportion will need to be renegotiated.
o There was a call for more recognition for deprivation in rural and suburban areas and smaller towns.
Next Steps
The review of school funding was started by the previous Government and a consultation was underway at the time of the election. The coalition Government is aware of the consultation and is grateful for the work of education partners in developing proposals. It has considered the consultation responses in the context of its own aims and objectives about how schools should be funded, in particular that a less complicated system can and should be developed. It supports proposals to mainstream relevant grants into the DSG as a step on the way to reducing the complexity of the system and accepts some of the principles that were put forward.
The Government has already committed to changes to the funding system through the introduction of a pupil premium for disadvantaged children. As well as the premium, any changes to the system will need to support the Government's policy objective of giving schools more freedom including through increasing the number of Academies and making it easier for parents and other groups to start new schools. On 26 July the Government launched its own consultation on school funding, and this can be found at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/.
Longer term the Government is looking to bring in a simpler and more transparent funding system and will work with education partners to consider how best to bring this about. In particular, the intention is to introduce a fairer, formulaic basis for distributing funding, and to reduce differences in funding between similar schools in different areas. In developing proposals the previous work of the Formula Review Group will be considered. Annex A
Organisations responding to the Consultation
ADCS Advisory Council For The Education Of Romany And Other Travellers (ACERT) Alexandra Primary School Alfreton Park Special School Almeley Primary School ASCL Association of Managers in Education Association of Secondary Heads in Essex Association of Teachers and Lecturers Barnet Schools Finance Forum Barnsley BMBC Bath and North East Somerset LA Baxter College Beauchamps High School Bedford Borough Council Bedford Borough Schools Forum Belmont Infants School Beverley School Birmingham City Council Blackpool Council Bolton Council Borough of Poole Boskenwyn CP School Boswells School Bovey Tracey Primary School Boxmoor Primary School Bracknell Forest Council Bradley Stoke Community School Bridgwater Excellence Cluster Brigg St Mary's School Brighton and Hove City Council Brighton and Hove Ethnic Minority Achievement Services Bristol LA Broadhembury C of E Primary School Governing Body Bury Schools Forum Calderdale MBC Calderdale Primary Heads Cambridgeshire CYPS Cambridgeshire Schools Forum Cartmel Priory C of E School Catholic Education Service Central Bedfordshire School Forum Chad Varah Primary School Chamberlayne College for the Arts Chandag Junior School Cheshire East Borough Council Cheshire West and Chester Council Children's Food Campaign Christ Church School CIPFA Colchester RGS Coldfall Primary School Governors Colleges Nursery and Family Centre Commission for Rural Communities Communication Council County Councils Network Coventry City Council Coventry Schools Forum Darlington Borough Council Derby City Council Derbyshire County Council Devon Association of Governors Devon County Council Dorset County Council Earlham Primary School Earlsmead Primary School Earlsmead Primary School Governing Body Finance Committee East Riding of Yorkshire Council Education Bradford Education Otherwise Ellington Infant School Essex County Council Essex Schools Forum Ethelbert Road School, Faversham Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Service F40 Food for Life Partnership Frederick Gough School Gloucestershire County Council Greater London Authority Green Gourmet Ltd Halifax Excellence Cluster Halton School Chair of Governors Hampshire Schools Forum Haringey Council Haringey Council Liberal Democrat Group Haringey Teachers‟ Association (NUT) Harwich School Heathbrook Primary School Herefordshire CYPD Herefordshire Council Hertfordshire County Council Hexham Middle School High Ethnicity Authorities‟ Special Interest Group Highgate Primary School Highgate Wood School Hull County Council Hull Schools‟ Forum and Hull City Council Huntingtower Community Primary School Hylands ICAN Incorporated Society of Musicians Judd School Kenn Primary School Kent County Council Kent County Council - Food in Schools Kingston upon Thames School Forum Knowsley MBC Lancashire County Council Lancashire Schools Forum Langley Primary School Leicester City Council Leicestershire County Council Leicestershire EMASS LGA Lincolnshire County Council Lincolnshire Schools Forum Littletown Governing Body Littletown Primary School Liverpool City Council Local Authority Caterers Association London Borough Barking and Dagenham London Borough of Barnet London Borough of Bromley London Borough of Camden London Borough of Croydon London Borough of Ealing London Borough of Enfield London borough of Havering London borough of Hillingdon London Borough of Hillingdon - FERG London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Islington Schools Forum London Borough of Lambeth London Borough of Lewisham London Borough of Merton London Borough of Merton SSQ London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Richmond upon Thames London Borough of Sutton London Borough of Waltham Forest London Borough Tower Hamlets London Councils Luton Schools Forum Maidstone Girls Grammar School Manchester City Council Manningtree High School Marling School Maybury Primary School Medway Schools Forum Middlesborough Schools Management Forum Milton Keynes Council Milton Keynes EMASS Ministry of Defence Morley Primary School Mottram St Andrew Primary School Mulberry Primary School Mullion School Muswell Hill Primary School Muswell Hill Primary School Governing Body NAHT NALDIC NASS NASSEA NASUWT National Day Nurseries Association National Governors' Association NATT Newcastle Schools Forum Newport Community School Norfolk Children's Services Norfolk County Council Norfolk School Forum North Axholme School North Lincolnshire Council North Lincolnshire Council: Schools Forum North Somerset Council North Tawton Community Primary School North Tyneside Council North Yorkshire County Council Northamptonshire County Council Northumberland Schools Forum Nottinghamshire County Council Nottinghamshire County Council (Catering) NUT Onn Target Ltd Orchard Vale Community School Oxfordshire County Council Oxfordshire Governors' Association Plymouth Association of Secondary Headteachers (PASH) Plymouth City Council Plymouth Excellence Cluster Polesden Lacey Infant School Queen Elizabeth‟s School Queen Elizabeth's High School Reading Borough Council Rhodes Avenue Primary School Roman Catholic Diocesan Education Department Rotherham CYPS Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Salford City Council Salford City Council Schools Forum School Food Trust SCISS Seathorne Primary School Seven Sisters Primary School Sheffield County Council Shropshire Council Shropshire Schools Forum SIGOMA Slough BC Society of County Treasurers Society of London Treasurers Solihull School Forum and Solihull MBC Somerset County Council Somerset Governors Strategy Group South Gloustershire Council South Gloustershire Schools Forum South Haringey Junior School South Holderness Technology College Governors Southend-on-Sea Borough Council St. Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive school St. James' C of E School St. John Vianney Catholic School St. Michael's C of E Primary School St. Peter-in-Chains RC Infant School St. Edwards Church of England School and Sixth Form College St. Mary's Priory Catholic Junior School St. Peter‟s College Staffordshire County Council Staffordshire EAL Stockport School Forum Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Stoke-on-Trent City Council Sunderland City Council Surrey County Council Swindon Borough Council Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Telford and Wrekin Council Tendring Technology College Thanet Excellence Cluster The Canterbury Campus The Tarka Federation Governing Body Thurrock Council Toftwood Infant School Torbay Council Torbay Schools Forum Traveller Reform Project Two Moors School Usworth Colliery Nursery School Venerable Bede Secondary School VT Group Wadsworth Fields Primary School Wakefield Council Wakefield M D Council Walsall – SERCO Wandsworth Borough Council Wandsworth School Forum Warren Comprehensive School Warwickshire County Council Waterside CC School Webbers Church of England Primary School West Berkshire Council West Green Primary School Governing Body West Hatch High School Westminster City Council Weston Park Primary School Wigan Council Wiltshire EMAS Wirral Schools Forum Worcestershire County Council Yealmpton Primary School
AGENDA ITEM 9a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) CONSULTATION ON SCHOOL FUNDING 2011-12: INTRODUCING A PUPIL PREMIUM
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF of the above consultation.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 On 26th July 2010 the Department for Education (DfE) issued a further school funding consultation document for 2011-12. The full details are available on: -
http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/
2.2 The consultation closes on 18th October 2010 and the DfE are aware that this included the summer break but advised they are unable to extend the deadline for responses as there needs to be sufficient time for the calculation of local authority and school budgets.
2.3 Information has been circulated to all schools via EduLink and the e-black bag and has been included on the WSF web site.
2.4 The DfE intend to give indicative DSG allocations for 2011-12 to LA's and to announce the level of the pupil premium for each LA, in November or early December, following the Comprehensive Spending Review announcement on 20th October 2010.
2.5 In terms of funding for 2012-13 onwards, the Government's intention for the longer term is to bring in a simpler and more transparent funding system. They advise that this should help reduce the funding differences between similar schools in different areas. The DfE will work with key partners to consider how best to bring this about.
2.6 The County Council Cabinet meeting of 16th September 2010 considered the key aspects of the details within the consultation. Given the national timescales for the consultation it is not possible to consider the formal response at the October 2010 Cabinet meeting as this is after the deadline for responses. Therefore, the Cabinet endorsed the proposal that consideration and approval to the response to the consultation be delegated to the Cabinet Members with Responsibility for Children and Young People and Finance in consultation with the Director of Children's Services, the Interim Director of Financial Services and the WSF.
3. KEY RESPONSE ISSUES
3.1 A summary of the document is provided at Appendix A.
3.2 The main key aspects raised include: -
The introduction of a pupil premium from September 2011 to be funded from outside the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) to support disadvantaged pupils and potentially for looked after children and service children. Confirmation of the requirement to introduce an Early Years Single Funding Formula from April 2011 and potential changes to early years' pupil count arrangements. Confirmation of the retention of the "spend plus" methodology for the national allocation of the DSG for 2011-12. Proposals for some mainstreaming of some specific grants for schools into the DSG from 2011-12. Consideration of potential pupil count changes for pupils in pupil referral units, service children and home educated pupils. Confirmation of the continuation of a Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) for individual school budgets.
3.3 A draft response to the consultation is provided under Agenda Item 9b).
4. f40 GROUP ISSUES
4.1 As part of this further consultation, the f40 Group of LA's has continued its national campaign for Fairer Funding.
4.2 To support this process a briefing on the key issues has been given to new Worcestershire MPs in order for them to be part of the representation for Worcestershire at the f40 executive and in Parliamentary discussions.
4.3 The f40 executive met on 4th September 2010 where there was strong representation from Worcestershire. At that meeting the ongoing campaign for Fairer Funding and the need for a fundamental reform of the funding formula were endorsed. A meeting with the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools, Lord Hill, to discuss the funding inequities took place on 30th September 2010. Worcestershire will be represented at that meeting.
5. RECOMMENDATION
The WSF notes the issues.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development October 2010 APPENDIX A
CONSULTATION ON SCHOOL FUNDING 2011-12: INTRODUCING A PUPIL PREMIUM 26th JULY 2010 SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT
An executive summary of the key issues is listed below with further details on some of the aspects in Annex A: -
Pupil Premium
This is to support disadvantaged pupils, who continue to underachieve compared with their peers. The aspects are: -
It will be introduced in September 2011. It will be funded from outside the Schools Budget to support disadvantaged pupils from Reception to Year 11. Schools will decide how best to use the premium to support the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. The intention is to allocate the funding by means of a separate specific grant and not through the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). The size of the premium will vary between areas to reflect current differences in funding, ensuring that more money is available for currently lower funded authorities. Over time, this will mean that the same amount of funding will be available for deprived children no matter where they are. The DfE are seeking views on the indicator to determine which pupils should attract the premium. Looked After Children (LAC), who generally have poor attainment, will be covered by the pupil premium using a separate process via LA's since deprivation indicators do not generally pick them up accurately. The Government will explore the scope for extending the pupil premium to include Service children.
Funding Arrangements for 2011-12
The DfE contend that there will be a balance between taking urgent action to manage the public finances, while protecting the most vulnerable and recognising that education faces particular pressures.
Early Years
LA's which are yet to do so will need to implement an Early Years Single Funding Formula from April 2011.
Reception to 11
2011-12 will retain the current system for allocating the DSG, based on the "spend-plus" methodology. There will be mainstreaming of relevant grants into the DSG but allowing LA's to use previous levels of grant as a factor in their local formulae to support stability in funding at school level. Purpose is to give stability and clarity in funding and to ensure the transparent introduction of the pupil premium. The DfE will allow LA's to apply for additional funding in respect of schools which serve large numbers of children of parents from the Armed Services and which face falls in pupil numbers due to Armed Forces movements, and also for home educated pupils. The DfE intend to give indicative DSG allocations for 2011-12 to LA's and to announce the level of the pupil premium for each LA, in November or early December, following the Comprehensive Spending Review announcement on 20 October 2010. The level of funding for schools for 2011-12 will be determined once the outcome of the Government's spending review is announced on 20 October 2010.
Funding 2012-13 onwards
The Government's intention for the longer term is to bring in a simpler and more transparent funding system. This should help reduce the funding differences between similar schools in different areas. The DfE will work with key partners to consider how best to bring this about.
Consultation
26 July to 18 October - 12 weeks to include: -
Whether from April 2011 the pupil count for three year olds should reflect actual take up or continue to reflect a minimum of 90% participation where lower. Whether to cease to provide DSG for dual subsidiary registrations for pupils registered at pupil referral units. Whether to remove the current cash floor provisions which protect authorities with falling pupil rolls. The DfE will also work with partners to review the methodology for funding academies from 2011-12.
ANNEX A FURTHER DETAILS OF THE KEY ASPECTS
A. INTRODUCING A PUPIL PREMIUM FOR DISADVANTAGED PUPILS
1. Funding for the Premium
This will be via additional resources from outside the Schools Budget. The level will be subject to the spending review considerations.
2. Method of Distributing the Premium
This will be from a separate grant outside the DSG available from September 2011. It will be paid to LA's based upon the figures from the previous January Census with the requirement on LA's to pass it on in full using specific defined per pupil amounts for every relevant pupil from R to Yr11. In the longer term the intention is that it will be the main mechanism for allocating deprivation funding to schools a part of a new formula.
3. How the Premium is Calculated for Each LA Area
It is proposed that the amount over time will be the same around the country subject to the ACA on a 'hybrid approach'. It is further proposed to provide higher funding for schools with deprived pupils in areas that currently receive lower levels of funding.
4. The Deprivation Indicator for the Pupil Premium
The options are: - Free School Meal (FSM) Eligibility – annual or a trend over time. Working Tax Credit (WTC) Indicator. ACORN or MOSIAC.
On FSM: -
Advantages Disadvantages Targets Individual Pupils Relies on parental registration and claim Recognised and understood Cultural barriers Based on pupil characteristics Size of cohort declines as pupils get older Readily available Resistance to its validity Historic information available Updated annually On WTC: -
Advantages Disadvantages Picks up families above FSM threshold No historic data set Area based not representing family circumstances
On ACORN or MOSIAC: -
Advantages Disadvantages Based upon a wider range of data including Classification of areas rather than a direct census and commercial information index Types and groups are labelled Post code data but input data is on larger Better discrimination for less severely areas deprived groups Commercial products so precise data and Increasingly used by public sector inputs are not public Good predictor of GCSE performance General measure that may not match for education Will need further development to use as a deprivation index
5. Looked After Children (LAC)
Suggested needs further consideration as such pupils have low attainment but pupils are very often not from deprived backgrounds. The DfE propose to consider an alternative method to ensure LAC are covered by the pupil premium. Funding is proposed to be allocated to the LA which looks after the child and is responsible for maintaining and reviewing their care plan rather than the LA where the pupil is educated. Eligibility will be limited to pupils in care for more than 6 months with the data source being the annual LAC return not the schools annual census.
6. Service Children
The DfE are to explore the scope to extend coverage of the pupil premium to provide additional funding for children on the annual census classed as being a service child.
Consultation Questions: -
Do you agree it is right to give a higher pupil premium to areas that currently receive less per pupil funding?
What is your preferred deprivation indicator for allocating the pupil premium?
Do you agree the coverage of the pupil premium should include Looked After Children?
What are your views on the operation of the Looked After Children element of the pupil premium?
In particular, how might the funding arrangements work at local authority level for pupils educated outside of the local authority with caring responsibility?
Do you think the coverage of the pupil premium should be extended to include additional support for Service children?
B. METHODOLOGY FOR ALLOCATING SCHOOL FUNDING FOR 2011-12
1. General Issues
The current methodology for allocating DSG the 'spend plus' method will continue for 2011-12. No proposals to change the relative per pupil distribution between LA's. Intension to mainstream relevant grants into the DSG to include at least: - School Development Grant (SDG) School Standards Grant (SSG) School Standards Grant (Personalisation) ((SSG(P)) LA's to be allowed to have previous grant levels as allowable local formula factors.
2. Early Years
Require all LA's to implement a new Single Funding Formula from April 2011.
3. ACA
The current ACA will remain for 2011-12 but a resolution on the issue is still programmed for the longer term.
4. Academies and Free Schools
Work will continue on the methodology of funding Academies from 2011-12 onwards including the calculation of the LA LACSEG.
5. Pupil Counts for 3 Year Olds
Considering whether to fund all LA's on the basis of actual take up instead of the existing 90% participation floor.
6. PRU Dual and Subsidiary Registrations
Considering whether to cease to provide DSG for the dual subsidiary registrations from April 2011.
7. Service Children
Proposal to allow LA's affected by Armed Forces movements to make a claim for such additional pupils to be counted for DSG purposes.
8. Home Educated Pupils
Proposal to allow LA's to claim 10% of a unit of funding to provide services for such pupils.
9. Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG)
This will be retained for 2011-12 but the level has to be confirmed and it could be negative. The intention is to introduce a more flexible system less dependent upon historic funding levels to allow the local formula to operate more effectively. It will apply to a baseline incorporating DSG plus mainstreamed grants. Any pupil premium will be in addition to the MFG.
10. Cash Floor
Proposal of not having such a floor which is currently used to protect LA's from falling numbers.
Consultation Questions: -
Should the pupil count for three year olds used to allocate DSG for 2011-12 reflect actual take up or continue to reflect a minimum of 90% participation where lower?
Should the pupil count used to allocate DSG for 2011-12 continue to reflect dual subsidiary registrations for pupils at Pupil Referral Units?
Do you support our proposals for additional support for schools catering for Service children?
Do you support our proposals for home educated pupils?
Do you think that there should be a cash floor at local authority level in 2011-12?
Version 2 22nd September 2010
AGENDA ITEM 9b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010
Consultation on School Funding 2011-12: Introducing a Pupil Premium Consultation Response Form The closing date for this consultation is: 18 October 2010 Your comments must reach us by that date.
Version 2 22nd September 2010
THIS FORM IS NOT INTERACTIVE. If you wish to respond electronically please use the online response facility available on the Department for Education e-consultation website (http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations).
Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes, primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998.
If you want all, or any part, of your response to be treated as confidential, please explain why you consider it to be confidential.
If a request for disclosure of the information you have provided is received, your explanation about why you consider it to be confidential will be taken into account, but no assurance can be given that confidentiality can be maintained. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.
The Department will process your personal data (name and address and any other identifying material) in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.
Please tick if you want us to keep your response confidential.
Reason for confidentiality:
Name Andy McHale Organisation (if applicable) Worcestershire County Council (WCC) Address: Spetchley Road Worcester WR5 2YA Version 2 22nd September 2010
If your enquiry is related to the policy content of the consultation you can contact either:
Juliet Yates on: telephone: 020 7340 8313 e-mail: [email protected], or Ian McVicar on: telephone: 020 7340 7980 e-mail: [email protected]
If you have a query relating to the consultation process you can contact the Consultation Unit on telephone: 0870 000 2288 or email: [email protected] Version 2 22nd September 2010
Please select ONE category which best describes you as a respondent:
√ Governor School Schools Forum Association √ Individual Local Teacher Local Authority Group Authority Teacher Other Trade Early Years Association Union/Professional Body Setting Campaign Parent/Carer Other Group
Please Specify:
Version 2 22nd September 2010
1 Do you agree it is right to give a higher premium to areas that currently receive less per pupil funding? [Paras 24 - 27]
√ Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
We strongly support this proposed approach.
Given that the existing funding differential and inequity between LA's is an issue that WCC has campaigned strongly to change over a number of years, any proposals to narrow the existing funding gap and to allocate a higher premium to LA's that currently receive less per pupil funding are extremely welcome.
We contend to enable the full benefit to be received by low funded LA's it is imperative that this approach is introduced over a short a time period as possible and not over many years.
There is no real detail on the proposed funding source for the Local Pupil Premium (LPP). We note, the introduction of the LPP for disadvantage may support a narrowing of the funding gap. However, we contend the additional
resources allocated during 2008-11 for supporting "pockets of deprivation" must continue in 2011-12 and not be re-directed to help in funding the LPP.
Version 2 22nd September 2010
2 What is your preferred deprivation indicator for allocating the pupil premium? [Paras 29 - 50]
FSM ever - 3 FSM ever - 6 FSM - in year year year Out of Work Tax √ Other (not ACORN/MOSAIC Credit listed) Not Sure
Comments:
We contend any data set used to target resources from the proposed LPP must be up to date, simple, understood, be able to be measured and collected annually and allocated at an individual pupil level. This will enable the specific allocation of resources to those most in need and support the policy of targeting such pupils including those located within "pockets of deprivation" in both urban and rural areas. This could potentially be achieved by a combination of some of the above data sets.
On the options provided: -
FSM This data satisfies the above we contend and any use for the Local Pupil Premium (LPP) would have to be via annual data being the most up to date. However, although targeting is technically possible by the use of FSM data we feel there are potential issues on this not being a robust enough measure of deprivation together with the non registration by parents for FSM eligibility. This is sometimes more so for pupils from Minority Ethnic backgrounds. This data is currently used to resource deprivation in our local schools formula.
ACORN As well as the use of FSM data, we currently use ACORN data in our local
schools funding formula as a measure to allocate resources to schools in the most deprived areas in WCC. This more than satisfies all the above requirements and enables the targeting of specific "pockets of deprivation". We would strongly urge the use of this data in any methodology for allocating the pupil premium.
Out of Work Tax Credits We contend this data set does not meet the above requirements and is not readily available.
Version 2 22nd September 2010
3 Do you agree the coverage of the pupil premium should include Looked After Children? [Paras 51 - 54]
√ Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
We support the proposal to extend the coverage of the pupil premium in order to support LAC, a particularly vulnerable group of young people.
However, we would welcome details on the proposed level of the LPP and if it is likely to be at the level of the main premium.
4 What are your views on the operation of the Looked After Children element of the pupil premium? In particular, how might the funding arrangements work at local authority level for pupils educated outside of the local authority with caring responsibility? [Paras 55 - 60]
Comments:
It is difficult to comment on the proposals as the details on the data set to be used are yet to be resolved. However, given the number of LAC who are educated in the non home LA, there will need to be robust data collection and monitoring to ensure the resource is targeted appropriately to the LA where the LAC is educated. Equally any resources need to be able to be directed at the school with the LAC to support additional costs of provision including the cost of case conferences, annual reviews, etc.
(Further information from LAC service to be added).
Version 2 22nd September 2010
5 Do you think the coverage of the pupil premium should be extended to include additional support for Service children? [Paras 61 - 66]
√ Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
We support this approach and concur, given the issues are mainly as a consequence of mobility, that the premium needs to be set at a lower level than the main pupil premium.
There could be issues on the timing of the census and the ability to source robust data.
6 Should the pupil count for three year olds, used to allocate DSG for 2011-12, reflect actual take up or continue to reflect a minimum of 90% participation where lower? [Paras 75 - 76]
√ Actual Take-Up 90% Minimum Not Sure
Comments:
We strongly support that the current DSG count arrangements for 3 year olds needs to be changed from 90% minimum to actual take up.
We contend that over the time of the existing DSG arrangements and early years expansion all LA's have had sufficient time to manage and achieve the increase take up requirements for early years to be at least at the 90% participation level.
We feel that such an approach is consistent with the required introduction of the new Early Years Single Funding Formula being based on actual participation.
Version 2 22nd September 2010
7 Should the pupil count used to allocate DSG for 2011-12 continue to reflect dual subsidiary registrations for pupils at pupil referral units? [Paras 77 - 78]
√ Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
We support the continuation of the existing system to support the needs of this vulnerable group of pupils, particularly as the DSG model is unchanged for 2011-12. This approach would recognise the expensive nature of the provision. It needs to be clarified if such pupils will be part of the data set for the allocation of the LPP.
We estimate a change in policy this proposal would result in a reduction of approximately £0.5m in the DSG for WCC and require at least additional £7 per pupil in the Guaranteed Unit of Funding on current pupil numbers to recoup this sum. We would only support the change if this increase was guaranteed.
8 Do you support our proposals for additional support for schools catering for Service children? [Para 79]
√ Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
We feel this area warrants specific consideration and support the proposals stated.
Version 2 22nd September 2010
9 Do you support our proposals for home educated pupils? [Para 80]
√ Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
We support the proposal to enable specific costs for such pupils to be met.
However, we would contend that this funding needs to be identified as a separate budget line in the centrally retained DSG. This would enable this to be targeted and managed appropriately by the LA. If there are significant numbers of such pupils in a LA, this could breach the Central Expenditure Limit (CEL) and may require one-off dispensation to support such an approach.
10 Do you think that there should be a cash floor at local authority level in 2011- 12? [Para 85]
√ Yes No Not Sure
Comments:
We contend there is insufficient information to make a considered response to this extremely important issue.
Version 2 22nd September 2010
11 Have you any further comments?
Comments:
Proposals for DSG Allocation 2011-12
Although the majority of the above issues are welcomed, it is disappointing to see that the DSG review has been delayed. The continuation of the "spend plus" methodology for 2011-12 will continue the existing funding inequities between LA's as there are no proposals to change the relative per pupil distribution between LA's.
Given the amount of work already undertaken, the previous consultation and the number of responses we feel that some fundamental changes could have been implemented.
We note that the introduction of the LPP for disadvantage may support a narrowing of the funding gap. However, we contend the additional resources allocated during 2008-11 for supporting "pockets of deprivation" must continue in 2011-12 and not be re-directed to fund the LPP. Similarly any additional resources provided by LA's prior to the start of the DSG must continue to be part of the DSG methodology.
Mainstreaming of Specific Grants
On the proposals to mainstream some of the specific grants into the DSG our previous comments still apply: - There will need to be guarantees for LA's and schools that resources have not been reduced. The process must be transparent with the ability for LA's to be able to track that grants have been mainstreamed and
confirm these been maintained. In previous similar changes it has been taken as a clear opportunity to reduce resources to LA's and schools. The national formulae for these grants, means our schools in the main receive an equitable and fair share of the resource unlike the main DSG. However, given the low funded position of WCC, these funding streams are supporting significant core costs within schools. Therefore, we contend it is imperative that thought is given to how these are mainstreamed as there is potential for significant funding reductions for WCC and therefore our schools. It is important that any changes to the formula for allocation of these grants once mainstreamed do not further adversely impact on low funded LA's.
Version 2 22nd September 2010
Area Cost Adjustment (ACA)
We are extremely disappointed with the intention to retain the current ACA arrangements for 2011/12. Any ACA should be based upon what needs to be paid not what is paid currently. The issues we have already raised in our response to the previous consultation continue to be extremely relevant, in particular: - Those LA's not receiving the ACA currently are low funded and so their ability to pay higher salaries are significantly constrained, which impacts on school staff recruitment. Conversely, those LA's with ACA are significantly higher funded so can afford to pay higher salaries. Our neighbouring LA's who currently receive ACA are able to offer higher salaries, so there are areas of the County, particularly in the north east that are 'commuter land'. To compete we need the same ACA as these urban areas for fairness and equality of opportunity. We propose the DfE need to look at 'pockets of ACA'. WCC would like fewer resources distributed via the ACA with fewer LA's benefiting and so reducing the differences in funding levels. WCC would like the principles behind the revealed problems approach as described by Professors Blanchflower and Oswald considered in subsequent evaluation work for the new funding system from 2011/12.
Academies
The statement in paragraph 73 of the consultation document "that becoming an Academy should not bring about a financial advantage or disadvantage to a school" is welcomed. However, we contend this must also extend to any such impact on the central DSG and LA budget as the potential implications for these services, if more schools opt for Academy status, are extremely unclear. We would welcome discussion on this as details are developed particularly in respect of the LACSEG for both the DSG and LA budgets as we contend services for which the LA retains responsibility are crucial for all schools.
We contend that Academy funding must be transparent alongside the LA funding. We feel this requires it to be publicly reported and open to scrutiny with an equivalent s251 statement as provided for maintained schools to be published.
Free Schools
We support the stance made by all other LA's that the 50% reduction in the Harnessing Technology Grant (HTG) allocations for schools in 2010-11 in order to create a capital fund for such schools is totally inappropriate.
Version 2 22nd September 2010
Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) On the proposals to continue with a MFG for schools our previous comments still apply. In particular; - The LA contends the current MFG mechanism is too complicated and the majority of schools have difficulty understanding it. Local formula can more accurately provide any necessary protection to schools through falling rolls, small schools and other protection factors. However the Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) feels the MFG mechanism does give schools some security and protection that the local formula may not be able to provide and as such its continuation may be of benefit to some schools. On balance it will all depend upon the level of the MFG for 2011-12 to be set in the Autumn, which we note could be negative, but given the likely funding levels too large a MFG increase will mean LA's may not be able to meet its formula obligations for all its schools.
The proposal to allocate the LPP funding in addition to the MFG is supported.
Version 2 22nd September 2010
Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to acknowledge individual responses unless you place an 'X' in the box below.
Please acknowledge this reply √
Here at the Department for Education we carry out our research on many different topics and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, would it be alright if we were to contact you again from time to time either for research or to send through consultation documents?
√ Yes No
All DfE public consultations are required to conform to the following criteria within the Government Code of Practice on Consultation:
Criterion 1: Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome.
Criterion 2: Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.
Criterion 3: Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposals.
Criterion 4: Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach.
Criterion 5: Keeping the burden of consultation to a minimum is essential if consultations are to be effective and if consultees’ buy-in to the process is to be obtained.
Criterion 6: Consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should be provided to participants following the consultation.
Criterion 7: Officials running consultations should seek guidance in how to run an effective consultation exercise and share what they have learned from the experience. Version 2 22nd September 2010
If you have any comments on how DfE consultations are conducted, please contact Donna Harrison, DfE Consultation Co-ordinator, tel: 01928 794304 / email: [email protected]
Thank you for taking time to respond to this consultation.
Completed questionnaires and other responses should be sent to the address shown below by 18 October 2010
Send by post to: School Funding Consultation 2011-12, Funding and Technology Unit, Department for Education, Level 3, Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BT.
Send by e-mail to: [email protected] AGENDA ITEM 10 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) CONSULTATION ON THE SCHOOL FINANCE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2011
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the issues detailed in the DfE consultation on the School Finance (England) Regulations 2011.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 As part of the decisions and proposals for 2011/12 issued by the DfE in July 2010, LA's are being consulted on the required changes to the above regulations.
2.2 The DfE are looking for any responses by 10th December 2010.
3. AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION
3.1 A copy of the DfE briefing on the changes is attached at Appendix A.
3.2 The key changes are: -
(a) Early Years
A requirement to implement a new EYSFF from April 2011. To include funding on actual number of hours and to use at least 3 pupil counts during the year The need for a deprivation supplement.
(b) Mainstreaming of Grants
Subject to the spending review the mainstreaming of some grants e.g. School Development Grant (SDG), School Standards Grant (SSG), SSG Personalisation into the DSG. The permitted use of formula factors to replicate the previous level of grant. To reflect this in the baseline for the calculation of the MFG.
(c) Central Expenditure
The mainstreaming of grants will require an adjustment to the Central Expenditure Limit (CEL) baseline. Any potential breaches of the CEL will need to be discussed and approved through Schools Forums, including any decisions yet to be made on Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG). For any overspend on the central DSG from 2010/11 into the new funding period 2011/12, which reduces the DSG available in 2011/12, the funding of this must be approved by the Schools Forum.
(d) Exclusions
Removal of the ability to have a formula factor which takes account of exclusions. Deductions of AWPU are to continue. Any consensual local charges or payments resulting from local agreements outside of the formula to continue but cannot bind schools which are in disagreement with such arrangements.
(e) Federations
Consideration in conjunction with Schools Forums the appropriate balance between allowing any savings to accrue to individual schools as against the overall ISB. Allow LA's to calculate a single budget share for schools in a federation with a single Governing Body within s24 of the Education Act 2002. LA's to be able to have a formula factor for federations.
(f) Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC)
The DfE referred to this in last year’s consultation on the regulations to the need to consider the effect of the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), which is now in force. Depending on their position relative to other participating organisations in the league tables, LA's will either have to pay a penalty or will receive a bonus. As schools can typically account for half an LA’s emissions, so there needs to be a mechanism for passing on the schools’ share of any penalty or bonus. This could either be done at the level of the overall Schools Budget or at individual school level. In deciding what approach to take, LA's should as usual consult their Schools Forums and discuss with their energy officers how best to give schools incentives to reduce emissions. Proposing to allow a new class of central DSG expenditure should the LA decide to top slice the Schools Budget as a whole and a formula factor if penalties and bonuses are to be apportioned to individual schools. This will include any Academies in the LA area.
(g) Service Children
To remove the current threshold of 20% in terms of pupil reductions for the allowable formula factor for such pupils.
(h) Academies
Proposing a clearer definition on funding for Individually Assigned Resources (IAR) for academy pupils with SEN.
(i) Notification of Budget Shares
Formalises the practice for notification of budget shares prior to the start of the financial year.
(j) Technical and Other Changes
The regulations cover only one funding period 2011/12. The MFG methodology might change and the levels are yet to be determined. Minor issues in respect of termination of employment costs. Further use of school budgets permitted to fund community facilities. Review of narratives for Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR). Amendments to the Statutory Guidance on Schemes for Financing Schools.
3.3 Some of these aspects may require formal consultation with schools as they may result in changes to the existing local funding formula. It is therefore proposed to issue a brief consultation document to all schools highlighting the key issues for 2011/12 as required along with taking the opportunity to raise potential longer term issues.
4. RECOMMENDATION
The WSF notes and comments on the issues and approves the need for consultation as required.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development October 2010
APPENDIX A
SCHOOL FINANCE REGULATIONS 2011 CONSULTATION
1. The current school finance regulations cover the 2008-11 funding period and therefore expire at 31st March 2011. This consultation sets out draft regulations which will be effective for the 2011-12 financial year only, consistent with the proposals and announcements in the ―Consultation on school funding 2011-12‖ published on 26th July 2010 and which runs until 18th October 2010. The school funding consultation is still open, and if there are changes to the proposals following consultation, then the regulations would change accordingly. The main changes are set out below:
Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF)
2. Local authorities will be required to implement an Early Years Single Funding Formula from April 2011. The proposed changes to the regulations are similar to those consulted on in 2009 and include requirements to fund mainly on numbers of actual hours, to use at least three counts during the year and to have a deprivation supplement. More detail is shown at Annex A.
3. We are looking to those local authorities which were approved as EYSFF pilots or pathfinders to share good practice with those which are still to implement. The government has announced its intention to abolish the government offices, so, LAs will need to take responsibility for organising themselves to compare formulae and experiences, where this is not already happening. We have published a brief summary of aspects of the pilot/pathfinder formulae to assist other LAs, and will shortly be publishing some case studies from pathfinders.
Mainstreaming of grants
4. The school funding consultation document proposes that, subject to the spending review, some grants – which are likely to include at least the School Development Grant (SDG), School Standards Grant (SSG) and School Standards Grant (Personalisation) - should be mainstreamed into the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). To avoid undue turbulence at school level, LAs would if they wished be allowed to use a formula factor which replicates part or all of the previous level of grant, either as a cash amount or using the grant methodology. This is most likely to be of use for SDG, because of its history as an amalgamation of previous grants, some of which were distributed on a non-formulaic basis. The addition is at Schedule 3 paragraph 38.
1
5. The mainstreamed grants will also need to be taken into account in the calculation of the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) so that the budget comparison is on a like for like basis, as they will be appearing in formula budgets in 2011-12. The best way of doing this is to permanently adjust the 2010-11 baseline to include allocations for the grants which are to be mainstreamed in 2011-12. This is reflected for primary and secondary schools in Schedule 4 paragraph 1(e)
6. For special schools, there are separate MFG calculations for place-led funding and the remainder of the budget. As the grant allocations are not based on places, and the level of place funding is usually based on existing assessments of need, we propose that the baseline should be adjusted for the part of the budget excluding place funding. This is shown at Schedule 4 paragraph 5(2). If LAs decide to add in mainstreamed grants into place factors instead, they may need to seek a disapplication from this particular MFG requirement.
Central expenditure
7. Mainstreaming grants will also affect the calculations for the central expenditure limit (CEL), so there will again need to be an adjustment to the 2010-11 baseline to ensure like for like comparisons. The total of relevant grant allocations in 2010-11 will, therefore, need to be added to the 2010-11 Schools Budget for each LA. This is given effect in Regulation 7(2).
8. We do not propose a similar adjustment to any funding retained centrally from mainstreamed grants. If an LA wishes to continue to retain funding and this would breach the central expenditure limit, then schools forum would need to approve this, with the usual route of appeal to the Secretary of State if the forum disagreed with the proposal. We consider that, in any case, proposals for how grants are mainstreamed locally should be discussed with the forum.
9. As noted in paragraph 4, all decisions on mainstreaming grants are subject to the spending review. If the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG) is mainstreamed into DSG, then we would propose to enable LAs to retain funding centrally within DSG for services which support schools in narrowing achievement gaps for under-performing ethnic groups and in meeting the specific needs of bilingual learners. This would enable LAs to maintain existing services if they wished, including in those areas with small numbers of such pupils and where it is consequently more cost-effective to run a central service than to spread funding thinly. Again, schools forums should be involved in the decision. The revised wording is at Schedule 2 paragraph 39.
10. The current regulations on the central expenditure limit require LAs to obtain further approval from schools forums if the proposed central expenditure for future years exceeds the indicative budgets originally set for those years at the start of the funding review period. This does
2
not, however, cover the position at the start of a new funding review period. We wish to ensure that, if there is a brought forward overspend on DSG, any funding of this from central DSG is properly considered by schools forum. We are therefore proposing a new regulation which would state that, where there is an overspend on central Schools Budget expenditure from the 2010-11 and which reduces the DSG available in 2011-12, then the funding of this overspend must be approved by schools forum. The wording is at Regulation 7 (4).
Exclusions
11. The Government is committed to giving headteachers greater powers in maintaining good behaviour. We back headteachers in excluding undisciplined pupils where necessary, and are seeking to remove barriers which limit their authority. We propose, therefore, to remove the ability to have a formula factor (currently Schedule 3 paragraph 34) which takes account of exclusions. LAs currently using such a factor would need to remove this from their formula from 2011-12.
12. The deductions of age-weighted pupil funding would continue (these are set out in Regulation 23). Any charges or payments resulting from local agreements outside the formula would also continue, though we are clear that these should be genuinely consensual and cannot bind schools which are in disagreement with such arrangements.
Federations
13. Schools are increasingly joining together in federations as a way of achieving efficiencies and sharing costs. The savings which schools and LAs can make from schools federating will vary according to decisions on staffing structures and the nature of the local formula respectively. LAs, in consultation with their schools forums, should consider the appropriate balance between allowing the savings to accrue to the individual school as against the overall Individual Schools Budget (ISB), while ensuring that federation is still an attractive option for the schools concerned.
14. Finance regulations still require separate budgets and accounts for schools within a federation. This can act as a barrier to reducing bureaucracy because of the extra administration involved when there is usually a single head and governing body, with many costs apportioned between the schools. Primary legislation is already in place to enable this to change. We are therefore proposing a new regulation (regulation 22) which would allow LAs to calculate a single budget share for schools in a federation with a single governing body within section 24 of the Education Act 2002. This would mean that the data would be entered into the formula as if they were a single school.
15. We are also proposing that LAs should be able to have a formula factor for federations. This could be used to support federations, for example
3
as a temporary pump-priming measure. Alternatively, LAs could use a negative factor, to recognise that federations achieve savings which could in part be made available for redistribution within the ISB; this would be more relevant where separate budget shares were still being issued. This is set out in Schedule 3 paragraph 39.
Carbon Reduction Commitment 16. We referred in last year’s consultation on the regulations to the need to consider the effect of the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), which is now in force. Depending on their position relative to other participating organisations in the league tables, LAs will either have to pay a penalty or will receive a bonus. Schools can typically account for half an LA’s emissions, so there needs to be a mechanism for passing on the schools’ share of any penalty or bonus. This could either be done at the level of the overall Schools Budget or at individual school level. In deciding what approach to take, LAs should as usual consult their schools forums and discuss with their energy officers how best to give schools incentives to reduce emissions.
17. We are proposing to allow a new class of expenditure within the central part of the Schools Budget should the LA decide to topslice the Schools Budget as a whole (Schedule 2 paragraph 38). There is no need to change regulations for bonuses because the Schools Budget can already be topped up from other sources.
18. We are also proposing that LAs would be allowed to have a formula factor if they wish to apportion penalties or bonuses at individual school level. The value of the formula factor would be negative if it related to penalties. (Schedule 3 paragraph 37).
19. Academies are included in the LA calculation for their area. Under the current funding system, their budgets would be equally affected by a DSG topslice as there would be less available to distribute through the ISB formula which is replicated for academies. Similarly, using a formula factor would ensure their funding was comparable. The extent to which any such topslice or deduction then found its way back to the LA would depend on the method of DSG recoupment and would need to be considered as part of the wider review of academies funding.
Service children
20. The school funding consultation document refers to support for schools with fluctuations in the numbers of service children. We already allow LAs to have a formula factor (schedule 3 paragraph 27) where armed forces movements lead to a reduction in pupil numbers of at least 20% within one year. We feel this is unduly restrictive and therefore propose to remove reference to a threshold, so that LAs can make provision as they see fit to support schools affected by this turbulence.
Academies
4
21. We are proposing to give a clearer definition of funding for individually assigned resources (IAR) for academy pupils with special educational needs (SEN). Where these resources are delegated through formula budgets, then the allocations are not included in the General Annual Grant (GAG) calculated by the Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA) and recouped from the LA. Instead, the payments are made directly by the LA from the central part of the schools budget. The current wording in Schedule 2 paragraph 7 only refers to expenditure which it would be ―unreasonable‖ to be met from a school’s budget share, and does not properly reflect the differences in funding of academies. We therefore propose to amend the wording to cover this.
Notification of budget shares
22. There is at present no formal requirement to notify schools and early years private, voluntary and independent (PVI) providers of their budget shares, only of the overall schools budget. While there is no evidence this is not being done, it makes sense to formalise this. We, therefore, propose to add a new regulation -regulation 10(2).
Technical changes
23. There are various technical changes which are needed to ensure regulations are consistent with other proposals relating to school funding. References to funding periods 1, 2 and 3 will be replaced as the regulations will cover a single funding period (2011-12). The regulations for the MFG leave percentages blank as no decisions on levels can be made until after the spending review. The remainder of the MFG wording has been left broadly unchanged; this does not necessarily mean that the methodology will be unchanged though as we are still considering whether it is possible to simplify the calculation.
24. References to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) have been removed as 2011-12 post-16 allocations will have been wholly determined by the YPLA.
25. Termination of employment costs can be charged to the schools budget if schools forum agree and provided that there is a saving to the schools budget greater than the annual costs. The previous wording did not adequately recognise that there may be ongoing costs approved in previous funding periods. Reference to a start date has, therefore, been removed. The wording has also been amended to clarify the need for schools forum approval at the time the costs are first incurred – in other words, costs cannot be charged to the schools budget retrospectively.
5
Community Facilities
Section 4 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010, which was passed just before the general election, enables schools to use their delegated budgets for community facilities. Schools have had powers to provide community facilities or services since the 2002 Education Act. There were, however, restrictions in place whereby the delegated budget could only fund services which directly supported the curriculum or were of direct educational benefit to pupils at maintained schools. Services outside this definition, such as adult learning or sports activities for the local community, could only be funded by certain grants including the School Standards Grant, charges or other external income.
The relevant sub-sections of the Act take effect from 1st April 2011, so schools will be able to take into account this power in planning their budgets from 2011-12 onwards.
The Act does allow for regulations to be produced to restrict the scope of spending, but we do not intend to make any at this stage. There is already a prohibition on schools using their community facilities power if this would interfere with their primary focus of raising standards, and we feel that existing accountability mechanisms are sufficient protection. We would reconsider this if there was evidence that the core functions of the school were suffering as a result.
We will be reviewing the narratives for Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) categories to ensure that they are consistent with the legislation, and will also amend the statutory guidance on schemes for financing schools.
6
Academies Act
We have already informed LAs that, during the passage of the Academies Act, an amendment was made to the Bill in the Lords and now forms Section 2(5) of the Act. This states:
In Schedule 1 to the School Finance (England) Regulations 2008, after paragraph 8 insert— ―8A Where a child is a registered pupil at an Academy, expenditure in respect of services for making provision for pupils with low incidence special educational needs or disabilities.‖
This means that where LAs incur expenditure on pupils who are in academies and have low incidence SEN or a disability, then this expenditure must be charged to the non-schools education budget and not the schools budget. The definition of ―low incidence‖ includes severe multi-sensory impairments; severe visual impairments; severe/ profound hearing impairments; and profound and multiple learning difficulties.
This section of the Act took effect from 1 September 2010 and will apply until the current regulations expire on 31st March 2011. We have amended the terms and conditions of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for 2010-11 only so that it can be used in support of this expenditure.
The main reason for the passage of this amendment was concern over the way in which funding for SEN services is currently transferred from LAs to academies. We have committed to reviewing academy funding for the 2011- 12 financial year onwards, to fairly reflect the respective responsibilities of LAs and academies, and therefore do not feel it is necessary to maintain these changes in the draft regulations for 2011-12.
7
ANNEX A – Early Years Provision Definitions: revised definitions of early years provision, prescribed early years provision, and relevant early years provider to bring them in line with the Childcare Act 2006. o Part 2, reg 5(1); addition of sub paragraph (d) to allow the Schools Budget to cover all expenditure on early years provision not in maintained schools or other specified providers (eg non maintained special schools, pupil referral units). o Part 2, current reg 7 (3); amending the wording of the calculation of the Central Expenditure Limit given that the funding for early years will now all be part of the ISB. The change does not affect the calculation of the CEL because the current regulations add the centrally retained PVI funding to the ISB as part of the calculation, but the revision to where the funding is placed (in the ISB) means this adjustment will no longer be needed. o Part 2, reg 9 (3): which requires a local authority to consult their schools forum about and decide upon an EYSFF which they must use in 2011-12. o Part 3, reg 16 provides a replacement regulation for current regulation 17 for 2011-12. This says that LAs: . must provide indicative budgets for early years provision using the most recently available data; . must review the data during or after the year using either attendance data collected during three sample weeks (census week for example) or total actual hours of attendance; . must recalculate the provider’s budget as appropriate; . and must implement the redetermination when they consider it appropriate – which may be different for different providers; . They must notify providers within 28 days of recalculating the budget; . This regulation also removes the option for local authorities to provide funding based upon places, except where there are places specifically reserved for pupils with SEN in any setting or for children in need, (although there is a later option to provide an additional formula factor in support of maintaining sufficient places for children in an area in Part 2 of Schedule 3); . It does allow the LA to weight the hours depending upon whether pupils have been admitted in excess of the admission number, or for SEN. . As with sixth forms, authorities are allowed to reduce funding to affected schools within their main formula to avoid any overlap with the new EYSFF. o Part 3, reg 17 (4); allows differential funding to types of providers to reflect unavoidable costs. o Part 3, reg 18 (1) (2) and (3); Specify which parts of schedule 3 may be used for respectively the school funding formula and the EYSFF. It also
8
requires that the EYSFF must (as is currently the case for the schools funding formula) have a factor that takes the incidence of deprivation into account. o Schedule 2; the schedule that specifies what may be centrally retained from the schools budget does not allow the retention of funding for the provision of early years funding for provision of the free entitlement, but does allow a contingency budget for that provision (to enable adjustments to funding to be made in year) o Schedule 3; the schedule that provides the heading under which formula factors may be provided is split into two parts, part 1 applicable to all maintained schools and PVI providers and part 2 applicable to the EYSFF only. Part 2 allows factors for . the improvement of quality, . to take account of flexibility in hours of attendance the provider makes available and . to allow LAs to secure or sustain a sufficiency within an area In general, we wish to give LAs flexibility in the factors used in the EYSFF, and propose to allow most factors which appear in the main school funding formula. The only exceptions would be the factors for infant class sizes and the factor protecting schools whose budget shares would otherwise be reduced by 3% or more; in the latter case the ability to have a sufficiency factor should cover this. There are other factors relevant only to schools and we would advise LAs to use these only where there is a clear justification in the cost analysis between different types of provider.
9 AGENDA ITEM 11a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010 EXTRACT FROM DfE WEB SITE Weeks after Academies Act passed, 142 schools to convert to academy status News article Date: 01 September 2010
Michael Gove, Education Secretary, today announced that 142 schools have accepted the Government’s offer to become an academy since the Academies Act became law just over a month ago. These schools have made a commitment to work with other schools and share their expertise. This is the first wave of converters in a rolling process that allows schools to convert at any stage.
The running total of schools that will become academies this academic year is 216 so far. The current breakdown is as follows:
142 schools converting to become academies: 32 are opening this week and a further 110 schools have had Academy Orders signed which means they are on track to convert to academies over the coming months. Of the 142, there are 7 primary schools which become the first ever primary academies to open. The Government has said that special schools will also be allowed to become academies from next year. 64 new academies replace failing schools this September plus a further 10 opening by April 2011. This is record progress; it took five years for 15 city technology colleges to open, and four years for the first 27 academies to open.
Michael Gove said:
This Government believes that teachers and head teachers, not politicians and bureaucrats, should control schools and have more power over how they are run. That’s why we are spreading academy freedoms. This will give heads more power to tackle disruptive children, to protect and reward teachers better, and to give children the specialist teaching they need.
This year’s GCSE results saw academy pupils improving at nearly three times the historic rate of state school improvement.
Notes to editors
1. A full list of all schools becoming academies for this September term is available to download – Appendix A. A list of applications for academy status, and Academy Orders is also available to download – Appendix B. 2. The list below gives the number of academies opening each year under the previous Government:
3 opened in 2002 9 opened in 2003 5 opened in 2004 10 opened in 2005 19 opened in 2006 37 opened in 2007 47 opened in 2008 70 opened in 2009 3 opened in January 2010
Total: 203
Traditional Academies No Academy Name Predecessor School Phase Sponsor(s) Local Authority 1 The Bedford Academy John Bunyan Upper School Secondary Harpur Trust Bedford Borough Bedford College 2 King Edward VI Sheldon Sheldon Heath Community Arts Secondary King Edward VI Schools Foundation Birmingham Heath Academy College 3 Harborne Academy Harborne Hill School Secondary Birmingham Metropolitan College Birmingham
4 Kearsley Academy George Tomlinson School Secondary Northern Education Bolton Bolton Council
5 The Bourne Academy Kings High School Secondary Canford School Bournemouth 6 The Bishop of Winchester The Bishop of Winchester Secondary Diocese of Winchester Bournemouth Academy Comprehensive School Bournemouth School for Boys Bournemouth School for Girls 7 University Academy Greenhead High School Secondary University of Bradford Bradford Keighley Bradford Council 8 Brighton Aldridge Falmer High School Secondary The Aldridge Foundation Brighton & Hove Community Academy 9 Trinity Academy Holy Trinity CofE Senior School Secondary Diocese of Wakefield Calderdale Calderdale MBC Calderdale College University of Huddersfield 10 The Winsford E-ACT Woodford Lodge High and The Secondary E-ACT Cheshire West and Chester Academy Verdin High School (Winsford Community) 11 Sidney Stringer Academy Sidney Stringer School Secondary Coventry City College Coventry Coventry City Council Coventry University 12 The Quest Academy Selsdon High School Secondary Coloma Trust & Coloma Convent Girls Croydon School 13 Shirebrook Academy Shirebrook School Secondary All Roads DLO Derbyshire 14 Dartmouth Academy Dartmouth Community College All age E-ACT Devon
15 Eastbourne Academy Eastbourne Technology College Secondary Sussex Downs College East Sussex East Sussex County Council 16 Aylward Academy The Gladys Aylward School Secondary Academies Enterprise Trust (AET) Enfield London Development Agency 17 Nightingale Academy Turin Grove School Secondary Academies Enterprise Trust (AET) Enfield London Development Agency 18 The Colchester Academy Sir Charles Lucas Arts College Secondary Colchester Institute Essex University of Essex 19 Gloucester Academy Central Technology College and Secondary Prospects Services Ltd Gloucestershire Bishop's College Gloucestershire College 20 Hackney, Skinners’ The Skinners' Company School Secondary The Skinners Company Hackney Academy for Girls 21 Ormiston Bolingbroke Halton High School Secondary The Ormiston Trust Halton Academy University of Chester 22 Havant Academy Staunton Community Sports Secondary South Downs FE College Hampshire College Hampshire County Council 23 Havering, Drapers' King's Wood School Secondary The Drapers Company Havering Academy Queen Mary University 24 The Knole Academy The Wildernesse School and Secondary Gordon Phillips Kent The Bradbourne School Sevenoaks School Kent County Council 25 The John Wallis CoE Ashford Christ Church CoE Secondary Diocese of Canterbury Kent Academy Maths & Computing Specialist Kent County Council College Benenden School Canterbury Christ Church University 26 Dover Christ Church Archers Court Maths and Secondary Canterbury Christ Church University Kent Kent Academy Computing College County Council Dover Grammar School for Boys Dover Grammar School for Girls 27 Duke Of York's Royal Duke of York's Royal Military Secondary Ministry of Defence Kent Military School School 28 Wilmington Academy Wilmington Enterprise College Secondary The Leigh Academies Trust Kent Kent County Council 29 The Priory Ruskin Academy Central Tech & Sports & The Secondary Priory Fundraising Trust Lincolnshire Grantham Church High School
30 Skegness Academy St Clements School Secondary Greenwood Dale School Trust Lincolnshire 31 Enterprise South Liverpool New Heys School and St Secondary Enterprise PLC Liverpool Academy (ESLA) Benedict's College Catholic Arch-Diocese of Liverpool Church of England Diocese of Liverpool University of Liverpool Liverpool City Council
32 Luton Studio School N/A Secondary Barnfield Academy Luton 33 Communications Academy N/A Secondary British Telecom (BT) Manchester The Manchester College Manchester City Council 34 East Manchester Academy N/A Secondary Bovis Lend Lease Manchester Laing O'Rourke The Manchester College 35 The Co-operative Academy Plant Hill High School Secondary The Co-operative Group The Manchester Manchester College Manchester City Council 36 The Bishop of Rochester Medway Community College Secondary Diocese of Rochester Medway Academy and Chatham South School Canterbury Christ Church University Medway Council
37 Brompton Academy New Brompton College Secondary University of Kent Medway 38 The Kings Lynn Academy The Park High School Secondary College of West Anglia Norfolk Norfolk County Council 39 Ormiston Victory Academy Costessey High School Secondary The Ormiston Trust Norfolk
40 Thetford Academy Rosemary Musker and Charles Secondary Wymondham College Norfolk Burrell High Easton College West Suffolk College 41 Ormiston Venture Academy Oriel High School Secondary The Ormiston Trust Norfolk
42 Tollbar Edge Cleethorpes The Lindsey School and Secondary Tollbar Edge North East Lincolnshire Academy Community Arts College 43 Malcolm Arnold Academy Unity College Secondary The David Ross Foundation Northamptonshire
44 Oasis Academy Kaskenmoor School and South Secondary Oasis Community Learning Oldham Chadderton School 45 Waterhead Academy Counthill School and Breeze Hill Secondary Oldham College Oldham School 46 Oldham Academy North Grange School Secondary E-ACT Oldham 47 Marine Academy Tamarside Community College Secondary University of Plymouth Plymouth Cornwall College Plymouth City Council 48 All Saints Academy John Kitto Community College Secondary The Exeter Diocesan Board of Education Plymouth University College Plymouth St Mark and St John Plymouth City Council
49 St Aldhelm's Academy Rossmore Community College Secondary Diocese of Salisbury Poole Bournemouth University 50 Freebrough Academy Freebrough Specialist Secondary University of Teesside Prior Redcar & Cleveland Engineering College Pursglove College Redcar and Cleveland Council 51 Hampton Academy Hampton Community College Secondary Kunskapsskolan Richmond 52 Twickenham Academy Whitton School Secondary Kunskapsskolan Richmond 53 Richmond Park Academy Shene School Secondary Academies Enterprise Trust (AET) Richmond 54 Taunton Academy The St. Augustine of Canterbury Secondary Diocese of Bath & Wells Somerset School and Ladymead Somerset County Council Community School
55 Sutton Academy Sutton High Sports College Secondary St Helens College St Helens Edge Hill University 56 JCB Academy N/A 14-19 JCB Staffordshire 57 Landau Forte Academy Woodhouse High School Secondary Landau Foundation Staffordshire 58 Thornaby Academy Thornaby Community School Secondary University of Teesside Stockton-on-Tees Stockton Riverside College Stockton Sixth Form College Stockton Council 59 North Shore Health The Norton and Blakeston Secondary Stockton Primary Care Trust Stockton-on-Tees Academy Schools Stockton Riverside College Stockton Sixth Form College Stockton Council 60 Ormiston Sir Stanley Blurton High School Secondary The Ormiston Trust Stoke on Trent Matthews Academy 61 Co-operative Academy at Brownhills Maths and Secondary The Co-operative Group Stoke on Trent Brownhills Computing College Staffordshire University 62 Nuneaton Academy Alderman Smith School, Manor Secondary North Warwickshire & Hinckley College Warwickshire Park Community School
63 Sarum Academy Salisbury High School Secondary Diocese of Salisbury Wiltshire Bryanston School Wiltshire County Council 64 North East Wolverhampton The Northicote School and Secondary City of Wolverhampton FE College Wolverhampton Academy Pendeford Business and University of Wolverhampton Enterprise College Wolverhampton City Council
Outstanding Schools converting to Academies 65 Queen Elizabeth's School, Secondary N/A Barnet Barnet Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 66 Kemnal Technology College Secondary N/A Bromley (part of the Kemnal Trust) Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 67 Brine Leas High School Secondary N/A Cheshire East Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 68 Fallibroome High School Secondary N/A Cheshire East Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 69 St Buryan Primary School Primary N/A Cornwall Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 70 Seaton Infant School Primary N/A Cumbria Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 71 Broadclyst Community Primary N/A Devon Primary School Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 72 Uffculme School Secondary N/A Devon Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 73 Cuckoo Hall Primary School Primary N/A Enfield Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 74 The Cotswold School Secondary N/A Gloucestershire Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 75 Watford Grammar School Secondary N/A Hertfordshire for Boys Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 76 Watford Grammar School Secondary N/A Hertfordshire for Girls Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 77 Lampton School Secondary N/A Hounslow Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 78 The Westlands School (in Secondary N/A Kent federation with The Woodgrove Primary School) Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 79 The Woodgrove Primary Primary N/A Kent School (in federation with The Westlands School) Conversion from maintained school 80 Heckmondwike Grammar Secondary N/A Kirklees School Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 81 Durand Primary School Primary N/A Lambeth Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 82 The Giles School Secondary N/A Lincolnshire Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 83 Eaton Mill Foundation Primary N/A Milton Keynes Primary School Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 84 Healing School, A Specialist Secondary N/A North East Lincolnshire Science and Foundation Conversion from Outstanding College maintained school 85 Tollbar Business Enterprise Secondary N/A North East Lincolnshire & Humanities College Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 86 Northampton School for Secondary N/A Northamptonshire Boys Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 87 George Spencer Foundation Secondary N/A Nottinghamshire School and Technology Conversion from Outstanding College maintained school 88 Arthur Mellows Village Secondary N/A Peterborough College Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 89 The Chadwell Heath Secondary N/A Redbridge Foundation School Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 90 Holyrood Community School Secondary N/A Somerset Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 91 Huish Episcopi School Secondary N/A Somerset Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 92 Westcliff High School for Secondary N/A Southend-on-Sea Boys Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 93 Hartismere School Secondary N/A Suffolk Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 94 Audenshaw School Secondary N/A Tameside Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 95 Urmston Grammar School Secondary N/A Trafford Conversion from Outstanding maintained school 96 Hardenhuish School Secondary N/A Wiltshire Conversion from Outstanding maintained school Applications from Mainstream Schools to Convert to Academy Status as of 31st August 2010
Academy Funding DfE Number Name of School Name of LA Phase Order Agreement Issued Entered Into 3025406 Ashmole School Barnet Secondary y 3024212 East Barnet School Barnet Secondary y 3025401 Queen Elizabeth's School, Barnet Barnet Secondary y y 3025404 St Michael's Catholic Grammar School Barnet Secondary 3024215 The Compton School Barnet Secondary y 3024009 The Ravenscroft School A Technology College Barnet Secondary 8004128 Norton Hill School (in federation with Somervale School) Bath and North East Somerset Secondary y 8005401 Oldfield School Bath and North East Somerset Secondary 8003447 Trinity CofE VC Primary School Bath and North East Somerset Primary y 8222014 Queen's Park Lower School Bedford Primary 8225402 Sharnbrook Upper School (in federation with Lincroft Middle School, Harrold Bedford Secondary Priory Middle School and Margaret Beaufort Middle School) 3035403 Beths Grammar School Bexley Secondary y 3034000 Bexley Grammar School Bexley Secondary y 3034022 Erith School Bexley Secondary y 3305411 Ninestiles School Birmingham Secondary y 3502018 Lever Edge Primary School Bolton Primary y 3503368 St Bede CofE Primary School Bolton Primary y 3055418 Darrick Wood School Bromley Secondary y 3055406 Kemnal Technology College (part of the Kemnal Trust) Bromley Secondary y y 8254504 Dr Challoner's Grammar School Buckinghamshire Secondary y 3812049 Greetland Primary School Calderdale Primary y 3812056 Scout Road Primary School Calderdale Primary y 8735203 Crosshall Infant School Cambridgeshire Primary y 8735204 Crosshall Junior School Cambridgeshire Primary y 8232217 Lark Rise Lower School Central Bedfordshire Primary y 8954220 Brine Leas High School Cheshire East Secondary y y 8955401 Fallibroome High School Cheshire East Secondary y y 8954123 Sandbach High School and Sixth Form College Cheshire East Secondary y 9082448 Sandy Hill Community Primary School Cornwall Primary y 9085201 St Buryan Primary School Cornwall Primary y y 9082409 Trenance Infant School Cornwall Primary y 9084154 Bodmin College Cornwall Secondary 3314800 The Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School and Music College Coventry Secondary 9095405 Dallam School Cumbria Secondary 9095401 Queen Elizabeth Grammar School Cumbria Secondary y 9092130 Seaton Infant School Cumbria Primary y y 8315402 Chellaston Foundation School Derby Secondary y 8782004 Broadclyst Community Primary School Devon Primary y y 8784184 Ivybridge Community College Devon Secondary y 8785405 Uffculme School Devon Secondary y y 8404215 Shotton Hall School Durham Secondary y 3082078 Cuckoo Hall Primary School Enfield Primary y y 3084015 Kingsmead School Enfield Secondary y 8814001 Debden Park High School (part of the Kemnal Trust) Essex Secondary y 8813832 Flitch Green Primary School Essex Primary y 8814400 Honywood Community Science School Essex Secondary y 8815264 R A Butler Junior School Essex Primary y 8815263 R A Butler Infant School Essex Primary y 8815415 King Harold School (part of the Kemnal Trust) Essex Secondary y 8814420 Notley High School and Braintree Sixth Form Essex Secondary 8815410 Chelmsford County High School Essex Secondary 9165403 Pate's Grammar School Gloucestershire Secondary y 9164001 Sir Thomas Rich's School Gloucestershire Secondary y 9165410 The Cotswold School Gloucestershire Secondary y y 8054131 Dyke House Sports and Technology College Hartlepool Secondary 8844428 John Kyrle High School and Sixth Form Centre Herefordshire Secondary 9195427 Hockerill Anglo-European College Hertfordshire Secondary y 9195405 The Bishop's Stortford High School Hertfordshire Secondary y 9194101 The Broxbourne School Hertfordshire Secondary y 9195401 Watford Grammar School for Boys Hertfordshire Secondary y y 9195403 Watford Grammar School for Girls Hertfordshire Secondary y y 3124654 Guru Nanak Sikh Voluntary Aided Secondary School Hillingdon Secondary y 3134027 Lampton School Hounslow Secondary y y 8864207 Castle Community College Kent Secondary y 8863025 Chiddingstone CofE (VC) Primary School Kent Primary y 8865406 Dartford Grammar School Kent Secondary y 8865414 Fulston Manor School Kent Secondary y 8864080 Highsted Grammar School Kent Secondary y 8864092 Highworth Grammar School for Girls Kent Secondary 8862656 Meopham Community Primary School Kent Primary y 8865463 Sandwich Technology School Kent Secondary y 8865443 Tonbridge Grammar School Kent Secondary 8865421 The Canterbury High School (in federation with The Canterbury Primary Kent Secondary y School) 8865455 The Hayesbrook School Kent Secondary y 8865434 The Westlands School (in federation with The Woodgrove Primary School) Kent Secondary y y
8864046 Weald of Kent Grammar School Kent Secondary y 8864031 Swanley Technology College (part of the Kemnal Trust) Kent Secondary y 8865462 The Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School Federation Kent Secondary 3825401 Heckmondwike Grammar School Kirklees Secondary y y 2085207 Durand Primary School Lambeth Primary y y 2084322 Stockwell Park High School Lambeth Secondary y 8884626 Bishop Rawstorne Church of England Language College Lancashire Secondary 8882040 Hambleton Primary School Lancashire Primary y 8885402 Lancaster Girls' Grammar School Lancashire Secondary y 8885401 Lancaster Royal Grammar School Lancashire Secondary 8884010 Hodgson School Lancashire Secondary y 8885403 Clitheroe Royal Grammar School Lancashire Secondary y 3834112 Garforth Community College Leeds Secondary y 3832396 Garforth Green Lane Primary School Leeds Primary y 9253510 Bourne Abbey Church of England Primary School Lincolnshire Primary y 9255418 Branston Community College Lincolnshire Secondary y 9255406 Caistor Grammar School Lincolnshire Secondary y 9255401 Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School Lincolnshire Secondary y 9255422 St Hugh's CofE Mathematics and Computing College (in federation with The Lincolnshire Secondary y Earl of Dysart Primary School, Grantham Spitalgate Primary School and Charles Read High School) 9255423 The Giles School Lincolnshire Secondary y y 9255415 William Farr Church of England Comprehensive School Lincolnshire Secondary y 8214102 Challney High School For Boys & Community College Foundation School Luton Secondary y 8214104 Denbigh High School Luton Secondary y 3523040 Cheetham CofE Community School Manchester Primary y 8874069 Fort Pitt Grammar School Medway Secondary y 8875445 The Rochester Grammar School Medway Secondary y 8262133 Eaton Mill Foundation Primary School Milton Keynes Primary y y 3914429 Gosforth High School (in federation with Gosforth Junior High School) Newcastle upon Tyne Secondary y 9262006 Martham Foundation Primary School and Nursery Norfolk Primary y 8124084 Healing School, A Specialist Science and Foundation College North East Lincolnshire Secondary y y 8124078 Tollbar Business Enterprise & Humanities College North East Lincolnshire Secondary y y 9285404 Northampton School for Boys Northamptonshire Secondary y y 9294168 Meadowdale Middle School Northumberland Secondary 8912921 Barnby Road Primary and Nursery school Nottinghamshire Primary y 8915401 George Spencer Foundation School and Technology College Nottinghamshire Secondary y y 8914084 Redhill School Nottinghamshire Secondary y 8914452 Tuxford School Nottinghamshire Secondary y 3534600 The Blue Coat School Oldham Secondary 8745417 Arthur Mellows Village College Peterborough Secondary y y 8704020 Highdown School and Sixth Form Centre Reading Secondary y 8705401 Reading School Reading Secondary 8702031 Churchend Primary School Reading Primary 3175400 The Chadwell Heath Foundation School Redbridge Secondary y y 3174033 Valentines High School Redbridge Secondary y 3724024 Brinsworth Comprehensive School Rotherham Secondary y 3724025 Wales High School Rotherham Secondary y 3344017 Arden School Solihull Secondary y 3343313 St. Patrick's C.E. Junior and Infant School Solihull Primary y 3344014 Tudor Grange School Solihull Secondary y 9334274 Holyrood Community School Somerset Secondary y y 9334259 Huish Episcopi School Somerset Secondary y y 9334583 The Kings of Wessex School Somerset Secondary y 9333240 Weare Church of England First School Somerset Primary 3934605 Whitburn CofE School South Tyneside Secondary y 8825206 The Westborough Primary School and Nursery Southend-on-Sea Primary y 8825401 Westcliff High School for Boys Southend-on-Sea Secondary y y 2104265 Kingsdale Foundation School Southwark Secondary 2104318 The Charter School Southwark Secondary y 8604176 De Ferrers Specialist Technology College Staffordshire Secondary y 8604061 John Taylor High School Staffordshire Secondary y 8615901 St Joseph's College Stoke-on-Trent Secondary 9352003 Forest Community Primary school Suffolk Primary y 9354036 Hartismere School Suffolk Secondary y y 9354102 Samuel Ward Arts and Technology College Suffolk Secondary y 9365221 Cleves School Surrey Primary y 9365404 Glyn Technology School Surrey Secondary 9362479 South Farnham School Surrey Primary y 8662212 Goddard Park Community Primary School Swindon Primary y 3575400 Audenshaw School Tameside Secondary y y 8944364 Newport Girls' High School Telford and Wrekin Secondary y 8942181 Priorslee Primary School Telford and Wrekin Primary y 8943358 St Matthew's CE (Aided) Primary School Telford and Wrekin Primary y 8834299 The Ockendon School Thurrock Secondary 8805401 Torquay Boys' Grammar School Torbay Secondary y 3585404 Altrincham Grammar School for Boys Trafford Secondary y 3582005 Park Road Primary School, Timperley Trafford Primary y 3585405 Urmston Grammar School Trafford Secondary y y 3584016 Wellacre Technology College Trafford Secondary y 3585400 Wellington School Trafford Secondary y 3844009 Wakefield City High School Wakefield Secondary y 3355200 Park Hall Infant school Walsall Primary y 3205400 Highams Park School Waltham Forest Secondary 3202018 Hillyfield Primary School Waltham Forest Primary y 3202040 Roger Ascham Primary School Waltham Forest Primary y 3202007 Yardley Primary School Waltham Forest Primary y 2125405 Southfields Community College Wandsworth Secondary 9374112 The Polesworth School - A Specialist Language College Warwickshire Secondary 2134295 Quintin Kynaston School Westminster Secondary 8655414 Hardenhuish School Wiltshire Secondary y y 8682186 Lowbrook Primary School Windsor and Maidenhead Primary y 3444018 Ridgeway High School Wirral Secondary 3444010 Prenton High School for Girls Wirral Secondary 8724053 Maiden Erlegh School Wokingham Secondary 8164500 Archbishop Holgate's School York Secondary 8164602 Manor Church of England Voluntary Aided School York Secondary
Notes
As of 31st August, there have been the following changes since 6th August.
Three applications, listed below, have been added.
8615901 St Joseph's College Stoke-on-Trent Secondary 3534600 The Blue Coat School Oldham Secondary 8865462 The Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School Federation Kent Secondary
135 Orders made, covering 142 schools (due to 4 federations of 2 schools and one federation of 4 schools receiving 1 Order each) AGENDA ITEM 11b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) ACADEMY FURTHER FUNDING ISSUES
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the further funding issues on the DfE Academy policy.
2. ISSUES
2.1 Funding for LA Central Services
(a) The WSF were advised at their last meeting on issues relating to the Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG), which is the grant given to academies in respect of LA services to schools.
(b) The DfE have stated that funding of academies will be broadly comparable with that of maintained schools, taking into account their additional responsibilities. While converting to academy status will give schools additional freedoms, those who opt to stay within LA control will not be financially disadvantaged. To support this DfE has published a Ready Reckoner and the Technical Note as detailed at the previous WSF meeting
(c) Concerns have been raised, by LA's, in relation to the existing calculation of the LACSEG and any potential change to the present recoupment arrangements for LACSEG for the element of their funding taken back from LA's in respect of academies in their area.
(d) The LACSEG is allocated as additional resource to cover those central services that the LA no longer provides. The DfE point out that it will vary between LA's and will reflect the amount the LA already holds back to pay for central services, and lists the items covered under two headings: those funded from a LA's Schools Budget (DSG) and those from other LA sources.
(e) The budgets used by the YPLA to calculate LACSEG, which appear in the particular lines of expenditure in LA's Section 251 budget statements, vary between LA's as a consequence of: -
Variations in the amount held back to pay for central services; Accounting methods used for the apportionment across the authority of its corporate costs.
(f) Corporate costs are related to LA functions funded via the LA budget portion of education spending, for which there is currently no recoupment. They have no direct bearing on the replacement cost of services to schools and the provision of funding to academies in respect of this LA expenditure. For example, the LACSEG for the LA portion includes a share of items such as the strategic management and running costs of the whole children’s services directorate, the authority’s statutory and regulatory duties, and its asset management costs – costs which simply don’t fall on individual schools.
(g) Current recoupment practice applies only to funding within the Schools Budget for central expenditure on schools as a reduction to the DSG. The DfE technical note confirms there is currently no recoupment in relation to the LA Budget portion of LACSEG. However, for 2011-12 onwards the methodology for adjustment of the DSG for academy conversions is still under consideration.
(h) This has led to considerable confusion on publication of the ready reckoner. Some LA's have found that the published LACSEG figures are much higher than they would have anticipated and than seem appropriate. The possibility that, in future, the full amount of LACSEG might be subject to recoupment has major implications for LA overall budgets and so for their capacity to continue to provide services to schools which choose to remain within the LA. These issues will need to be clarified by the DfE.
2.2 Guidance on the Transfer of Balances
(a) As part of the information being published on Academies regulations came into force on 1st September 2010 to provide for the transfer of balances for schools when converting to Academy status.
(b) The regulations are attached at Appendix A together with a guidance note attached at Appendix B.
(c) The key issues are: -
The requirement for the Academy to set up a new bank account. The timescales for payment of any surplus balance. The need to take account of commitments outstanding. The reimbursement to the LA from the YPLA of any deficit balance. Differences in approach for schools with their own bank accounts compare to those using the banking services of the LA. The treatment of any loans outstanding.
3. RECOMMENDATION
The WSF notes and comments on the issues.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development October 2010 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
2010 No. 1938
EDUCATION, ENGLAND
The Academy Conversions (Transfer of School Surpluses) Regulations 2010
Made - - - - 28th July 2010 Laid before Parliament 4th August 2010 Coming into force - - 1st September 2010
The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Regulations(a) in exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 of the Academies Act 2010(b):
Citation, commencement and application 1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Academy Conversions (Transfer of School Surpluses) Regulations 2010 and come into force on 1st September 2010. (2) They apply in relation to any maintained school in England in respect of which an Academy order has effect where the order was made under section 4(1)(a) of the Academies Act 2010 (Academy order following application by school).
Interpretation 2. In these Regulations— “the Act” means the Academies Act 2010; “the proprietor” means the proprietor of the Academy.
Determination of school surplus 3. The local authority must inform the proprietor of the determinations made by them under section 7(2) of the Act within three months, beginning with the conversion date.
Review of local authority determination 4.—(1) A proprietor who disagrees with any determination made by the local authority under section 7(2) of the Act may apply to the Secretary of State for a review of that determination within one month, beginning with the date on which the proprietor is informed of that determination. (2) An application for a review under paragraph (1) must include the proprietor’s reasons for making it.
(a) See section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996 (c.56) for the definition of “regulations”. This definition applies by virtue of section 17(4) of the Academies Act 2010. (b) 2010 c.32. (3) The proprietor must provide the local authority with a copy of any application made under paragraph (1) within one week, beginning with the date on which the application is made. (4) Within three months, beginning with the date on which an application is received under paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must— (a) review the determination made by the local authority, (b) confirm that determination or substitute the Secretary of State’s own determination, and (c) inform the proprietor and the local authority of the outcome of the review.
Payment of school surplus 5.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the authority must pay to the proprietor the amount of any surplus determined under section 7(2) of the Act within one month, beginning with the earlier of the following dates— (a) the date on which the proprietor informs the local authority that the proprietor agrees with their determination; or (b) the date on which the period specified in regulation 4(1) (period within which proprietor may apply for review) ends. (2) If the proprietor applies for a review under regulation 4(1), the local authority must pay to the proprietor the amount of any surplus determined under section 7(2) of the Act or by the Secretary of State under regulation 4(4)(b), as the case may be, within one month, beginning with the date on which the authority is informed of the outcome of the review.
Jonathan Hill Parliamentary Under Secretary of State 28th July 2010 Department for Education
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations) Section 7 of the Academies Act 2010 requires local authorities to transfer a school’s surplus to the Academy proprietor when the school converts to an Academy under an order following an application by the governing body. These Regulations set time limits for the determination of whether there is, and if so the amount of, a surplus, and for any review by the Secretary of State of any local authority determination. An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen. The impact on the public sector is minimal.
2 GUIDANCE NOTE ON THE TRANSFER OF SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS
Purpose
1. To ensure the timely transfer of accumulated balances from schools converting to academies to their successor academies.
Academies Act
2. Under the Academies Act, schools which are successful in their application to convert will generally operate with the same leadership and management and can, therefore, be seen much more as a continuation of the previous school. Legally, however, they would still become a new institution and separate legal entity, and have to open a separate bank account.
3. Where applications for conversion are approved under the new arrangements, the Act requires the local authority (LA) to pay over the school’s surplus to the academy. Regulations set out the procedures to be followed in relation to timescales and the academy’s right to apply to the Secretary of State for a review of the LA’s calculation. Where an academy is set up under the previous procedures, then surpluses and deficits would continue to revert to the LA.
4. The regulations state that the LA would have three months from the conversion date to determine whether the school had a surplus and, if so, the amount of the surplus. This timescale would be consistent with the usual LA deadlines for year-end closure of accounts, though conversion may often take place at other times of the year. If it did not agree with the amount, the academy would then have a month from receiving the LA’s determination in which to apply to the Secretary of State for a review. The Secretary of State would have three months from receiving the application to make a determination. The LA would then have a month in which to pay over the surplus following receipt of this determination.
5. If the academy did not request a review, then the LA would have to pay over the surplus within one month of either being informed by the academy that it agreed with the amount or of the end of the period in which the academy could apply for a review, whichever was earlier.
6. As the former school would maintain its own financial records, the successor academy will need to support the local authority’s accounts closure process if the timescale is to be met effectively.
7. If the academy has made commitments against an anticipated surplus payment, they may need an advance of funds and would need to discuss this with the Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA), which is responsible for distributing funds to academies.
8. Where a school converting under the new legislation has a deficit, then the DfE will reimburse the LA for the deficit, and the YPLA will then recover it from the academy over a period of time by reduced payments of General Annual Grant.
Schools with their own bank accounts
Background
9. Maintained schools are allowed to have their own bank accounts separate from the local authority (LA)’s account. These accounts would not normally have LA staff as signatories. In operating these accounts, however, the school’s managers are acting as agents of the LA and any funding allocated to the school remains the property of the LA until spent. Bank accounts have to be operated within the requirements of the LA’s Scheme for Financing Schools and are consolidated within the LA’s year-end final accounts. These arrangements apply irrespective of whether a school is community, aided or foundation.
10. A school which becomes an academy legally closes as a maintained school and opens as a separate institution. Under current legislation, surpluses and deficits of closing schools revert to the LA, and the LA would need to ensure that the school’s bank account was closed. The academy then has to open its own bank account.
Procedural issues
11. The Act is clear that the LA has to pay over the surplus to the academy. Therefore, the amount of the surplus can only be determined after the school has, effectively closed.
12. After conversion, however, the school bank account signatories are likely to have transferred to become academy employees and the school’s governing body ceased. These employees will not be able to act as the LA’s agents and could potentially have a conflict of interest.
13. It is therefore good practice for either: the LA to take full control of the bank account at the date of conversion; or at least to become a co- signatory to the account to recognise that the cash in the account(s) is the property of the LA. In either situation, there will be substantial administrative work to complete before the surplus is determined. The LA will, therefore, need to decide whether it is practical or desirable for this all to be done by its finance team, or whether the school or academy staff should continue with much of the work in view of their knowledge of the individual transactions and the location of the prime accounting records.
14. The cash balance in the bank account will be different, and often higher, than the surplus determined under proper accounting principles after three months of converting to academy status. This is because there will be outstanding payments where goods have been received or work done in relation to school-related activity prior to conversion date. Conversely, there may be income due which has not yet been received or collected. Accruals would need to be made before the final surplus is calculated.
15. The final surplus reported for entry in the LA’s accounts and section 251 statements would take into account any remaining accruals relating to payments not yet made or income not yet received. However, it is suggested that the LA should pay over the cash balance remaining in the bank account at the point of determination, so that there can be a “clean break”; otherwise the LA would be left with further administrative work relating to these outstanding items and would be unable to physically close the bank account. All outstanding debtors and creditors relating to the former school would also transfer to the academy as part of the calculation of the transferred surplus or deficit.
16. There would consequently need to be agreement that, if actual expenditure or income items within the accruals turn out to be different to those assumed, then the academy would be responsible for the cost or benefit, including VAT, of those differences; this is an issue for all converters. LAs could seek to include this in the “Transfer Agreement” which has to be signed between the LA, predecessor school’s governing body and academy’s governing body, and covers issues such as staffing information, pensions and transfer of assets.
Schools using LA bank accounts
17. More detailed guidance has been produced for schools with their own bank accounts because LAs will have greater controls over access to their own financial systems and should, therefore, be more easily able to implement a process which ends access by the school at a certain cut-off date.
18. LAs in which schools do not have their own bank accounts will, however, still want to consider issues in this note relating to authorisation of orders and payments on their systems, and the transfer of responsibility for outstanding liabilities after the determination has been made. There may also need to be a particularly good level of communication with internal LA services which sell to, or charge, schools through the LA system, as these services will need to be aware of the timescale laid down in regulations for determining the surplus.
Schools with internal loans outstanding 19. The Department would expect that the liability to repay a loan made by the local authority would normally be transferred to the academy, which would continue repayments from its revenue budget on the previously agreed schedule. The transfer of responsibility for the loan should be reflected in a legal agreement between the LA and the academy trust. This could be done through either amending the commercial transfer agreement or in a separate agreement. 20. Permission from the Secretary of State for the loan repayments to be continued would be needed before the academy's funding agreement was signed, and would only be given if it was clear that the academy could afford repayments and that the legal liability for the loan had been transferred or both parties had agreed to this. 21. Given such an agreement, there would be no need for the LA to insist on the immediate repayment of the total outstanding loan at the date of conversion. The Department would discuss with the LA and the school on an individual basis what action should be taken to safeguard both parties' interests if an agreement to continue previously agreed repayments cannot be concluded.
AGENDA ITEM 12 SECTION 251 BENCHMARKING TABLES 2010/11 - KEY STATISTICS WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th OCTOBER 2010 PER CAPITA (NET) FOR ALL, UPPER TIER, WEST MIDLANDS AND STATISTICAL NEIGHBOUR LA'S
Category Table s251 Worcestershire All LA Upper Tier LA W Mids.LA Stat. Neigh. LA Comments Change Worcestershire vs. Average (Median) Column Lines LA Average Average Average Average All LA UTier LA W Mids.LA S Neigh LA (WCC) (Median) (Median) (Median) (Median)
ISB 1 1.0.1 £3,700 £3,864 £3,649 £3,745 £3,600 WCC varies -£164 £51 -£45 £100
ISB, SSG, SSG(P), SDG, Other SFG & TPRG 9 1.0.1 to 1.0.8 £3,700 £3,872 £3,665 £3,745 £3,608 WCC varies -£172 £35 -£45 £92
Schools Budget SEN (exc. PRU's, BSS, EOTAS, LA Recoup, Fees IS) 23 1.2.1 to 1.2.8 £111 £196 £183 £174 £196 WCC always < average -£85 -£72 -£63 -£85
PRU's/BSS/Education Otherwise 27 1.3.1 to 1.3.3 £54 £88 £78 £81 £75 WCC always < average -£34 -£24 -£27 -£21
Schools Budget Central Admin 43 1.5.1 to 1.5.9 £37 £38 £32 £38 £32 WCC varies -£1 £5 -£1 £5
Total Schools Budget 51 1.8.1 £4,104 £4,411 £4,204 £4,266 £4,155 WCC always < average -£307 -£100 -£162 -£51
Total LA Budget SEN 57 2.0.6 £34 £38 £35 £34 £32 WCC varies -£4 -£1 £0 £2
LA Budget H to S Transport SEN 60 2.1.3 £82 £70 £69 £54 £70 WCC always > average £12 £13 £28 £12
LA Budget H to S Transport Other 61 2.1.4 £78 £17 £81 £20 £81 WCC varies £61 -£3 £58 -£3
LA Budget EWS 65 2.1.8 £12 £17 £12 £15 £13 WCC < average -£5 £0 -£3 -£1 except UTier
LA Budget School Improvement 66 2.1.9 £77 £59 £59 £50 £58 WCC always > average £18 £18 £27 £19
LA Budget Music Service not SFG 70 2.2.3 £2 £2 £2 £5 £4 WCC < average £0 £0 -£3 -£2 except All LA and UTier
LA Budget EOE 72 2.2.5 £2 £0 £1 £2 £1 WCC > average £2 £1 £0 £1 except Wmids
Total LAC 105 6.0.13 £189 £227 £166 £281 £166 WCC varies -£38 £23 -£92 £23
Total LA Education Functions 137 7.0.8 £76 £82 £76 £89 £65 WCC varies -£6 £0 -£13 £11
Total Schools Budget, LA SEN, 143 Various £4,530 £4,779 £4,592 £4,687 £4,560 WCC always < average -£249 -£62 -£157 -£30 LA Leaner Support, LA Access, Y&C
8.1.1+8.1.2+ Total C&YP Budget * 146 8.1.3 £4,944 £5,387 £5,099 £5,298 £4,956 WCC always < average -£443 -£155 -£354 -£12
* = Education, Community, Youth Justice, C&YP LA Education YEAR ON YEAR % CHANGE FOR ALL, UPPER TIER, WEST MIDLANDS AND STATISTICAL NEIGHBOUR LA'S
Category Table s251 Worcestershire All LA Upper Tier LA W Mids.LA Stat. Neigh. LA Comments Change Worcestershire vs. Average (Median) Column Lines LA Average Average Average Average All LA UTier LA W Mids.LA S Neigh LA (WCC) (Median) (Median) (Median) (Median)
Overall Schools Budget 1 N/A 2.2% 3.5% 2.9% 2.4% 2.7% WCC always < average -1.3% -0.7% -0.2% -0.5%
ISB (incl. TPRG and SSC) 2 N/A 1.9% 3.3% 2.8% 2.4% 2.7% WCC always < average -1.4% -0.9% -0.5% -0.8%
Grants: Devolved 3 N/A -7.7% 4.2% 6.5% 4.7% 11.6% WCC always < average -11.9% -14.2% -12.4% -19.3%
Under 5's PVI 5 N/A 5.4% 4.0% 4.2% 2.0% 4.4% WCC always > average 1.4% 1.2% 3.4% 1.0%
Schools Budget SEN Provision 6 N/A 13.6% 4.6% 6.2% 4.8% 4.0% WCC always > average 9.0% 7.4% 8.8% 9.6%
PRU's 7 N/A 2.4% 2.9% 2.3% 2.1% 2.3% WCC > average -0.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% except All LA
Overall LA Budget 10 N/A -2.1% -1.0% 0.8% 0.2% -3.4% WCC < average -1.1% -2.9% -2.3% 1.3% except S Neigh
Statutory/Regulatory Duties 11 N/A -12.6% -3.2% -7.4% -7.1% -12.6% WCC < average -9.4% -5.2% -5.5% 0.0% except S Neigh
Other Strategic Management 12 N/A -10.8% 0.1% 2.7% -1.1% 0.4% WCC always < average -10.9% -13.5% -9.7% -11.2%
School Improvement 13 N/A -2.0% -5.1% -2.0% -3.0% -5.0% WCC always > average 3.1% 0.0% 1.0% 3.0% ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ALL, UPPER TIER, WEST MIDLANDS AND STATISTICAL NEIGHBOUR LA'S
Category Table s251 Worcestershire All LA Upper Tier LA W Mids.LA Stat. Neigh. LA Comments Change Worcestershire vs. Average (Median) Column Lines LA Average Average Average Average All LA UTier LA W Mids.LA S Neigh LA (WCC) (Median) (Median) (Median) (Median)
DSG 2010/11 Guaranteed Level of Funding per pupil 1 N/A £4,028 £4,308 £4,130 £4,241 £4,093 WCC always < average -£280 -£102 -£213 -£65
% Increase in DSG per pupil from baseline 2009/10 to 2010/11 2 N/A 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% No variation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Planned Expenditure (£'000) in addition to DSG 3 N/A 0 0 0 £34 £128 Variation WMids LA and 0 0 -£34 -£128 SNeigh LA % Change in ISB per pupil from 2009/10 to 2010/11 Nursery 4 N/A 4.2% 4.2% 5.0% 3.7% 4.2% WCC varies 0.0% -0.8% 0.5% 0.0% Primary 5 N/A 4.0% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% WCC always > average 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Secondary 6 N/A 3.0% 3.5% 3.2% 3.4% 2.9% WCC always < average -0.5% -0.2% -0.4% 0.1% except S Neigh Special 7 N/A -33.0% 3.3% 2.2% 2.7% 2.3% WCC always < average -36.3% -35.2% -35.7% -35.3%
% Planned Expenditure Devolved to Schools 8 N/A 90.7% 88.5% 88.1% 90.3% 88.1% WCC always > average 2.2% 2.6% 0.4% 2.6%
% of schools with MFG 2010/11 Nursery 10 N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% Variation WMids LA 0.0% 0.0% -16.7% 0.0% Primary 11 N/A 41.8% 19.6% 31.0% 14.0% 31.1% WCC always > average 22.2% 10.8% 27.8% 10.7% Secondary 12 N/A 20.5% 7.9% 9.1% 7.4% 16.9% WCC always > average 12.6% 11.4% 13.1% 3.6% Special 13 N/A 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 29.2% 0.0% WCC always > average 18.2% 18.2% -11.0% 18.2% except West Mids
% Central Expenditure from the Schools Budget as a proportion of allowed limit 2010/11 14 N/A 102.4% 100.2% 101.9% 98.6% 101.9% WCC always > average 2.2% 0.5% 3.8% 0.5%
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 , 4 shires and 1 unitary including WCC as follows: - Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Stoke-on-Trent, Telford & Wrekin, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Herefordshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire Statistical Neighbour LA means 11 Statistical Neighbour LA's including WCC as follows: - Warwickshire, Shropshire, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Essex, Hampshire, Leicestershire, Kent, West Sussex, Wiltshire and Worcestershire
A further analysis of all s251 lines for per capita (net) against the All England, Upper Tier, West Midlands and Statistical Neigbours LA's is attached at Appendix A. Local Authority Benchmarking Tables 2010-11
This workbook contains Section 251 Budget Table 1 (NET) information on a per capita basis.
Information can be viewed for each Government Office Region (eg London, South West), type of LA (London, Unitary, Upper Tier or Metropolitan) or for all LAs. Alternatively, you may choose your statistical neighbours or up to 10 LAs by selecting the "STATISTICAL NEIGHBOURS" option.
Please refer to the explanatory notes on the LA benchmarking website for information on the data sources and underlying calculations. www.education.gov.uk/section52
Please select data to view:
Printing Please note these tables are very large. Tables showing all LAs in a single Government Office Region or LA type print to 7 pages. The table showing all LAs prints to 21 pages. You may wish to view 'Print Preview' before printing.
LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 11
ISB (including SSG, SSG (P), School Development Grant, Standards Fund, School School Other Meals grant and Expenditure on Standards School Standards School Standards Standards Threshold and Threshold and the Free Central Individual Grant - School Grant Grant Fund Performance Performance Pay) £ / Entitlement in expenditure on Schools Maintained Standards Grant (Personalisation) - (Personalisation) - School Allocation - Pay pupil PVI providers education of Budget Schools - Pupil Referral Maintained Schools Pupil Referral Units Development Devolved (Devolved) (sum of lines (funded by the children under (1.0.1) (1.0.2) Units (1.0.3) (1.0.4) (1.0.5) Grant (1.0.6) (1.0.7) (1.0.8) 1.0.1 to 1.0.8) LA) (1.0.9) 5 (1.0.10 ) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 3,912 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 3,927 105 21 ENGLAND - Average (median) 3,864 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,872 97 15 ENGLAND - Minimum 3,347 0 0 0 0 0 -65 0 3,424 0 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 6,279 1 0 0 0 0 21 169 6,279 290 446
Upper Tier Average (median) 3,649 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,665 126 20
West Midlands Average (median) 3,745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,745 72 13
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 3,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,608 150 18
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 3,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,700 114 5
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England -164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -172 17 -10
Upper Tier LA's 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 -12 -15
West Midlands LA's -45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -45 42 -8
Statistical Neighbour LA's 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 -36 -13
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 3 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 12 Col 13 Col 14 Col 15 Col 16 Col 17 Col 18 Col 19 Col 20
Provision for pupils with SEN Provision for Fees for pupils Fees to School- (including pupils with SEN, at independent independent Support for schools specific Early Years assigned provision not special schools schools for in financial difficulty contingencies contingency resources) included in line Support for & abroad SEN transport pupils without (1.1.1) (1.1.2) (1.1.3) (1.2.1) 1.2.1 (1.2.2) inclusion (1.2.3) (1.2.4) (1.2.5) SEN (1.2.6) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 3 57 2 40 28 14 90 1 2 ENGLAND - Average (median) 0 37 0 34 24 9 87 0 0 ENGLAND - Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 105 655 27 158 167 67 322 30 99
Upper Tier Average (median) 0 38 0 37 20 7 79 0 0
West Midlands Average (median) 0 34 0 29 40 4 63 0 0
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 0 30 0 41 12 6 96 0 0
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 3 38 0 33 15 6 57 0 0
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England 3 1 0 -1 -9 -3 -30 0 0
Upper Tier LA's 3 0 0 -4 -5 -1 -22 0 0
West Midlands LA's 3 4 0 4 -25 2 -6 0 0
Statistical Neighbour LA's 3 8 0 -8 3 0 -39 0 0
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 4 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 21 Col 22 Col 23 Col 24 Col 25 Col 26 Col 27 Col 28 Col 29 Col 30 Col 31 Schools Budget SEN (not including PRUs, behaviour support, PRUs/ education Behaviour out of Support/ Contribution school) £ / Education Education School meals - Free school to combined pupil (sum of out of Otherwise £ / 14 - 16 More nursery, primary meals - Inter-authority recoupment budgets lines Pupil Referral Units Behaviour Support school pupil (Sum of practical learning and special schools eligibility (1.2.7) (1.2.8) 1.2.1 to 1.2.8) (1.3.1) Services (1.3.2) (1.3.3) 1.3.1 to 1.3.3) options (1.3.4) (1.4.1) (1.4.2) Milk (1.4.3 ) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 7 11 192 51 17 20 88 7 7 1 1 ENGLAND - Average (median) 6 5 196 48 15 15 88 3 0 1 0 ENGLAND - Minimum -368 0 -121 0 -2 0 13 0 0 0 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 183 100 525 193 99 76 316 38 148 25 7
Upper Tier Average (median) 3 9 183 41 13 15 78 6 0 0 0
West Midlands Average (median) 5 6 174 52 13 13 81 2 0 1 0
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 6 8 196 42 13 10 75 1 0 0 0
Own LA 885 Worcestershire -1 0 111 41 9 4 54 1 0 0 0
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England -7 -5 -85 -7 -6 -11 -34 -2 0 -1 0
Upper Tier LA's -4 -9 -72 0 -4 -11 -24 -5 0 0 0
West Midlands LA's -6 -6 -63 -11 -4 -9 -27 -1 0 -1 0
Statistical Neighbour LA's -7 -8 -85 -1 -4 -6 -21 0 0 0 0
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 5 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 32 Col 33 Col 34 Col 35 Col 36 Col 37 Col 38 Col 39 Col 40
Schools Budget Access £ / Miscellaneou pupil (Sum Museum and s (not more of Library School than 0.1% Servicing of Staff costs - School kitchens - repair 1.4.1 to Insurance Services admissions Licences/subscrip total of net schools forums supply cover (not and maintenance (1.4.4 ) 1.4.4) (1.5.1) (1.5.2) (1.5.3) tions (1.5.4) SB) (1.5.5) (1.5.6) sickness) (1.5.7) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 1 9 5 1 9 2 6 1 11 ENGLAND - Average (median) 0 3 0 0 9 2 4 1 7 ENGLAND - Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 21 158 42 11 37 19 80 7 41
Upper Tier Average (median) 0 2 0 0 7 2 3 0 5
West Midlands Average (median) 0 2 7 0 8 2 4 0 12
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 0 2 0 0 8 2 3 0 5
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 0 0 21 0 12 2 1 0 2
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England 0 -3 21 0 3 0 -3 -1 -5
Upper Tier LA's 0 -2 21 0 5 0 -2 0 -3
West Midlands LA's 0 -2 14 0 4 0 -3 0 -10
Statistical Neighbour LA's 0 -2 21 0 4 0 -2 0 -3
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 6 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 41 Col 42 Col 43 Col 44 Col 45 Col 46 Col 47 Col 48 Col 49 Col 50 Col 51
Schools Budget Schools Non- Budget Devolved Capital Central School Grants £ / Expenditure Administration Development Other Standards pupil (Sum from Revenue TOTAL Supply cover - £ / pupil (Sum Grant - Non- Fund Allocation - of lines (CERA) Prudential SCHOOLS long term Termination of of lines Devolved Non-Devolved Other Specific Performance Reward Grant 1.6.1 to (Schools) borrowing BUDGET sickness (1.5.8) employment costs (1.5.9) 1.5.1 to 1.5.9) (1.6.1) (1.6.2) Grants (1.6.3) (1.6.4) 1.6.4) (1.7.1) costs (1.7.2) (1.8.1) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 0 4 40 0 2 1 0 3 21 3 4,478 ENGLAND - Average (median) 0 1 38 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 4,411 ENGLAND - Minimum 0 0 2 0 0 -27 0 -27 0 -5 4,027 ENGLAND - Maximum 3 36 125 0 69 58 4 74 118 64 6,961
Upper Tier Average (median) 0 2 32 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 4,204
West Midlands Average (median) 0 1 38 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 4,266
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 0 2 32 0 1 0 0 1 20 0 4,155
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 4,104
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 -307
Upper Tier LA's 0 -2 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 -100
West Midlands LA's 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 -162
Statistical Neighbour LA's 0 -2 5 0 -1 0 0 -1 21 0 -51
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 7 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 52 Col 53 Col 54 Col 55 Col 56 Col 57 Col 58 Col 59 Col 60 Col 61
Home to SEN Home to school administrati Parent school transport: on, Therapies partnership, transport: other home to assessment and other guidance SEN school Educational and co- health related and Monitoring of transport transport Psychology ordination services information SEN provision Total Special Excluded Pupil support expenditure expenditure Service (2.0.1) (2.0.2) (2.0.3) (2.0.4) (2.0.5) Education (2.0.6) pupils (2.1.1) (2.1.2) (2.1.3) (2.1.4) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 19 11 2 3 2 37 2 3 74 53 ENGLAND - Average (median) 19 11 0 2 2 38 1 0 70 17 ENGLAND - Minimum 7 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 60 56 21 21 16 116 38 66 191 202
Upper Tier Average (median) 16 13 0 2 1 35 1 0 69 81
West Midlands Average (median) 19 10 0 2 2 34 2 0 54 20
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 18 9 0 1 2 32 2 0 70 81
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 18 14 0 2 0 34 3 0 82 78
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England -1 3 0 0 -2 -4 2 0 12 61
Upper Tier LA's 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 2 0 13 -3
West Midlands LA's -1 4 0 0 -2 0 1 0 28 58
Statistical Neighbour LA's 0 5 0 1 -2 2 1 0 12 -3
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 8 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 62 Col 63 Col 64 Col 65 Col 66 Col 67 Col 68 Col 69 Col 70 Col 71 Col 72 Col 73 Col 74
Outdoor Home to post- Home to post- Education Home to post-16 16 provision 16 provision Music including provision transport: SEN/ transport:other services (not Visual and Environmen transportt: SEN/ LLDD transport home to post - Education Total Supply of Standards performing tal and Field LLDD transport expenditure 16 transport Welfare School Learner Asset school Fund arts (other Studies (not Total 16 - 18 Further expenditure (aged (aged 19-25) expenditure Service improvement Support management - places supported) than music) sports) Access education 16-18) (2.1.5) (2.1.6) (2.1.7) (2.1.8) (2.1.9) (2.1.10) education (2.2.1) (2.2.2) (2.2.3) (2.2.4) (2.2.5) (2.2.6) (3.0.1) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 3 1 5 16 61 217 19 5 4 1 2 30 8 ENGLAND - Average (median) 1 0 0 17 59 197 17 2 2 0 0 31 0 ENGLAND - Minimum 0 0 0 0 1 31 -19 0 0 0 -6 -14 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 22 15 41 83 271 503 117 88 21 12 19 121 373
Upper Tier Average (median) 3 0 5 12 59 254 20 3 2 0 1 30 0
West Midlands Average (median) 1 0 5 15 50 186 12 2 5 0 2 28 0
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 5 0 5 13 58 244 18 1 4 0 1 29 0
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 7 0 12 12 77 271 22 12 2 2 2 41 0
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England 6 0 12 -5 18 74 5 10 0 2 2 10 0
Upper Tier LA's 4 0 7 0 18 17 2 9 0 2 1 11 0
West Midlands LA's 6 0 7 -3 27 85 10 10 -3 2 0 13 0
Statistical Neighbour LA's 2 0 7 -1 19 27 4 11 -2 2 1 12 0
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 9 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 75 Col 76 Col 77 Col 78 Col 79 Col 80 Col 81 Col 82 Col 83
Capital Expenditure from Revenue Total Young (CERA) (Young Positive Student Support 16 - 18 Provision people's people's activities for under new other than learning and learning and young Arrangements and schools and FE 14 - 19 Reform development development) people Youth Work Connexions Discretionary Mandatory Awards (3.0.2) (3.0.3) (3.0.4) (3.1.1) (3.2.1) (3.2.2) (3.2.3) Awards (3.2.4) (3.2.5) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 0 1 10 0 12 35 35 0 2 ENGLAND - Average (median) 0 0 0 0 6 36 40 0 2 ENGLAND - Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 23 24 373 0 214 157 68 11 8
Upper Tier Average (median) 0 0 0 0 3 31 34 0 1
West Midlands Average (median) 0 0 0 0 11 37 42 0 2
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 0 0 0 0 3 32 33 0 2
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 0 4 4 0 38 0 34 0 2
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England 0 4 4 0 32 -36 -6 0 0
Upper Tier LA's 0 4 4 0 35 -31 0 0 1
West Midlands LA's 0 4 4 0 27 -37 -8 0 0
Statistical Neighbour LA's 0 4 4 0 35 -32 1 0 0
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 10 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 84 Col 85 Col 86 Col 87 Col 88 Col 89 Col 90 Col 91 Col 92 Col 93 Col 94 Col 95
Capital Expenditure Capital Total from Revenue Expenditure Services for (CERA) Adult and from Revenue Secure Other Youth young (Services for Community Total Adult and (CERA) (Adult accommodation Youth Justice Other children people young people) learning Community Learning & Community) (youth justice) Offender services Total Youth Residential Fostering looked after (3.2.6) (3.3.1) (4.0.1) (4.0.2) (4.1.1) (5.0.1) Teams (5.0.2) (5.0.3) Justice (5.0.4) care (6.0.1) services (6.0.2) services (6.0.3) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 84 0 7 7 0 1 14 2 16 82 107 14 ENGLAND - Average (median) 82 0 4 4 0 0 14 0 16 74 102 10 ENGLAND - Minimum 15 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 11 35 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 225 5 81 81 7 9 93 22 102 358 313 154
Upper Tier Average (median) 68 0 2 2 0 0 10 0 11 56 73 7
West Midlands Average (median) 89 0 5 5 0 0 15 0 20 105 139 2
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 69 0 1 1 0 0 9 0 12 56 76 3
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 73 0 2 2 0 0 8 0 8 29 140 0
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England -9 0 -2 -2 0 0 -6 0 -8 -45 38 -10
Upper Tier LA's 5 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -3 -27 67 -7
West Midlands LA's -16 0 -3 -3 0 0 -7 0 -12 -76 1 -2
Statistical Neighbour LA's 4 0 1 1 0 0 -1 0 -4 -27 64 -3
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 11 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 96 Col 97 Col 98 Col 99 Col 100 Col 101 Col 102 Col 103 Col 104 Col 105
Unaccompanied Short breaks Education Asylum asylum children: Unaccompanie (respite) for Advocacy of looked Leaving care seeker assessment and d asylum Total Secure looked after Children placed services for after support services - case children: Children accommodation disabled with family and children looked children services children management accommodatio Looked After (welfare) (6.0.4) children (6.0.5) friends (6.0.6) after (6.0.7) (6.0.8) (6.0.9) (6.0.10) (6.0.11) n (6.0.12) (6.0.13) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 1 6 4 1 3 19 1 1 1 240 ENGLAND - Average (median) 0 2 1 1 2 17 0 0 0 227 ENGLAND - Minimum -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 ENGLAND - Maximum 14 39 64 22 24 162 13 26 14 725
Upper Tier Average (median) 0 2 2 0 1 13 0 0 0 166
West Midlands Average (median) 0 1 3 1 2 21 0 0 0 281
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 0 1 0 1 2 12 0 0 0 166
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 0 0 0 0 3 13 3 0 0 189
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England 0 -2 -1 -1 1 -4 3 0 0 -38
Upper Tier LA's 0 -2 -2 0 2 0 3 0 0 23
West Midlands LA's 0 -1 -3 -1 1 -8 3 0 0 -92
Statistical Neighbour LA's 0 -1 0 -1 1 1 3 0 0 23
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 12 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 106 Col 107 Col 108 Col 109 Col 110 Col 111 Col 112 Col 113 Col 114 Col 115 Col 116 Col 117 Col 118
Preventati Substance ve Short misuse services breaks services (formerly Total (respite) (Drugs, Child death the Children and for Equipment Other family Alcohol and Contribution to Teenage review children's LA functions in Local safeguarding Young Direct disabled and support Volatile health care of pregnancy processes fund) relation to child childrens board People's payments children Home care adaptations services substances) individual services (6.1.1) (6.1.2) protection (6.1.3) (6.1.4) Safety (6.1.5) (6.2.1) (6.2.2) services (6.2.3) (6.2.4) (6.2.5) (6.2.6) children (6.2.7) (6.2.8) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 1 10 11 2 24 5 9 4 1 33 2 2 2 ENGLAND - Average (median) 1 9 10 2 23 3 7 1 0 31 2 0 3 ENGLAND - Minimum 0 -1 0 0 1 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 21 66 44 29 96 82 55 30 26 178 12 45 11
Upper Tier Average (median) 0 7 4 1 15 3 4 1 1 19 1 0 1
West Midlands Average (median) 0 10 4 1 16 3 7 2 1 26 2 0 3
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 0 5 3 0 12 3 10 1 1 15 1 0 1
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 0 1 4 1 6 3 14 3 1 19 1 0 2
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England -1 -8 -6 -1 -17 0 7 2 1 -12 -1 0 -1
Upper Tier LA's 0 -6 0 0 -9 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 1
West Midlands LA's 0 -9 0 0 -10 0 7 1 0 -7 -1 0 -1
Statistical Neighbour LA's 0 -4 1 1 -6 0 4 2 0 4 0 0 1
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 13 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 119 Col 120 Col 121 Col 122 Col 123 Col 124 Col 125 Col 126 Col 127 Col 128
Other Total Other Central Total Special children's and Children's and commissio Children's Total Family guardianship families Families Children's and ning Commissioning Services Support Adoption services support services Services young people's Partnership function and social work Strategy Services (6.2.9) (6.3.1) (6.3.2) (6.3.3) (6.3.4) plan (6.4.1) costs (6.4.2) (6.4.3) (6.4.4) (6.4.5) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 58 20 2 7 29 3 1 8 118 130 ENGLAND - Average (median) 57 19 1 3 28 1 0 4 123 131 ENGLAND - Minimum 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 236 66 26 61 105 34 17 75 593 628
Upper Tier Average (median) 39 14 1 3 18 1 0 3 103 110
West Midlands Average (median) 46 20 2 2 27 1 0 6 130 134
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 36 10 0 3 16 1 0 3 106 110
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 44 18 0 0 18 0 0 75 0 75
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England -13 -1 -1 -3 -10 -1 0 71 -123 -56
Upper Tier LA's 5 4 -1 -3 0 -1 0 72 -103 -35
West Midlands LA's -2 -2 -2 -2 -9 -1 0 69 -130 -59
Statistical Neighbour LA's 8 8 0 -3 2 -1 0 72 -106 -35
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 14 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 129 Col 130 Col 131 Col 132 Col 133 Col 134 Col 135 Col 136 Col 137
Existing Early Capital Retirement Expenditure Costs from Revenue (commitment (CERA) Premature s entered Residual pension Joint use (Children's and Statutory retirement costs into by liability (eg FE, arrangem young people's /Regulatory / Redundancy 31/3/99) Careers Service, ents Insurance Monitoring national curriculum Total Local Authority services) (6.5.1) Duties (7.0.1) costs (7.0.2) (7.0.3) etc.) (7.0.4) (7.0.5) (7.0.6) assessment (7.0.7) Education Functions (7.0.8) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 0 53 10 16 3 1 1 1 83 ENGLAND - Average (median) 0 51 8 15 1 0 0 0 82 ENGLAND - Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENGLAND - Maximum 16 190 49 77 28 11 5 17 206
Upper Tier Average (median) 0 46 7 14 2 0 0 0 76
West Midlands Average (median) 0 54 9 21 3 0 0 0 89
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 0 44 7 14 2 0 0 0 65
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 0 70 2 3 1 0 0 0 76
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England 0 19 -6 -12 0 0 0 0 -6
Upper Tier LA's 0 24 -5 -11 -1 0 0 0 0
West Midlands LA's 0 16 -7 -18 -2 0 0 0 -13
Statistical Neighbour LA's 0 26 -5 -11 -1 0 0 0 11
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 15 of 16 LA Benchmarking Tables 2009-10 Per Capita Table (Net)
Budget Table 1 (Net) £ per capita - Appendix A All LAs To print use the buttons below. Col 138 Col 139 Col 140 Col 141 Col 142 Col 143 Col 144 Col 145 Col 146 Total Total Total Schools Youth Total LA Educatio Budget, Justice, Educatio n, Young Special Children n People?s Educatio and Function Learning n, Young s Budget and Learner People's (Includin Develop Support, Services g CERA) ment, Access, Budget plus Services Young (includin (Lines for People?s g CERA) 7.0.8 + Young Other Standards Fund Capital Expenditure from Learning (lines 7.1.4 + People School Development Grant - non- Allocation - non-devolved Revenue (CERA) (LA and 5.0.4 + 7.2.1) and Adult devolved (7.1.1) (7.1.2) Other Specific Grant (7.1.3) Total Specific Grants (7.1.4) Education Functions) (7.2.1) Develop 6.0.13 + (8.1.3) and ENGLAND - Average (mean) 1 3 2 5 1 4,862 498 89 5,450 ENGLAND - Average (median) 0 0 0 0 0 4,779 497 90 5,387 ENGLAND - Minimum 0 -2 0 0 -2 4,327 257 0 4,725 ENGLAND - Maximum 49 148 48 196 33 7,527 1,314 287 8,677
Upper Tier Average (median) 0 0 0 0 0 4,592 371 77 5,099
West Midlands Average (median) 0 0 0 0 0 4,687 534 91 5,298
Statistical Neighbours Average (median) 0 0 0 0 0 4,560 368 71 4,956
Own LA 885 Worcestershire 0 0 0 0 0 4,530 339 76 4,944
Variations in £ Worcestershire vs. (Median)
England 0 0 0 0 0 -249 -158 -14 -443
Upper Tier LA's 0 0 0 0 0 -62 -32 -1 -155
West Midlands LA's 0 0 0 0 0 -157 -195 -15 -354
Statistical Neighbour LA's 0 0 0 0 0 -30 -29 5 -12
Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 Figures are rounded so may not sum
28/08/2014 16 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 13 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 8th JULY 2010
STATEMENT ON FREE SCHOOLS
Written Ministerial Statement from Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove
Innovation in Pupil Place Planning
Today I am announcing the first 16 Free School proposals to progress to the next stage of the process and develop a full business case and plan.
We need to reform our education system if we are to accelerate improvement to keep pace with the highest performing systems of the world and ensure that every pupil growing up in this country gets a better chance of achieving their potential. Free Schools form an integral part of the Government’s education policy to improve choice for parents and raise standards for all young people.
The proposals I have agreed to move forward to business case and plan stage today represent a diverse mix: there are parent-led, community-led, sponsor-led and teacher- led proposals; there are faith and non-faith proposals; there are proposals for large secondary schools and for small primary schools. All of these proposals have been driven by demand from local people for improved choice for their young people and I am delighted that so many promising proposals have come forward at such an early stage.
I hope that many of the projects progressing today will become the first Free Schools in September 2011. This is a challenging timescale, and some groups may decide that it is preferable to open at a later date for practical reasons. To support groups in meeting the robust requirements of the business case and plan stage, we will now be providing the proposers that progress to this stage with support co-ordinated by a named contact within my Department. At the next stage, proposers will need to make a fully detailed business case for the new school and set out their plans for opening and operating the proposed school. I will make an assessment based on this final business case on whether to allow a new school to be set up.
The proposals announced today are just the start of our Free Schools programme. My Department has received a number of promising proposals for 2012 and 2013 and we will be making further announcements about taking these forward in due course. New proposals are frequently being submitted to the Department. We want it to be open to a diverse range of groups to come forward with proposals which meet the needs of their local area, and for proposals to progress at the pace which is right for both proposers and for parents and young people in the local area.
The 16 proposals approved to go forward to business case and plan stage are (in alphabetical order): • Bedford and Kempston Free School, Bedford Borough • The Childcare Company, Slough • Discovery New School, West Sussex • The Free School Norwich, Norfolk • Haringey Jewish Primary School, Haringey • I-Foundation Primary School, Leicester • King’s Science Academy, Bradford • Mill Hill Jewish Primary School, Barnet • Nishkam Education Trust, Birmingham • North Westminster Free School (ARK), Westminster • Priors Marston and Priors Hardwick School, Warwickshire • Rivendale Free School, Hammersmith and Fulham • St. Luke’s School, Camden • Stour Valley Community School, Suffolk • West London Free School, Ealing or Hammersmith and Fulham • Wormholt North Hammersmith Free School (ARK), Hammersmith and Fulham (to be known as Burlington Primary Academy)
I will update the House as these projects progress further.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Friday 8th October 2010 in the Council Chamber, County Hall
The meeting started at 2.00 pm
IN ATTENDANCE:
WSF Members
Bernard Roberts (Chair) - Prince Henry’s High School Marian Barton - Trinity High School Elizabeth Spencer - St. Richards CE First School Debbie Mitchell - Clifton-upon-Teme Primary Naomi Christelow - Evesham Nursery School Sean Devlin - Archdiocese of Birmingham Malcolm Richards - Governor, Bromsgrove David Hargreaves (Vice Chair) - Governor, Redditch Mary White - Governor, Bromsgrove David McIntosh - Governor, Wyre Forest Peter Ingham - Governor, Wyre Forest Glenys Blackmoor - Governor, Bromsgrove Prue Winton - Governor, Malvern Hills Frank Howard - Governor, Bromsgrove (substitute for June Longmuir) Judith Willis - Childcare Act Implementation Group Chris Hurley - PVI Sector Deborah Andrews - 14-19 Partnership John Allinson - Union Representative (substitute for Steve Baker)
Local Authority (LA) Officers
Andy McHale - Children’s Services Caroline Brand - Children's Services
1. APOLOGIES AND INTRODUCTIONS
1.1 Apologies
Carol Newton - Holyoakes Field First Julie Farr - Church of England Board of Education June Longmuir - Governor, Bromsgrove Steve Baker - Union Representative Councillor Liz Eyre - Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Young People 12-19 Years Councillor Marcus Hart - Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Safeguarding and Children and Young People 0-11 Years
1 Colin Weeden - Children's Services Trish Mallinson - Children's Services
1.2 The Chair welcomed substitute members Frank Howard and John Allinson to the meeting.
2. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (8th JULY 2010)
Agreed.
3. MATTERS ARISING
Under 3.2 a member of the WSF advised that clarification had been received from the LA on the transport issues but there were differences between VA and non VA schools, which would be communicated to Children's Services. It was confirmed that there is a contact available in Environmental Services for schools on the issues raised.
4. SCHOOLS BROADBAND AND HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY GRANT (HTG) ISSUES
4.1 The Chair proposed to take this item first and welcomed Dave Thomson EIA Learning Technologies and John Hunt from BECTA to the meeting.
4.2 Dave Thomson introduced the report and made the following points: - The impact of the in-year reduction of the HTG on both schools and the LA together with the future uncertainty has required a review of the Broadband infrastructure. The funding model is close to sustainability but will not allow significant future development. The annual cost of the BT infrastructure is £1.4m financed via the Broadband SLA and additional DSG devolved to and recouped from schools. The options in the paper are proposals designed to secure flexibility going forward. Domestic internet service arrangements are not able to cope with the full range of schools requirements. Any major issues such as significant viruses are able to be dealt with by the LA. The ability of the LA to move providers is limited given the existing contract but will be considered in the future and be kept under review.
4.3 John Hunt confirmed: - The development by BECTA of a Broadband entitlement model. Review of WCC current arrangements has mapped connectivity, applications and safeguards. The WCC model is a good fit in meeting the BECTA specification and is well equipped to move forward for any increased usage by schools and for any future developments. The current WCC provision is very cost effective as it does not involve purchasing a managed service too. It provides best value for service specification against cost.
4.3 In response members of the WSF commented: - Rural issues and aspects are important given the issues on the ability or not to procure fibre optic solutions.
2 If the sharing of the network with third parties is permitted will charges to schools be reduced? The objection to a reduction in the HTG to fund free schools.
4.4 The WSF then considered the options. Dave confirmed that option 1 is already in place as part of the SLA and is no change, except that further increases may need to be considered. Options 2 and 3 would generate additional revenue but if these were not utilised there would be the potential to pass these back to schools.
RESOLVED –
That the WSF agreed to consider the above options to secure the sustainability of the broadband network over the three years remaining of the current BT contract.
That any decision will be reviewed in light of budget modelling and government announcements and schools informed of any reductions or increases for each SLA period.
5. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 WSF Sub Group Scheme Review
(a) Andy advised that following the agreement at the last WSF meeting nominations had been sought for membership of the sub group. Interest from WSF members had been high and a meeting had taken place on 30th September 2010.
(b) The key issues discussed were: - Discussion of the background to the review. Sub Group Terms of Reference. Schools Forum existing powers and responsibilities. Consideration of key statutory documents including the School Finance Regulations, DfE Statutory Guidance for Fair Funding Schemes and the Worcestershire County Council (WCC) Scheme for Financing Schools. Initial consideration of other LA documentation including advice and guidance to schools.
(c) A further meeting had been arranged to specifically consider the other LA documentation and how it might need to be developed, together with the existing guidance on the use of School Fund, etc. All papers are on the WSF web site under WSF Sub Groups.
6. SCHOOL BALANCES UPDATE
(a) Caroline introduced the item, which detailed a letter sent to all schools challenged as part of the LA Management of School Surplus Balances Scheme in 2009/10. It summarised the outcomes of the process and reported all outstanding issues had been resolved. The process had been useful, resulting in more robust monitoring by schools. As a result there would be no proposals for clawback of balances.
(b) Members of the WSF commented as follows: - That the request for the LA to be more rigorous had been implemented. It was encouraging that, in the main Schools appeared to be compiling with the revised scheme requirements.
3 The potential impact on the outcomes on the financing of the scheme to support schools in financial difficulty and the payment of interest on surplus balances held by the LA. Given the likely financial position, more schools will require support and advice in the future from the LA on deficit budget management.
(c) Andy advised that the scheme for supporting schools in financial difficulty was a separate issue, with budget provision as part of the central DSG. So far no school had met the qualifying criteria. Similarly, interest was paid to surplus balances or charged to deficit balances as part of the provisions within the Worcestershire Scheme for Financing Schools. The balances sum being aggregated as part of the overall reserves and investment portfolios determined by County Council's financial procedures.
(d) Caroline advised the process would commence for 2010/11 balances with schools to be asked to predict in November 2010 their level of year end balance and to provide information on plans to spend. This would then be compared to the actual year end position, with schools given a final opportunity to provide relevant information. The process was likely to be even more robust this year, particularly for those schools where information is not forthcoming initially.
RESOLVED – The WSF noted and accepted the outcomes of the challenge process for 2009/10 and supported the continuing process for 2010/11.
7. EARLY YEARS UPDATE
7.1 Andy advised on the current position which had been discussed at a meeting of the Early Years Reference Group (EYRG) on 27th September 2010.
7.2 The new coalition Government has now confirmed the requirement for LA's to introduce a new Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) from April 2011 for those LA's yet to do so.
7.3 The WSF were advised of the ongoing work programme of the EYRG to include: - Review of current provider models and consideration of a further model for "school-run non maintained" provision. Budget allocations and in-year adjustments for providers. Participation count arrangements and payments to providers. The mandatory deprivation supplement. Funding of low incidence high cost SEN. Other issues including admissions, charging for provision in excess of the 15 hours and provider designation.
7.4 Given there is the likelihood of a further provider category, this will require formal consultation with providers and approval through the County Council Cabinet. The WSF were advised this would be picked up through a local WCC Autumn Term 2010 funding consultation. The WSF felt that the potential for charging was a key issue that could affect all early years' providers.
RESOLVED –
The WSF noted the current position and agreed to the consultation requirements.
4 The WSF supported the need for the EYRG to continue to lead on the implementation issues.
8. RESULTS OF THE JUNE 2010 CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOL FUNDING
8.1 Andy introduced the report, which summarised the outcomes of the June 2010 consultation from the previous Government.
8.2 This had been replaced by the consultation from the Coalition Government in July 2010. The WSF noted the outcomes, which showed support for mainstreaming of grants, activity led funding for calculating the basic entitlement and changes to the area cost adjustment.
9. CONSULTATION ON SCHOOL FUNDING 2011-12
9.1 Consultation Details
(a) Andy introduced the report, which summarised the key issues on the school funding consultation issued in July 2010 by the new Coalition Government.
(b) The key issues are: - The introduction of a Local Pupil Premium (LPP) from September 2011 to be funded from outside the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) to support disadvantaged pupils and potentially for looked after children and service children. Confirmation of the requirement to introduce an Early Years Single Funding Formula from April 2011 and potential changes to early years' pupil count arrangements. Confirmation of the retention of the "spend plus" methodology for the national allocation of the DSG for 2011-12. Proposals for some mainstreaming of some specific grants for schools into the DSG from 2011-12. Consideration of potential pupil count changes for pupils in pupil referral units, service children and home educated pupils. Confirmation of the continuation of a Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) for individual school budgets.
(c) The WSF raised issues on the funding source for the LPP, which was extremely unclear. In particular there was concern as to whether the existing "pockets of deprivation" funding in the DSG would be re-directed and if the age range of reception to year 11 included special schools.
(d) It was noted there was a need to include relevant issues in both the formal consultation response and in the local WCC Autumn Term 2010 funding consultation.
RESOLVED – The WSF noted the current position and agreed to the consultation requirements.
(e) Andy reported on the latest position from the f40 Group. The WSF noted the issues and endorsed the work being progressed including the County representation at the f40 executive and at the meeting with the Under Secretary of State for Schools on 30th September 2010.
5
9.2 Draft Response
(a) Andy advised that the County Council Cabinet at its meeting on 16th September 2010 considered the key aspects of the details within the consultation. They were advised that a draft response would be considered by the WSF at its meeting in October 2010.
(b) Andy advised that on question 4 for Looked After Children (LAC) further information was to be included concerning: - The need for robust data collection and monitoring. Difficulties on care and education being in different LA's in a significant number of (LAC) cases. The in-year mobility of the LAC cohort. The requirements for clarity on criteria for spend of a LAC LPP, the potential effect on the existing funding streams for LAC Personal Education Allowances and 1:1 tuition and the flexibility in the use of a LAC LPP.
(c) The WSF considered each of the questions in the draft consultation response and supported the responses detailed.
RESOLVED – The WSF approved the submission of the response provided and the inclusion of the further issues on the LAC LPP as detailed.
10. CONSULTATION ON THE SCHOOL FINANCE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2011
10.1 Andy introduced the report, which detailed key changes to the existing School Finance Regulations for 2011.
10.2 The key areas are detailed in the report and include early years, mainstreaming of grants, central expenditure, exclusions, federations, carbon reduction commitment, service children, academies and technical changes.
10.3 It was noted there was a need to include these issues in the local WCC Autumn Term 2010 funding consultation.
RESOLVED – The WSF noted the current position and agreed to the consultation requirements.
11. ACADEMY ISSUES
11.1 Current Position Update
(a) The WSF noted the current position on the number of schools becoming academies from September 2010 together with a list of applications for Academy status.
(b) This includes those under the previous and new arrangements. The WSF noted under the list of applications under the new arrangements that not all schools named were outstanding.
11.2 Further Funding Issues
Andy introduced the report, which advised on further funding issues including the ongoing uncertainty with the LA LACSEG calculation and its potential impact on the LA
6 budget in the future together with guidance on the transfer of balances when converting to academy status. The WSF noted the issues.
12. SECTION 251 LOCAL AUTHORITY BENCHMARKING 2010/11
Andy introduced the report, which detailed extracts from the 2010/11 benchmarking statistics. The WSF noted the key statistics and comparative information.
13. FREE SCHOOLS UPDATE
The WSF noted the current position and re-iterate the unfairness of the reduction of 50% in the HTG in 2010/11 to provide for a capital fund for such schools.
14. OTHER ISSUES
14.1 Caroline advised of the annual Finance Forum meeting to be held on 24th November 2010, where the DfE were programmed to attend and speak on the future funding issues.
14.2 Given the timescales for the national spending review it was agreed to keep with the existing programme of WSF meetings at this stage. Any proposed changes as a result of the national issues will be notified by the Clerk.
The meeting finished at 3.40pm
Date of next meeting: Friday 10th December 2010 at 2.00pm Kidderminster Room County Hall
7