Total Membership 25 The Forum is quorate if at least 40% (10) of the members are present
London Borough of Waltham Forest SCHOOLS FORUM Day/Date/Time Venue Wednesday 9th November 2016 Council Chambers 1st Floor, Waltham Forest Town Tea/Coffee and Light Refreshments: 5:00pm Hall Forest Road Walthamstow E17 4JF Main Meeting: 5:30pm Contact: Email: Jeanette Justice Business Support Team email Interim Clerk to Schools Forum [email protected] Maintained Primary Headteacher Representatives (4) Jane Harris Edinburgh Primary Kate Jennings Mission Grove Lindsey Lampard Chingford CofE Primary Linda Adair Henry Maynard Primary School and Nursery Primary Academies and Primary Free Schools Representatives (4) Maureen Okoye (Vice-Chair) Davies Lane Primary Academy & Selwyn Primary VACANCY Lynne Harrowell Larkswood Primary Academy Anne Powell Riverley Primary Maintained Primary Governor Representatives (3) Greta Akpeneye Thorpe Hall Primary Cllr Aktar Beg Edinburgh Primary Thomas Goodall Edinburgh Primary Nursery School Representative (1) Sandra Campbell Church Hill Nursery School and Children’s Centre & Low Hall Nursery School and Children’s Centre Maintained Secondary Headteacher Representatives (3) Grainne Smyth Leytonstone School Lynnette Parvez Kelmscott School Shona Ramsay (Chair) The Lammas School Secondary Academies and Secondary Free Schools Representatives (3) Mark Morrall Rushcroft / Chingford Foundation Gareth Cross Connaught School for Girls Rob Pittard Norlington School for Boys Maintained Secondary Governor Representative (1) Ian Moyes Heathcote School Special School and Special Academies Representative (1) Gary Pocock Hornbeam Academy PRU(1) Julian Lee Hawkswood Group Non School Members (4) Early Years Providers Sarah Kendrick (Redwood Pre-School) 16-19 Providers Penny Wycherley (Waltham Forest College) Trade Unions Steve White (NUT) Diocesan Moira Bishop (Brentwood Diocese) Total Membership 25 The Forum is quorate if at least 40% (10) of the members are present
AGENDA
Agenda Report Name Report Authors Item 1 Welcome all and Apologies Chair 2 Declaration of Interest All 3 Minutes of the Meeting held on 12th October Chair 2016 3.1 Matters Arising Chair / Duncan James-Pike 4 Early Years Funding Block – Initial feedback Eve McLoughlin from Early Years Task and Finish Group regarding free education for 2, 3 and 4 year olds for 2017-18 5 High Needs Block update for 2016-17 and Andrew Beckett forecast for 2017-18 Shehwar Sultan 6 2017-18 Provisional Local Funding Formula Duncan James-Pike allocation Sanjaya Gunatilake 7 Growth Fund 2017-18 Duncan James-Pike Brendan Wells 8 Any Other Business All 9 Date of Next Meeting: All 14 December 2016 (rescheduled from 7 December) 5:30pm (Light refreshments from 5:00pm) Committee Rooms 2 and 2a, Waltham Forest Town Hall
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
MINUTES OF SCHOOLS FORUM MEETING Wednesday 12 October 2016 Committee Room 3, Waltham Forest Town Hall 5:30 – 7:00pm ATTENDEES CONSTITUENT
Shona Ramsay Chair of Schools Forum and Secondary Headteacher Representative
Debbie Callender- Clerk to Schools Forum O’Neill [email protected] 020 8496 3669 Maintained Primary Headteacher Representatives (4) Jane Harris Edinburgh Primary
Kate Jennings Mission Grove School
Lindsey Lampard Chingford CofE Primary
Linda Adair - elected Henry Maynard Primary School and Nursery
Primary Academies and Primary Free Schools Representatives (4) Maureen Okoye Davies Lane Primary Academy & Selwyn Primary Academy (Vice-Chair)
Matt Hanks Roger Ascham Primary Academy – non-attendance see below under agenda item 4 Lynne Harrowell Larkswood Primary Academy
Anne Powell Riverley Primary Academy
Maintained Primary Governor Representatives (3) Greta Akpeneye Thorpe Hall Primary – apologies see below Cllr Akhtar Beg Edinburgh Primary Thomas Goodall Edinburgh Primary – apologies see below Nursery School Representative (1) Sandra Campbell Church Hill Nursery School and Children’s Centre & Low Hall Nursery School and Children’s Centre Maintained Secondary Headteacher Representatives (3) Lynnette Parvez Kelmscott School – apologies see below Grainne Smyth Leytonstone School – apologies see below Secondary Academies and Secondary Free School Representatives (3)
1 | Page
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
Mark Morrall Rushcroft / Chingford Foundation – apologies see below Gareth Cross Connaught School for Girls – apologies see below Rob Pittard Norlington School for Boys Maintained Secondary Governor Representative (1) Ian Moyes Heathcote School Special School and Special Academies Representative (1) Gary Pocock Hornbeam Academy PRU (1) Julian Lee Hawkswood Group – apologies see below Non-School Representatives (4) Sarah Kendrick Redwood Pre-School – Early Years Provider – apologies see below Steve White Trade Unions (NUT) Penny Wycherley Waltham Forest College representing the 16-19 Providers Sector Moira Bishop Diocesan – apologies see below LBWF Officers Linzi Roberts-Egan Deputy Chief Executive, Families and Homes Directorate Rosalind Turner Interim Director of School Standards Andrew Beckett Assistant Director - Inclusion Duncan James-Pike Strategic Finance Advisor – Children and Young People Services Raina Turner Head of Finance Families Group (Schools and Education Services) Gerry Kemble Head of Waltham Forest Traded Services John Darnbrook Programme Manager – Transformation Team Eve McLoughlin Head of Education Support Lindsay Jackson Education Business Consultant Sanjaya Gunatilake DSG Accountant Observers Graham Jackson School Business Manager - Willowfield Humanities College Sumera Beg School Business Manager - Chingford CofE Primary School (Infants site) Annette House Head of Business – Edinburgh Primary School
2 | Page
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
Minutes
1. Welcome all and Apologies The Chair welcomed all to the meeting and welcomed especially to the Forum’s newly elected members: Rob Pittard who is now the Secondary Academy representative and Linda Adair who is now the Maintained Primary Headteacher Representative. Clerk received the following apologies: • Thomas Goodall – Edinburgh Primary – Maintained Primary Governor Representative • Lynnette Parvez – Kelmscott School – Maintained Secondary Headteacher Representative • Grainne Smyth – Leytonstone School – Maintained Secondary Headteacher Representative • Mark Morrall – Rushcroft/Chingford Foundation – Secondary Academies and Secondary Free School Representative • Gareth Cross – Connaught School for Girls – Secondary Academies and Secondary Free School Representative • Julian Lee – The Hawkswood Group – PRU Representative • Moira Bishop – Diocese of Brentwood – Diocesan Representative • Sarah Kendrick – Redwood Preschool – Early Years Representative
Clerk received the following apology after the meeting • Greta Akpeneye – Thorpe Hall Primary – Maintained Primary Governor Representative
2. Declaration of interest There were none
3. Minutes of the last meeting held on 14 September 2016 The minutes of the last meeting were reviewed for accuracy.
The Clerk was asked to amend that Ian Moyes, Maintained Secondary Governor Representative was in attendance at the last meeting as he is missing off the attendance list from pages 1-2. This has been noted.
The Clerk was asked to amend the following: Page 10: Early Years National Funding Formula and Changes to the way the way three & four year old entitlements to childcare are funded – For Information and Decision It was noted under paragraph 4.18 number 3 the word ‘nursery’ is missing from the second line of the sentence, therefore it should read: Maintained schools are currently paid at a base rate which is £2.32 per hour higher than maintained nursery schools and PVIs. This should read:
3 | Page
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
Maintained nursery schools are currently paid at a base rate which is £2.32 per hour higher than maintained schools and PVIs. With the amendments noted, the minutes were signed off by the Chair as a true record of the meeting.
3.1 Matters Arising
There were no matters arising.
4. Schools Forum Academy Representatives and Maintained Schools Representation Vacancies All the vacancies have now been filled in the academy sector and maintained primary/secondary sectors however in the Schools Forum terms of reference it states that where there has been at least three consecutive non-attendances, the membership place has lapsed. This means that there is now a vacancy in the Primary Academy and Primary Free School sector. Schools Forum was therefore asked to nominate someone before the November meeting. If that does not happen, the Local Authority will seek to nominate someone by the December meeting.
No further comments or questions were raised.
5. The Future of Systems Leadership: Waltham Forest Learning Partnership and the impact of changes to Education Services funding Rosalind Turner introduced the report. The report sets out the latest position on the development of the Waltham Forest Learning Partnership At the last Schools Forum meeting there were discussions on the DSG funding and the ending of the Education Services Grant. There is a proposal to undertake a consultation with all schools on funding decisions required by December and at the same time a consultation with all schools on the proposed options for Waltham Forest Learning Partnership. It was also suggested to report back in the December meeting on the update with the decision on the Learning Partnership and particularly indicative decisions on the funding issues depending on what is heard from the national consultation. In terms of the national Drivers for change there are discussions across the country about the change in the education landscape with the increasing number of autonomous schools and academies, the government drive for sector-led improvement, school to school support and getting more diversity in the education system. Also the increasing role of the Regional Schools Commissioner to approve new schools.
The residual role for the Local Authority continues as champion for children and advocates for parents, and leading on early years, special needs, safeguarding, as well as the wider role of the council.
Can schools and the Local Authority develop a partnership together?
There are also a number of financial pressures for example the sustainability of smaller schools, implications of the change to the National Funding Formula, from 2019/20 the
4 | Page
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
Education Funding Agency is likely to fund all schools directly and there will be no role for a local schools forum.
There have been discussions for a while with headteachers and governors on these issues and how a new partnership could be developed. There seems to be a general commitment to developing a new partnership which should be school led, with agreed principles as set out in paragraph 4.4.
Various models were looked at through the Strategic Education Partnership (SEP) including those adopted by London Borough of Camden and Lincolnshire. Further details can be seen in Appendix A.
Questions/Comments
Question: The unions would like to be involved and not sure how you will involve us. Have you envisaged that only some schools will pay-in to the service? Response: The Trade Unions are welcome to contribute to the consultation. We need a general commitment to move forward with a Learning Partnership, and there might be different levels of involvement depending on the various roles and areas of concern.
Question: If the trade unions are to be part of the consultation how should the trade unions be involved in the consultation? Response: At the last JCC we sought views about the progress to date and this is a standing item, which was discussed last week. If there are any implications for members and unions in relation to the terms and conditions then it would be a routine part of the work that would be completed. We welcome through the JCC the unions’ position on this sort of collaboration.
Comment: How have schools been consulted to date? Not all are aware of the discussions. Response: We employed a temporary consultant, Jane Winterbone, who took indicative findings with some headteachers and governors and we are now at the stage the need to consult. .
The Deputy Chief Executive felt that despite many attempts to engage with Headteachers and governors regarding the learning partnership, not everyone has been part of the discussion. There is now the need for a wholescale consultation.
The Vice-Chair stated the learning partnership was promoted from the schools’ perspective and stipulated that it would be the Primary headteachers responsibility if they do not engage fully.
There will be a Whole School Conference taking place on 24 November.
Comment: In the examples for the agencies that would work together in the partnership there is not any mention of teaching school alliances. Answer: each respective school will be consulted and they can add in other roles and responsibilities such as TSAs
Financial Drivers for Change RT continued to cover the report in relation to financial drivers. There are cost pressures on all schools but particularly small schools or those with pupil vacancies. 5 | Page
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
How we sustain the system-led improvements and the work already started for the Primary Challenge and Secondary Challenge. At the moment these are being funded by the DSG reserves which were agreed in September 2014 but will come to an end. The Secondary Challenge is now in its second year and the Primary Challenge will continue for another financial year.
There is a discussion due between both primary and secondary schools about how to sustain a level of system led improvements and school-to-school support.
In September 2014 it was also agreed to set aside £2million for 2015-16 and 2016-17 for the development of a Universal Offer for Schools. Further information can be found in Appendix D. There is a decision to be made for schools to consider commissioning jointly a new Universal Offer fund of £760,000, or elements of these services.
Questions/Comments Question: In paragraph 5.2 in relation to the allocation of funds between the Secondary Challenge and Primary Challenge is there a reason why there is a difference between the funds? Response: The money is proportionate to the number and size of schools and was agreed by schools forum at the time. Comment: The information is being presented in what is called the Secondary Challenge Board which involves an evaluation process
Deputy Chief Executive explained further that the money belongs to schools and that it is not the Local Authority’s money.
Vice-Chair explained that there is a steering group for the Primary Challenge so thye will follow this up.
Question: Is there any reason why £760,000 for the Universal Offer fund was chosen as it was £2million across two years and indicative Response: There are two services that are being decommissioned which brought this up to £1million. One was the Restorative Justice and the other was the offer of tier 1 to 1½ CAMHS which had very little take-up of that. Question: How many schools have converted to being academy status? Response: 43% of primary schools have converted and 21% of secondary schools have converted to academy status.
Changes to LA and DSG Funding Schools Block
The Schools Block per pupil funding is higher at £42 per pupil funding but there is also a transfer of the proposed central block from the Education Services Grant. The Education Services Grant is coming directly to the Local Authority as an un-ring fenced grant that contributes to the Local Authority’s expenditure on education.
There are two elements to this. One is for Retained Duties (all maintained and academies). The LA has received £15 per pupil totalling £623,000 and the other for General Duties (for all maintained schools) where the LA has received £77 per pupil totalling 1.986 for 2016-17.
6 | Page
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
Next year the amount goes up to £17 for pupils aged 5-16 but it will go directly to schools via the Schools Block. The Local Authority will be asking schools by December to return the money to the Authority otherwise they cannot carry out the retained duties.
If schools were not to agree that the Local Authority would appeal to the Secretary of State. When the un-ring-fenced grant was looked at it was clear the Authority was spending double. There will be further discussions about what the Authority would do going forward.
A key change is that funding previously allocated through the ESG Retained Duties rate will be transferred into the Schools Block for 2017 to 2018. This amounts to an extra £17 per pupil aged 5 to 16.
The Stage 2 of the National Funding Formula has not commenced yet. What has been flagged during the consultation of the Early Years Finance Regulations will find out more about the retained duties. It is not known about the transitional funding.
Forum was directed to Appendix C: Funding implications for Local Authority and Schools. The first column shows the funding received for 2016-17, i.e. £56,000 for Schools Forum administration services; £760,000 for the Universal Offer (continuing services); £185,000 for the Universal Officer (decommissioned services) and £55,000 for the Universal Offer for contingency.
There is also the ESG Retained Duties at £623,000 and the ESG General Duties at £1,986,000. The total received for the Local Authority is £3,665,000.
The next column shows the years what the Local Authority is expecting funding to come out (funding loss). The Schools Forum funding is expected to cease in 2019-20. The Universal Offer funding runs out in March at a loss of about £1m. The Retained Duties the Local Authority is assuming we get this back from schools and the General Duties assuming there will be some transitional agreement.
Forum was directed to Table 3: Initial calculation of DSG top-slicing from all schools in 2017- 18.
The Local Authority will be asking Primary schools to replenish the whole funding of £96 per pupil with an additional £54 per pupil coming in. £17 of it is direct transfer of the retained element of the ESG added to the Schools Block. There is also an additional £25 for centrally retained items however the Local Authority is seeking clarification from the DfE regarding the application of this additional sum.
Question: If the numbers are all correct, if the decision to provide all the services and if all schools and academies contribute then it is 1% of their budgets is that an add-on? Response: Yes
Comment: It is known what the motivation is around the £17 per pupil and the need to get it back from schools. In the stage 1 of the National Funding Formula there were proposals to set up a Central Block but this has been postponed beyond the next financial year. Question: In a previous Schools Forum decision it was agreed we would not change the pupil rate for secondary and primary schools I do not understand why the pupil rate is the same for primary and secondary and it seems the secondary schools are getting more
7 | Page
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
Response: This query will be taken back to Service Management regarding the £17 per pupil but was working on the assumption that was the case. The way the top-slicing works you it out before you distribute the money which reduces the ‘pot’ then schools receive the differential Comment: The motivation is not known. It is tough for secondary schools but even tougher for primary schools because we are mainly in a fragmentation and we need to make tougher decisions. The process would feed this fragmentation if we do not act and hope the Primary headteachers would take this back to the other Primary colleagues to make a decision.
Next Steps The suggestion is to use the Survey Monkey consultation took which would be easier to complete online. There would be generic questions. The questions would be general for example: • Do you sign up to the idea of a Learning Partnership? • Do you agree with principles that we are suggesting? • Do you agree with the model we are suggesting initially? • Looking at the various models, which models would you favour at the moment?
There will be a whole school Conference on 24 November in which the London Borough of Camden and Lincolnshire Council have been invited to discuss how they implemented a similar model of a learning trust into their organisations. The consultation ends on 25 November.
Comment: This is about partnership and schools making decisions and what they are going to do in the future. What we are looking for is the partnership to be sustainable. Do we have the potential to work together? Do we want to find school-led place in the borough to work together? We need to make sure there is no duplication
Deputy Chief Executive explained that the Retained Duties through the ESG are the Local Authority statutory duties. If the Local Authority decide to delegate those duties to a third party, that would be the Council’s decision. The General Duties are a different issue. The Local Authority has been waiting for the outcome of the NFF but nothing has happened but they cannot wait any longer as there are functions associated with these duties. The Local Authority would like schools to assist the Local Authority to make a decision one way or another. If the Local Authority does not receive £17 per pupil rate they cannot deliver the functions and services and would then appeal to the Secretary of State. In regards the General Duties it is a question of whether schools have the appetite to enable the Local Authority to work through in the context of a Learning Trust/Partnership.
Deputy Chief Executive said there was a meeting this week with 60 Local Authority across the country and they were all saying the same message that time has caught up and that they had been waiting for the outcome of the NFF decision.
Votes 2.1 to Note – all agreed 2.2 – In favour: 13 Against: 0 Abstention: 1
8 | Page
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
DECISION Schools Forum noted The proposal for a Waltham Forest Learning Partnership and options to take this forward which will be discussed at a whole school conference on November 24th. The financial risks to Systems Leadership and services provided by the Local Authority Schools Forum agreed A consultation with head teachers and governors on the models for a Waltham Forest Learning Partnership and responses to the funding risks outlined in this paper The results of the funding consultation to be brought back for decision at a December meeting of Schools Forum, with any decisions on the Education Services Grant subject to the DFE completing its consultations on the statutory duties of local authorities and the funding necessary to support them.
6. Updates to the Schools Forum Forward Plan – tabled at meeting Duncan James-Pike outlined the report. Schools Forum was advised that the Forward Plan has been updated and picks up on the consultation processes. In Table 2 there are updates on the consultation to the Learning Partnership, the Growth fund criteria and recommendations of the Early Years Task & Finish Group by consultation. In previous years the November Schools Forum meetings were used to make key decisions regarding de-delegation and it was not necessary to have a December meeting. The major decisions are highlighted in the planned December meeting, such as decisions on centrally retained items (maintained schools and academies). Deputy Chief Executive stated that in terms of the Learning partnership consultation, there would be a need to have more time to reflect on the outcome of the consultation and therefore rescheduling the December meeting to a later date in December The recommendation was that the December meeting is rescheduled to take place on 14 December and that the Schools Forum Call Over rescheduled to 7 December to enable sufficient time to get all the papers ready from the outcome of the consultation to everyone.
In relation to the Growth Fund criteria which are a Schools Forum decision, Brendan Wells, Head of Primary Schools Capital Programme Development, has asked for two volunteers from each phase to meet with him in the next fortnight so that he can discuss the changes to the Growth Fund criteria especially to those schools that are expanding. This will form part of a mini task and finish group. The following volunteers put themselves forward: Graham Jackson – School Business Manager – Willowfield School Kate Jennings – Maintained Primary Headteacher Representative – Mission Grove Lindsey Lampard – Maintained Primary Headteacher Representative – Chingford CofE Primary Rob Pittard – Secondary Academy Representative – Norlington School for Boys
9 | Page
Schools Forum – 12 October 2016
DECISION Schools Forum noted the key deadlines and reports to be presented in the October 2016 to March 2017 cycle, subject to DFE consultations and their outcomes
7 Any Other Business Chair announced that this is the Clerk’s last meeting of Schools Forum and has worked with Schools Forum for a long time and felt it was important to thank her for her hard work. Chair also stated she is grateful for the Clerk’s efficiency and warmth that she has given to Schools Forum and that her reason for leaving Waltham Forest is to start her own business. Schools Forum wishes her well in the future. Chair provided the Clerk with a gift.
8 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting shall take place on Wednesday 9 November 2016 at 5:30pm (light refreshments from 5:00pm) in the Council Chambers, Waltham Forest Town Hall The meeting ended at 7:00pm
10 | Page
LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST
Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 4 9 November 2016
Report Title Early Years Funding Block – Initial feedback from Early Years Task and Finish Group regarding free education for 2, 3 and 4 year olds for 2017-18 Decision/ For Discussion and Decision Discussion/ Information
Report Author/ Eve McLoughlin Head of Education Support Contact Tel:- 020 8496 3576 [email protected] details
Appendices Appendix A: Early Years Task & Finish Group (EYTFG) voting members Appendix B: Summary of EYTFG additional information, discussions and decisions Appendix C: Summary LA statutory requirements Appendix D: Draft 2017-18 centrally retained budget Appendix D1: Proposed LA Early Years & Childcare staffing structure Appendix E : Significant interventions 2015/16 Appendix F : Indicative EYNFF hourly rate modelling 2017-18 Appendix G : 2017-18 hourly rate modelling charts Appendix H :Revised underspend 2015-2019 after 2015-16 closedown Appendix I: High Needs Spend on Early Years
1. SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides initial feedback following the first two meetings of the Early Years Task and Finish group on 5 October 2016 and 18 October 2016
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That Schools Forum notes:
Page 1 of 9
2.1.1 Notes the feedback from the first two meetings of the Early Years Task and Finish group on 5 October 2016 and 18 October 2016
2.1.2 Notes the LA’s draft centrally retained budget for 2017-18 as set out in Appendix D, subject to the national consultation outcome
2.1.3 Notes the draft Early Years underspend reserve 2015-16 to 2018-19 as set out in Appendix H, subject to the national consultation outcome and local consultation processes
2.2 That School Forum agrees:
2.2.1 Agrees that all Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF) financial modelling will be based on 10% of the overall funding available being allocated to supplements, minus the deductions for centrally retained expenditure and the SEND inclusion fund.
2.2.2 Agrees that all EYNFF financial modelling will be based on predicted expenditure being fully funded by the annual Early Years Block funding provided by the DfE/EFA, minus the deductions for centrally retained expenditure and the SEND inclusion fund
2.1.3 Agrees that further consultation takes place as outlined in Section 6
3. REASON
3.1 The Local Authority is required to consult annually with Schools Forum on arrangements for Early Years provision.
4. BACKGROUND
4.1 Schools Forum requested that an Early Years Task and Finish Group (EYTFG) be set up by the lead officer for the Early Years Block to make recommendations to Schools Forum, based on wider consultation with Free Early Education Entitlement (FEEE) providers operating in the Borough on matters regarding the Early Years Block 2017-18 funding.
4.2 A process was undertaken via the LA’s education website, The Hub, to seek expressions of interest from 10% of providers currently commissioned to provide FEEE places, to form an EYTFG.
4.3 Following receipt of expressions of interest, the membership of the group has now been confirmed and consists of the members outlined in Appendix A.
4.4 This report summarises the key information, discussions and decisions of the EYTFG. A summary of the more detailed discussions is outlined at Appendix B
5. Summary of key discussions and agreed actions from initial meetings
Page 2 of 9
5.1 Local Authority Funding to Providers & LA Centrally retained funding
5.1.1 The proposed 7% cap on centrally retained funding from the Early Years Block funding 2017-18 and 5% from 2018-19 is a maximum cap. EYTFG acknowledged the fact that Waltham Forest was an exception as a borough that currently had a high pass through rate to providers.
5.1.2 The LA has a number of statutory duties with regards to all Early Education and Childcare providers, not just providers delivering free early education places. There are 96 early years providers and 238 childminders registered on the Ofsted Early Years Register currently, and 48 schools take children aged two and three, The LA also has to provide a range of support and information to all parents / carers of children under 5. A summary of these duties is outlined at Appendix C.
5.1.3 The only changes that are likely to be made to the 2014 statutory requirements are in respect of how the EYNFF must be constructed, which will be confirmed once the results of the recent consultation are known.
5.1.4 The August 2016 EYNFF consultation document published by the DfE states that retention of a central budget by the LA is clearly justifiable and appropriate to deliver their statutory duties and to administer the free early education entitlement.
5.1.5 With the cessation of the LA’s Education Services Grant and other revenue and capital grant funding that was previously available to fund the delivery of the LA’s statutory duties with regards to Early Education and Childcare, the Early Years Block of the DSG will be the only funding available to fund the delivery of these duties.
5.1.6 A summary of the 2017-18 Early Years block indicative funding provided by the DfE/EFA is outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1 Funding No of children £ Equivalent Hourly Rate Universal 3-4 yr old 4,908 (pte) 15,442,095 £5.52 entitlement funding Additional 3-4 yr old 677 (pte) 2,129,064 £5.52 funding for working parents Maintained Nursery 270 235,588 £1.53 supplementary funding (pte - LA estimate) Early Years Pupil 713 (pte) 215,485 £0.53 Premium Criteria based 2 yr old 921 2,973,000 £5.66 entitlement funding Total Early Years Block 20,995,232 Page 3 of 9
Funding
5.1.7 All financial modelling has been based on the LA centrally retaining 5% (£1,049,761) of the total Early Years Block funding and a further 5% (£1,049,761) being allocated to the SEND inclusion fund.
5.1.8 The LA has already begun an internal process to review the current Early Years and Childcare team staffing establishment to ensure that the LA continues to meet its statutory duties. Details of the proposed staffing structure is outlined at Appendix D1.
5.1.9 A copy of the proposed draft centrally retained budget to fund the posts and services that will deliver the LA’s Early Years and Childcare statutory duties are outlined at Appendix D.
5.1.10 The 2017-18 Early Years Block budget includes only 7/12th of the annual budget in relation to the new statutory requirement to increase to 30 hrs FEEE for some 3 year olds from September 2017. It is estimated that in 2018 -19 the full year effect will raise the 5% allowable for centrally retained budgets from £1,049,761 to £1,232,252. The centrally retained budget for 2017-18 will be set at £1,232,252, making up the balance from the early years underspend reserve. This will ensure ongoing sustainability and provide capacity to carry out the preparatory work for the introduction of the 30hrs requirement in September 2017. Using the Early Years Block underspend reserve maximises the level of funding passported to providers from the 2017- 18 Early Years Block funding and ensures that the centrally retained budget remains at 95%, above the 93% allowed.
5.1.11 The quality and sufficiency of early years and childcare places are a priority for the LA. There is therefore an emphasis on providing support, advice and information to new providers; those judged less that good by Ofsted; and those were there are significant safeguarding and/or welfare concerns. Significant resource across teaching and learning, business, premises and safeguarding often needs to be allocated to address and resolve these issues. Outlined in Appendix E is a summary of the number of settings (129) where a significant resource has been provided during the academic year 2015/16.
5.1.12 In addition the LA provides universal support, advice and training via the Hub website and endeavour to provide one to one support to all providers at least once a year. This helps to ensure that the LA has sufficient relevant information and feedback to enable services to be planned and delivered to meet schools and providers’ needs and to improve quality.
5.1.13 The EYTFG propose that the LA centrally retained budget set out in Appendix D and Appendix H be agreed and that the LA decides how it should be spent to meet its statutory duties
Page 4 of 9
5.2 2017-18 Base Rates
5.2.1 There was consensus from EYTFG that they agreed to the majority of proposals in the EYNFF consultation.
5.2.2 It was noted that if top-up funding for 2 year olds continues at a rate that is greater than that received from the DfE, this would result in a reduction in the 3-4 year old funding block as it would be transferring funding to the 2 year old block.
5.2.3 EYTFG felt that it may be appropriate to look at a phased reduction of the 2 year old hourly rates.
5.2.4 Officers were asked to prepare three models of funding showing the indicative impact to providers’ income of changing funding for 2 year olds and 3-4 year olds using:
1. The current funding rate for 2 year olds remaining at £6;
2. The funding rate for 2 year olds in line with funding received by DfE/EFA (£5.09); and,
3. A funding rate for 2 year olds at a mid-range rate (£5.55).
5.2.5 The additional costs incurred by Maintained Nursery Schools (MNS), as opposed to a maintained school or PVI provider, relate mainly to the statutory requirement to have a Head teacher. In the past there has also been a general expectation that MNS would provide additional support within the community.
5.2.6 The total top-up funding received from the DfE/EFA for MNS is approximately £210k (after the deductions for the centrally retained budget and the SEND inclusion fund) which, if divided amongst the three MNS, would equate to £70k per nursery.
5.2.7 There are currently 3 MNS in the Borough, two of which were hard federated in February 2015 under one Governing Body and one Headteacher, the headship and management of the other is commissioned by the LA from a local school.
5.2.8 Officers were asked to prepare three models of funding showing the indicative impact of funding changes to MNS using:
1. Retaining the current average 2016-17 hourly rate (£7.12);
2. The funding rate for top-up for MNS in line with funding received by DfE/EFA); and,
3. A mid-range rate
Page 5 of 9
5.2.9 The results of the hourly rate modelling for 2, 3 and 4 year olds requested are outlined at Appendix F.
5.2.10 All providers, with the exception of MNS and the LA Nursery will see a further increase in their 2017-18 hourly rate for 3-4 year olds of between 4% and 6%, above the 4% increase applied in 2016-17.
5.2.11 MNS and the LA’s nursery (Snowberry) will see a reduction in their total annual funding under each of the models of between an estimated 7% and 11%.
5.2.12 Providers who deliver 2 year old places, under model two would see no change to their hourly rate, model one and three would see reductions in their hourly rate of 15% and 7.5% respectively.
5.2.13 Table 2 outlines the estimated number of hours that will be delivered in respect of 2 year olds, by sector, using January 2016 census data. Table 2: Provider Type Number of 2yr old % of all Number of hours delivery hours providers Maintained Nursery 59,212 11% 3 Schools Maintained Schools 65,356 12% 11 Academy Schools 60,887 12% 12 PVI term time providers 175,959 34% 28 PVI year round providers 158,084 30% 36
Childminders 5,495 1% 8 Total 524,993 100% 98
5.2.14 There are significantly more children funded as 3-4 year olds (4,907) than 2 year olds (921) .The impact of any reduction in the current £6 per hour rate for 2 year olds is likely to be minimised or offset across the providers total annual EYNFF income for the majority of providers by the increase in hourly rates for 3-4 year olds
5.2.15 Appendix G contains charts outlining the % increase/decrease under each model across the total indicative annual EYNFF income for 2, 3 and 4 year olds when compared to 2016-17.
5.2.16 Appendix G shows that any move from the current rates of funding for 2,3 & 4 year olds (model 2), will increase the number of providers likely to see a reduction in their total annual EYNFF funding (across 2,3 and 4 year olds).
5.2.17The LA will not have an accurate estimate of numbers of children on which to base the final hourly rate until the October 2016 census data has been submitted and analysed. Once this information is available, the April 2016- Aug 2016 actual hours and October 2016 census data will be used to forecast hours that will be delivered between April 2017- March 2018. This data will be used to finalise the hourly rates for each model for 2017-18 which providers will be consulted on.
Page 6 of 9
5.3 Supplements
5.3.1 It was agreed that the current level of 10% of the overall funding available being allocated to supplements, minus the agreed deductions for centrally retained expenditure and the SEND inclusion fund, should be retained as this meant that all providers received a good base rate.
5.3.2 There was concern that under the current proposals quality would not be a permissible supplement. This was felt to be important to incentivise and maintain quality. It was also felt that this had significantly impacted on the improvement in quality of provision across the borough, particularly in the PVI sector over the last few years.
5.3.3 Further work will be carried out by the EYTFG at their next meeting to propose supplements for wider consultation with providers.
5.4 Use of 2015-16 to 2018-19 EY Underspend Reserve
5.4.1 A significant part of the underspend reserve was allocated in 2016-17 to top up the hourly rate received from the DfE for 2 year old places to £6 per hour (£500k) and increase the base rate of all 3 and 4 year olds by 4% (£674k), despite not having received an increase in funding from the DfE.
5.4.2 Moving forward the EYNFF should not be dependent on the underspend reserve but fully funded by the annual Early Years Block funding provided by the DfE/EFA.
5.4.3 A copy of the Early Years underspend reserve, following the closure of the 2015-16 financial year accounts is outlined at Appendix H.
5.5 Meeting the needs of children with SEND
5.5.1 The planned expenditure for 2016-17 as agreed by Schools Forum for the provision of SEND specialist services provided free at the point of delivery are outlined in Table 3 below:
Table 3:
Service Budget £K Disability Enablement Service 500 Education Psychology SLA- demand led referral service across 150 PVI and schools SaLT Contract- 2 x universal visits to PVI and schools 130 SEN FEEE hourly rate tops up for children not on an EHC plan 250 Total 1,030
Page 7 of 9
5.5.2 Details of the Disability Enablement Service (DES) funded via the Early Years Block and High Needs Block are outlined in Appendix I
5.5.3 The budget for the SEND FEEE top up for children not on an EHC plan was initially set at £250k per annum. Table 4 below outlines the number of children approved for top-up funding over the April to August 2016 period:
Table 4 Total High Medium No of No of Children (£12/hr top (£6/hr top Schools in PVI’s in up) up) receipt of receipt of SEN top SEN top up up 2 year olds 32 2 30 7 11 3 year olds 130 6 124 19 31
5.5.4 Payments made over the period April to August 2016 in respect of these top ups came to almost £200k. If this level of approvals were to continue until the end of the financial year this could result in expenditure of up to £480k. Any expenditure exceeding the £250k budget would need to be sourced from the Early Years Block underspend reserve. If this level of funding is needed moving forward into 2017-18 it would need to be considered as part of the 2017-18 SEND Inclusion fund budget.
5.5.5 The DES will clarify if the autism and learning difficulties outreach service commissioned from Whitefield School is available to PVI’s. If this service is not available to PVI’s, this may need to be reviewed to ensure parity between the PVI and School sectors and may involve allocating additional funding.
5.5.6 Further work will be undertaken by the EYTFG to establish which services will be consulted on with providers for inclusion in the SEND Inclusion fund for 2017-18.
6. Consultation
6.1 Consultation will take place in phases, as for the 2016-17 formula to ensure that the information is received in manageable amounts.
6.2 The first consultation on the base rates, using the models outlined in Appendix F, and funding supplements, will be carried out before Christmas, once October 2016 Census data is finalised.
6.3 Further consultation on the SEND inclusion fund and Early Years Block underspend reserve will be carried out before the January and February 2017 Schools Forum meetings.
Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9
Appendix A: Early years Task & Finish Group Voting Members
Maintained Sandra Executive Church Hill & Low Hall Nursery School / Campbell Head teacher School Nursery Ruslan Headteacher St Patrick’s Catholic Primary School Protsiv School Reps Kate Headteacher Mission Grove Primary Jennings Kathryn Headteacher Greenleaf Primary Soulard Academy Graham Chair of Lion Academy Trust & Arbor School Moss Trustees / Academy Reps Vice Chair of (Barclay/Sybourn/Thomas Trustees Gamuel/Davies Lane/Selwyn) Maureen Executive Arbor Academy Davies Lane Okoye Head teacher /Selwyn PVI Term Sue Ruff Pre-school St Andrews Preschool Time Coordinator Provider Ruby Marwat Business The Cornerstone Preschool Reps Manager Mahf Ambia Business Early Education Centre Nurseries Owner PVI Year Sarah Officer Redwood Preschool Round/Full Kendrick Manager Daycare Chris Sheen Managing Footsteps Day Nursery Chingford Reps Director & Leytonstone Hannah Group Footsteps Day Nursery Chingford McCarthy practice lead/ Manager Sadaqat Ali Managing Excel Day Nursery Khan Director/
Manager
LBWF Will represent Childminder’s sector Childminding Childminders Development Workers
Appendix B Summary of EYTFG additional information, discussions and decisions
Local Authority Statutory Duties
The Council has a number of statutory duties with regards to Early Education and Childcare, which are outlined in the Early Education and Childcare Statutory Guidance for local authorities, September 2014. A full copy of these statutory duties is available in a document produced by the DfE at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/35159 2/early_education_and_childcare_statutory_guidance_2014.pdf
There is some uncertainty currently regarding which statutory duties the LA will retain for schools (reception age children upwards) , however there are no indications that there will be any changes to the statutory duties that the LA has regarding early years (children taking up their free early education entitlement (FEEE) with a school or PVI provider prior to reception age).
The LA has already begun an internal process to review the current staffing establishment to ensure that the LA continues to meet its statutory duties. Staff consultation closes on 9 November. Staff can put forward alternative proposals. The final structure will not be available until any alternative proposals have been considered and may result in the final structure/budget being different to that outlined in Appendix D.
The main purposes of the re-organisation are to focus on meeting the LA’s statutory duties; continue services where there would be a high risk or high impact if they ceased; and to improve efficiency and consistency further. It also aims to ensure that these services are sustainable and funded within the 5% centrally retained funding budget available as indicated in the EYNFF consultation.
EYTFG asked for further clarification as to what roles some of the posts would fulfil which were provided.
The Hub and the Children and Young Peoples Directory (CYPD) are key cost effective ways in which the LA meets its statutory duty to provide support, advice, training and information to providers and parents/carers. The costs of providing this service are funded jointly (50/50) from the centrally retained element of the Early Years Block and by schools via universal services funding agreed by Schools Forum. If the schools funding ceased, these services may be at risk.
The LA provides a significant amount of information, more than a number of other local authorities provide, regarding how the centrally retained funding is spent to ensure transparency.
2017-18 Base rates
There was consensus from EYTFG that they agreed to the majority of proposals in the EYNFF consultation with the exception of the following concerns:
Page 1 of 5
i) Some providers get paid less than others currently. All providers, with the exception of Maintained nursery schools and the one LA run Day care setting, are paid at the same base rate under the current 2016-17 funding formula within Waltham Forest.
ii) MNS may not be sustainable under the proposal that they will move towards the same base rate as all other providers by 2019-20 was implemented. The proposed top up of £1.38 may not be sufficient to cover the shortfall between current funding levels and the proposed new 2017-18 funding levels. Officers confirmed that these concerns had also been raised by the LA as part of the response to the consultation.
iii) The lack of clarity regarding the funding level for the proposed Disability Access Fund (DAF), which children in receipt of DLA would be entitled to, and the number of children in Waltham Forest that would be eligible for this. Officers confirmed that these concerns had also been raised by the LA as part of the response to the consultation as well as how frequently this funding would be received by the LA in order to ensure providers receive regular and timely payments. However, it is not believed that the level of funding will be that significant, nor are there likely to be a high number of children who would be eligible. It is therefore key that the EYTFG looks at the SEND inclusion fund and how that will best support children with SEND.
2 Year Old Funding Rates
EYTFG felt strongly that any revision to the current funding formula should not result in a significant reduction of the 2 year old funding rate as this is likely to impact on the number of providers offering places. This is due mainly to the staff to child ratios of 1:4 and the number of children and/or their families requiring higher than average levels of support. However it was felt that it was important that children/families receive this support as it has positive impact/outcomes for the child.
Approximately 1,500 children are eligible for a 2 year old place and 921 (61%) had taken up a place at the time of the January 2016 census.
Information currently available indicated that most fee structures used by providers did not have significant differences in the fees charged for 2 year olds and 3 and 4 years olds despite the fact that staff to child ratios are significantly different for 2 year olds (1:4) and 3 and 4 year olds (1:8).
EYTFG confirmed that generally, where unit costing exercises were carried out, fees were set by taking the total expenditure across all age ranges and dividing it by the total number hours provided.
There are various methods of calculating unit costs. Calculating them by taking the total expenditure does not reflect the true cost of delivering a place across each age range accurately and that the ratios of staff to children differ considerably. This would suggest an element of cross subsidy across the age-ranges currently exists.
Page 2 of 5
Minimum Funding Guarantee
It was agreed by members that a minimum funding guarantee should not be applied.
Maintained Nursery Schools (MSN)
Concern was raised that continuing to subsidise MNS would not necessarily prepare them for the potential of a reduction in funding within 2 years, and possibly result in a significant drop in funding over a short period of time at the end of the 2 year period if no action was taken now.
Current legislation, governance and staffing requirements within MNS reduce the options available to them to make financial savings. The LA has included this in their response to the EYNFF consultation. The DfE have said that a consultation on the sustainability and scope for efficiencies across MNS would be undertaken by them in due course.
Previously the LA did not receive any top up funding for MNS in the Early Years Block Funding, therefore any top up to their hourly rate was being subsidised by all the other providers. The introduction of a specific top up from the DfE/EFA would lead to the level of subsidy by other providers being reduced.
The variance between the number of hours quoted by the DfE (4,908) and the figure used in the LA modelling (5,207) is due to using the estimated numbers on roll for 2016-17, which will often be higher than the number counted on the Census. This is due mainly to the number of children eligible for funding locally are not counted in the statutory census as they are funded above and beyond the statutory entitlement e.g. from the time a child is 2 and a month after a child is 3, as opposed to the term after these dates. There will also be new settings and increases in numbers that were not in place at the time of the census. An adjustment is therefore required to capture these factors when modelling the budget.
Supplements
The introduction of a higher base rate would reduce the impact for new providers not in receipt of the quality supplement until after their first Ofsted inspection as per the current LA EYNFF financial procedures.
The LA and the London Councils responses to the EYNFF consultation have raised the issue that under the current proposals a quality supplement could not form part of the EYNFF. Until the results of the consultation confirm whether a quality supplement is allowable, the recommendation is that this should be explored further at a future meeting.
Support, Advice and Training
Support advice and training to early years providers in 2017-18 will be delivered via a range of services free at the point of delivery, subsidised (part-funded by the LA centrally retained budget and EY underspend reserve), or traded.
Page 3 of 5
Support advice and training will be delivered via a combination of core LA staff and services commissioned via partners and external organisations.
Use of the 2015-16 to 2018-19 EY Underspend Reserve
Detailed information outlining the use of the centrally retained funding for 2016-17 and the use of the underspend reserve from 2015-16, was agreed by Schools Forum in February 2016, recorded as a public document that is available on the LBWF and The Hub websites. A full update on the use of the underspend reserve was not available until the 2015-16 accounts were finalised in summer 2016.
Meeting the needs of children with SEND
EYTFG felt that it may be useful to have SENCO forums across schools and PVIs to share information and good practice. This would improve communication to SENCO’s in schools and PVIs with regards to the support, advice and pathways that are available to them, which would in turn support them as professionals and those children in their settings who require additional support.
A range of information regarding SEND support and pathways is available on The Hub website, of which SENCO’s should be aware. It is expected that some of the work around improving communication and setting up SENCO forums will be carried out by the proposed new Assessment and Progress lead post, who would liaise and work in partnership with schools and PVIs across these areas. More detailed work around the role of this post will be done once the internal staff reorganisation consultation is finalised.
The EY mainstream and PVI providers budget referred to in Appendix I is for early years children on EHC plans. The cost of a child on an EHC plan in a PVI sector provider or MNS is greater as they do not receive an SEN notional budget, as maintained schools do. The top up funding for children who are not on an EHC plan is funded from the £250k budget that forms part of the SEND inclusion fund outlined in Table 3 in the main schools forum report (which looks like it will be overspent for 2016-17 currently).
Clarification is required as to whether all schools and PVI’s providers receive some input, particularly from Area SENCO’s and schools teaching and learning consultants, or whether these are demand-led services.
All PVI settings have access to universal visits from Area SENCO’s. There appear to be some settings that are offered a visit but do not take up the offer. The majority of PVI’s present have said that they are satisfied with the level of support that they get. It is important to clarify that the Area SENCos role is to support and empower the SENCo in the PVI setting but not to carry out the role for them. It may be that as part of the CPD for their SENCo, PVI settings may need to fund some additional training themselves. No complaints have been received, or issues been raised with managers in the DES service with regards to the service delivered by the Area SENCOs. If there had been issues, the expectation is that this would have been raised with the DES service direct.
Page 4 of 5
The LA will provide further details of the a support package to PVI settings from Area SENCOs and schools teaching and learning consultants at a future meeting.
The commissioned SEND outreach service from Whitefield is a very new service, so information with regards to the usage of it is not be possible at the moment, however this information would be collected and monitored as part of the normal contract monitoring processes within the DES.
Page 5 of 5
Appendix C- SUMMARY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES STATUTORY DUTIES WITH REGARDS TO EARLY EDUCATION AND CHILDCARE –September 2014
In the guidance ‘provider’ means:
• an early years provider other than a childminder registered on the Ofsted Early Years Register; ( 96)
• a childminder registered on the Ofsted Early Years Register; ( 238)
• a childminder registered with a childminder agency that is registered with Ofsted; or
• schools taking children age two, three (and rising threes) and over and which are therefore exempt from registration with Ofsted as an early years provider. (48)
INEQUALITIES & DISADVANTAGE require local authorities and their partners to improve the outcomes of all children under 5 and reduce inequalities.
Promote equality and inclusion, particularly for disadvantaged families, looked after children, children in need and children with disabilities or special educational needs by removing barriers of access to early education and working with parents to give each child support to fulfil their potential. Local authorities must ensure they meet their duties under the Equality Act 2010 when securing early education places.
Take action over concerns about early years providers that do not actively promote fundamental British values, or which promote views or theories as fact which are contrary to established scientific or historical evidence and explanations.
SEND
Special educational needs Local authorities must ensure that all providers in the maintained and private, voluntary and independent sectors that they fund to deliver funded early education places are aware of the requirement on them to have regard to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0-25 which gives guidance on supporting children with special educational needs (SEN) or disabilities.
CHILDCARE SUFFICIENCY
To secure sufficient childcare places. Secure sufficient childcare, so far as is reasonably practicable, for working parents, or parents who are studying or training for employment, for children aged 0-14 (or up to 18 for disabled children) so that parents are able to work because childcare places are available, accessible and affordable and are delivered flexibly in a range of high quality settings.
Page 1 of 7
Secure free early years provision for children who meet the eligibility criteria for an FEEE place
Report annually to elected council members on how they are meeting their duty to secure sufficient childcare, and make this report available and accessible to parents.
To ensure parents have a choice of taking up their child’s early education place in a variety of settings and are provided with comprehensive information about their child’s entitlement to an early education place and childcare options in their area.
ensuring there is sufficient childcare available to meet the needs of: disabled children; children from families in receipt of the childcare element of Working Tax Credit or Universal Credit; children with parents who work irregular hours; children aged two, three and four taking up early education places; school age children; and children needing holiday care;
information about the supply and demand of childcare for particular age ranges of children, and the affordability, accessibility and quality of provision
details of how any gaps in childcare provision will be addressed.
INFORMATION TO PARENTS AND PROSPECTIVE PARENTS
To establish and maintain a service providing information, advice and assistance to parents and prospective parents about their entitlement to free early education and childcare in the area
Determining eligibility for free of charge early years provision
Ensure that parents are aware:
• of early education places for two-, three- and four-year-olds;
• that they can choose to continue to take up their child’s 15 hour early education entitlement at another early education provider until their child reaches compulsory school age
• that a place in a school nursery does not guarantee admission to the school and parents must apply for a place at the school if they want their child to transfer to the reception class;
• how to find childcare and early education provision in their area; and
• how to assess the quality of that provision.
Ensure that parents are aware of local authority procedures to check eligibility for early education places for two-year-olds, and any implications for the use of their personal data. Page 2 of 7
Ensure that parents can clearly see, from the information they receive from their provider, that they have received their child’s full 15 hour place completely free.
Make parents aware of the quality of providers delivering early education places based on the provider’s most recent Ofsted inspection.
Encourage take-up of early education places and undertake outreach activities to identify children who are not taking up their full hours and support them to do so.
Ensure that parents and providers are aware that there is no requirement for all early education places to be delivered only over 38 weeks of the year or in line with maintained school term dates.
Enable parents to take up their child’s early education place in patterns of hours that “stretch” their child’s entitlement by taking fewer hours a week over more weeks of the year, where there is provider capacity and sufficient parental demand.
Act as a broker between overall parental demand in the area and provider capacity, seeking to provide the maximum possible flexibility where demand exists beyond the minimum models
Support parents to identify providers who can offer early education places on the days and at the times needed by the parent.
Ensure parents are aware that the entitlement to an early education place does not offer a guarantee of a place at any one provider or a particular pattern of provision.
Consider the impact of the educational experience and continuity of care for children when enabling children to take up their early education place at more than one provider.
Publish their local flexible offer.
Ensure that eligible two-year-old children and all three- and four-year-old children moving to England from another country can access a place on the same basis as any other child in the local authority area.
Have a complaints procedure for parents who are not satisfied that their child has received their early education place or with any aspect of the way in which they have received it and publicise this to parents.
ATTACHING REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDERS FUNDED TO DELIVER FEEE
Limit the requirements local authorities can impose when they make arrangements to deliver early education places for two-, three- and four-year-olds to those which ensure:
• early education places are delivered completely free of charge to parents; Page 3 of 7
• early education places are provided flexibly in a pattern which meets the needs of parents;
• that the funding provided is used properly and in accordance with any arrangements made with providers (FEEE contract)
• that providers will actively promote fundamental British values and not promote views or theories as fact which are contrary to established scientific or historical evidence and explanations;
• that the provider meets the needs of disabled children and children with special educational needs; and
• that providers keep children safe.
• can refuse to fund providers who meet the quality criteria set out re Ofsted grade
If funding is withdrawn on the grounds that a provider does meet one or more of the criteria , local authorities should secure alternative provision for children taking up their early education place at those providers as soon as practicable. In cases where funding is withdrawn in these circumstances, local authorities should make arrangements for the review of their decision.
In all cases where funding is withdrawn, the local authority should give the provider a written explanation of the decision to withdraw funding.
Limit the requirements they place on providers judged less than ‘good’ by Ofsted to those that enable providers to improve the quality of their provision as identified in the provider’s Ofsted inspection report. The requirements may include, where applicable, participating in training or other quality improvement programmes.
INFORMATION ADVICE AND TRAINING TO CHILDCARE PROVIDERS & WORKERS
Local authorities are required by legislation to :
Secure information, advice and training for early years childcare providers in their area on the following matters:
• meeting the requirements of the Early Years Foundation Stage;
• meeting the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities, vulnerable and disadvantaged children; and
• effective safeguarding and child protection.
Page 4 of 7
Secure information, advice and training on the matters set out above for the following providers:
• those registered on the Ofsted Early Years Register who are judged less than ‘good’ by Ofsted in their most recent inspection report;
• newly registered providers on the Ofsted Early Years Register who have not yet had an inspection report published;
• those on Part A (the compulsory part) of the Ofsted General Childcare Register who are assessed by Ofsted as not having met the requirements of registration or the requirements relating to their activities
Focus on ensuring that weaker providers take steps to improve the quality of their provision.
Local authorities cannot require a provider to undertake any training or quality improvement programme, unless the training or quality improvement programme has been identified as necessary to address concerns raised in the Ofsted inspection report (see A4.14) and the provider has been judged less than ‘good’ by Ofsted.
Where Ofsted has identified the need for training or quality improvement, the local authority cannot require the provider to undertake training or quality improvement provided by the local authority itself and should enable providers to choose where and how they take up training or quality improvement
Local authorities have the power to:
Provide information, advice and training for all early years and childcare providers (including employees and prospective providers). If local authorities decide they wish to provide information, advice and training in these circumstances then they should only do so if requested by the provider.
FINANCE AND EARLY YEARS SINGLE FUNDING FORMULA
To fund early education places, local authorities are required by legislation to:
Use a locally-determined, transparent formula - the early years single funding formula (EYSFF) - to set the funding rates for all types of provider.
Issue all providers with an indicative budget at the beginning of the financial year which broadly reflects anticipated participation. Local authorities must also adjust budgets to reflect actual levels of participation within the financial year, across all sectors.
Construct a formula composed of either a single base rate for all providers or a number of base rates differentiated by type of provider according to unavoidable cost
Page 5 of 7
differences. The formula must include a deprivation supplement for three- and four- year olds, but is not required to do so for two-year-olds. The formula must be based on a count of children attending provision conducted at least three times a year.
Submit details of the funding rates they pay providers for two-, three- and four year- old places to the Department. This information will be published by the Department and enable providers and parents to compare rates across the country.
Maximise the funding that is passed to providers, rather than centrally retained.
Ensure that their EYSFF is clear, transparent, and in particular that:
• the number of base rates is kept to a minimum;
• any supplements are understood by providers and help drive positive outcomes for children; and
• providers of two-year-old early education are funded using a single base rate, with no supplements (except where funding is for children with additional needs such as special educational needs).
Fund separately, through the main schools budget, eligible children who have already been admitted to primary school and are attending a maintained school reception class.
Pay providers the Early Years Pupil Premium in respect of their disadvantaged three- and four-year-old children.
Ensure any process to ensure the proper use of public funding does not place undue administrative burdens on providers.
Where Ofsted have raised particular concerns about how a provider judged less than ‘good’ is using the Early Years Pupil Premium to support their disadvantaged children the local authority should include requirements to address this.
Determine budgets for providers using the most recently available data;
Review the budgets, when more attendance information becomes available, using either total actual hours of attendance for the period, or predicted hours based on actual attendance data collected during three sample weeks (census week for example);
Re-determine the provider’s budget as appropriate;
Notify providers within 28 days of re-determining the budget, and tell them when the redetermination will be implemented;
Page 6 of 7
May apply different funding criteria to different types of providers to reflect unavoidable costs;
Must (for three- and four-year-olds) use a factor within the formula which takes into account the incidence of deprivation at a child level not at a setting level (a deprivation supplement); and
May use factors within the formula which include (but are not limited to):
• the need to improve the quality of provision by particular provider or types of provider;
• the degree of flexibility in hours of attendance the provider makes available; and
• the need to secure or sustain a sufficiency of provision within an area
Page 7 of 7
Appendix D - Draft 17-18 centrally retained budget STATUTORY DUTY FOCUS AREAS EYDSG Topslice Centrally Retained No of FTE FTE salary EYDSG 5% posts total annual charge Additional comments INEQUALITIES & DISADVANTAGE SEND SUFFICIENCY CHILDCARE INFORMATION TO PARENTS REQUIREMENTS TO FEEE FUND INFO ADVICE AND FOR TRAINING PROVIDERS FINANCE EYNFF AND Head of Early Years, Childcare and 1 80,000 80,000 Business Development Project Manager PO2-4 1 49,000 49,000 Project Support Officer 1 31,500 31,500 Early Years T&L Consultant 0-4's * requirements to fund FEEE with regards to 1 62,000 62,000 (PVI's) 2YO's only EY support to schools Inhouse and commissioned support from 60,000 previously funded via Education School Effectiveness Advisors (SEA's)and Support Grant schools Early Years L&D and T&L 1 day of support 150 Schools/PVI's @£400 per 1 60,000 60,000 requirement to fund FEEE only in Commissioned Health Check visit respect of 2 YO FEEe if provision rated less than Good Assessment & Progress Lead (T&L) 1 42,000 42,000 Previously funded from EY underspend. requirement to fund FEEE only in respect of 2 YO FEEe if provision rated less than Good Childminding Development Team 1 42,000 42,000 Previously funded from EY Leader underspend Childminding Dev Workers 1 x health check visit per annum 2 67,000 67,000 Previously funded from EY underspend FIS Directory officer 0.5 fte funded by EYB, 0.5 fte funded by LA 1 43,000 21,500 FIS/CYPD IT/Licence costs estimated cost for CYPD, Ofsted dowloads 10,000 Web Officer 0.5 fte funded by EYB, 0.5 fte funded by DSG 1 43,000 21,500 dependant on what is agreed re Universal Services DGS Universal services fro 17/18
The Hub IT/Development and 50% of standard support contract & 45,000 22,500 dependant on what is agreed re licence costs development costs DGS Universal services fro 17/19
Early Years & Childcare 1 37,000 37,000 Previously funded from EY participation officer underspend Premises & Place development 1 55,000 55,000 previously funded from EY Officer underspend and capital funding Annual Childcare Sufficiency Commissioned service 25,000 25,000 Previously funded from EY Assessment underspend Out of School & Positive Activities 0.5 fte funded by EYB, 0.5 fte funded by LA 1 43,000 21,500 EYB element previously funded via Officer LA Out of School & Positive Activities 0.5 fte funded by EYB, 0.5 fte funded by LA 1 37,000 18,500 EYB element previously funded via Assistant LA Business Development Consultant 1 56,000 56,000 Education Business Commissioned 1 day of support 150 Schools/PVI's @£400 per 1 60,000 60,000 Health Check/Compliance visit visit
Principal Finance Officer 1 43,000 43,000 Finance Officer 1 37,000 37,000 Licence and annual maintenance 15,000 costs Finance IT system
EY safeguarding post 0.5 fte for schools post funded from DSG 2 110,000 82,500 dependant on what is agreed re universal offer. 1 fte for EY funded from EYB DGS Universal services fro 17/18
Moderation & Phonics check 9,000 FEEE places marketing costs 30,000 Previously funded from EY underspend Subsidised Training 60,000 servicing schools forum 4,100 Sub Total Expenditure 1,122,600 10% mngt fee Input from: Deputy Chief Exec, Director of 112,260 Learning,Principal Advisor T&L (Schools)Primary & EY, Legal, Corporate Finance, Corporate Complaints, FOI team, Premises/Accomodation costs, General office costs/supplies staff travel/permits Total Expenditure 1,234,860 Total Centrally Retained Budget 1,049,761 based on 5% topslice of total 17/18 EYB Top up from underspend to Funded from EY underspend 182,491 anticipated 5% topslice for Centrally retained in 18/19 Total Centrally Retained Budget 1,232,252 Unallocated/Contingency 2,608
SEND Top Up and SEND specialist services- not included in top slice STATUTORY DUTIES RE SEND
Area Senco's 3 fte term-time 110,000 Total 16/17 EYB budget 20,995,232 Portage & other HNB costs 390,000 centrally retained as % 6 of total EYB budget EP SLA 150,000 SaLT SLA 130,000 SEND hrly rate top up fund 250,000 Total Budget 1,030,000
Appendix E -Significant Ofsted related Support/information/intervention over academic year 15/16
Provider Type Active to Active to Cancelled cancelled Requires inadequate New Total Significant cancelled suspended to active to resigned Improvement Proposed interventions
Childminder 7 3 1 8 3 19 41 Non Domestic 1 2 1 2 7 11 23 Holiday Schemes 1 2 3 After School and 1 10 11 Breakfast Clubs 9 5 1 1 11 10 42
Provider type Proposed to Proposed in Welfare Not Met Suspended to Suspended Suspended LADO/significant Total Significant active inactive Notices (enforcem Active to cancelled to resigned safeguarding/H&S interventions ent/actions ) Childminder 27 2 5 8 2 1 6 21 Non Domestic 7 2 7 3 1 18 29 Holiday Schemes 2 0 After School and 13 1 1 1 Breakfast Clubs 49 5 12 8 6 1 1 24 129
Appendix F : Appendix F Indicative EYNFF hourly rate modelling 17-18 FTE Rate Estimated 2 year old allocation 922 £ 5.66 £ 2,972,999.87 Estimated 3-4 year old allocation (Note 1) 4,908 £ 5.52 £ 15,442,094.72 Total DFE 2017-18 Funding £ 18,415,094.58
Less: 10% Top slice 5% cap for centrally retained for staff 5% -£ 920,754.73 5% for SEND inclusion fund 5% -£ 920,754.73 Sub Total 10% -£ 1,841,509.46 Total Funding available for settings £ 16,573,585.12
2 year old element of the funding available 922 £ 5.09 £ 2,675,699.88 3-4 year old element of the funding available 4,908 £ 4.97 £ 13,897,885.24 £ 16,573,585.12 Notes: Note 1: Exclude £235K of maintained nursery school supplement and £215K for EYPP Note 2: All PTE numbers used in these calculations are subject to change following finalised October 2016 census data. Options Model 1 : payment at the DfE rate for 2 year olds (minus 10% of centrally retained and SEND inclusion fund) Model 2 : payment at the current rate for 2 year olds of £6.00 Model 3 : Payment at a mid-point between the current and DfE rate 2 Year Olds Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 DfE base per pupil £ 5.66 £ 6.67 £ 6.16 Less: Centrally Retained 10% -£ 0.57 -£ 0.67 -£ 0.62 Per pupil rate per hour £ 5.09 (a) £ 6.00 £ 5.55 Total annual hours FTE 570 (b) 570 570 Number of Pupils (PTE) 922 (c) 922 922 Estimated total payment to settings £ 2,675,700 (a*b*c) £ 3,151,590 £ 2,913,645 Estimated 2YO funding available for 2017-18 £ 2,675,700 £ 2,675,700 £ 2,675,700 2 year old funding shortfall 0 -£ 475,890 -£ 237,945 3-4 Year Olds Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 DFE base per pupil £ 5.52 Less: Centrally Retained 10% -£ 0.55 Net rate per hour £ 4.97 (d) Hours per year per pupil 570 (e) Number of Pupils (PTE) 5,027 (f) Total cost of funding estimated hours £ 14,234,939 (d*e*f) £ 14,234,939 £ 14,234,939 Funding 2 year old shortfall £ - £ 475,890 £ 237,945 Total Funding Required £ 14,234,939 £ 14,710,829 £ 14,472,884 Estimated 3-4YO funding available for 2017-18 £ 13,897,885 £ 13,897,885 £ 13,897,885 Shortfall in Funding -£ 337,054 -£ 812,944 -£ 574,999 DFE base rate after centrally retained top slice £ 4.97 £ 4.97 £ 4.97 90% to be allocated via base rate £ 4.47 £ 4.47 £ 4.47 Reduction to fund 2 year old gap -£ 0.17 -£ 0.08 Reduction to base rate to stay within Budget -£ 0.12 -£ 0.12 -£ 0.12 Revised base rate (90%) £ 4.35 4.19 £ 4.27 Avg. rate per hour through supplements (10%) £ 0.50 £ 0.50 £ 0.50 Estimated 2017-18 average hourly rate (100%) £ 4.85 £ 4.68 £ 4.77 Current 2016-17 average hourly rate £ 4.50 £ 4.50 £ 4.50 Estimated 2017-18 maintained nursery average hourly rate including £1.38 nursery supplement £ 6.23 £ 6.06 £ 6.15 Total allocation via base rate 12,474,391 90% 11,999,190 89% 12,239,129 90% Total allocation via supplements 1,419,554 10% 1,419,554 11% 1,419,554 10% Total 3-4 YO funding passported to all settings 13,893,946 13,418,745 13,658,683 Balance Appendix G : 17-18 hourly rate modelling charts Model 1 : payment at the DfE rate for 2 year olds (minus 10% of centrally retained and SEND inclusion fund) 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2%
1% 0% Number of -1% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Settings -2%
-3% gained or lost or gained -4% -5% -6% MAINTAINED NURSERY SCHOOLS
Pecentage -7% -8% MAINTAINED NURSERY CLASSES -9% -10% ACADEMY NURSERY CLASSES -11% -12% Term Time (38 weeks provider) -13% -14% Full Year 51 weeks provider -15% -16% Childminders - all based on 51 weeks -17% Appendix G : 17-18 hourly rate modelling charts Model 2 : Payment at the current rate for 2 year olds of £6.00 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3%
2% Number of 1% Settings 0% -1% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
gained or lost or gained -2%
-3% -4% -5% MAINTAINED NURSERY SCHOOLS Pecentage -6% -7% MAINTAINED NURSERY CLASSES -8% -9% ACADEMY NURSERY CLASSES -10% -11% Term Time (38 weeks provider) -12% -13% Full Year 51 weeks provider -14% -15% Childminders - all based on 51 weeks -16% -17% Appendix G : 17-18 hourly rate modelling charts Model 3 : Payment at a mid-point between the current and DfE rate 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% Number of Settings 0% -1% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 -2%
-3% gained or lost or gained -4% -5% -6% MAINTAINED NURSERY SCHOOLS
Pecentage -7% -8% MAINTAINED NURSERY CLASSES -9% -10% ACADEMY NURSERY CLASSES -11% -12% Term Time (38 weeks provider) -13% -14% Full Year 51 weeks provider -15% -16% Childminders - all based on 51 weeks -17% Appendix H-Revised underspend 2015-2019 after 15-16 closedown Budget EYDSG Underspend 15/16 Actual 16/17 17/18 18/19 Total
1% contingency for any increase in delivery of hours16/17 - 2% contingency for any increase in 174,000 209,952 383,952 delivery of hours 17/18 Childminding Dev Workers (CMDW's) 16/17 99,650 100,000 199,650 SaLT in CC's Public Health Contract 172,000 172,000 172,000 516,000 Workforce Development Commissioned Service 100,000 100,000 Premises & Place development (Place Creation grant for new FEEE places) 71,223 70,000 70,000 70,000 281,223 Premises & Place development /Premises Officer 4,400 60,000 64,400 Childcare Sufficiency Assessments 43,717 43,717 Request to DfE to convert Rev to Capital Funding 465,279 465,279 930,558 4% EYSFF hourly rate top up 16/17 500,000 500,000 Children's Centres (Family Support) 200,000 200,000 400,000 Additional allocation for EY centrally retained & SEND Inclusion fund services 393,999 393,999 Additional allocation for EY Centrally retained top up for one year only to 18/19 levels (due to 182,491 182,491 transition to 30 hrs from Sept 2017) 2YO marketing costs 29,657 30,000 59,657 2YO assessment lead x 1 FTE 26,472 42,000 68,472 Digital by Default- training & 2YO videos 38,324 38,324 Stay2Play pilot programme 0 100,000 100,000 Childcare Participation Officer x 2 FTE 76,375 76,375 Top up of shortfall between DfE income and FEEE actual expenditure (top up of 2YO rate by 541,034 500,000 1,041,034 approx £1 per hour and commencement date from 2YO birthday and month after 3YO birthday- which is additional to statutory entitlement) Top up to Pre statement budget 97,135 150,000 247,135 General Office Supplies 11,596 11,596 Training 417 417 New ICT system for FEEE payments and eligibility checking 100,000 100,000 Total 1,040,000 2,591,999 1,399,722 707,279 5,739,000 Appendix I High Needs Spend on Early Years
Amount Amount Paid from Paid from Amount Description Comments High Early (£) Needs Years Block (£) Block (£)
Responsible for visiting families at home to support with signposting to services Four Specialist Family Support Advisors and supporting families in developing their understanding in helping their children 105,800 105,800 develop.
Responsible for making sure early years settings are able to meet the needs of Three Area SENCO's 92,500 92,500 children with Special Education Needs (SEN) and disabilities.
Assessment, Planning and Review Officers: Co-ordinate the Education Health and Early Years proportion of APRO cost (Total Care Plan leading the planning process, ensuring that it is person centred & 27,400 27,400 APRO cost is £508,000) providing a single point of contact. Whitefield Outreach supports mainstream schools and PVIs looking to help their pupils who have communication and interaction difficulties, hearing impairment or learning difficulties and developmental delay. The team is made up from Hearing Impaired Outreach Service teachers of the deaf, SEN outreach teachers and a hearing impairment technician all of whom offer advice, support and training within the London Borough of Waltham Forest. 100,000 100,000 Joseph Clarke Educational Service supports children with visual impairment, their families and schools & PVIs . From ICT and Mobility to Braille and general Visual Impairment Outreach Service advice, the Service operates across Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Enfield. Autism & Learning Difficulties Outreach Whitefield Outreach supports mainstream schools looking to help their pupils who Service have Autism and Learning Difficulties. Element 3 top up funding to Early Years Mainstream and PVI providers (In 2015- Early Years Mainstream and PVI providers 512,000 337,700 174,300 16 PVI's element 3 funding £345k) Special Resource Provision Specialist High Needs places for Early Years children in Mainstream Schools (3 19,250 19,250 Broofield House Special School Specialist High Needs places for Early Years children in special schools (7 places 144,600 144,600 Whitefield Special School in Brookfield House, 4 places in Whitefield School) 92,250 92,250
Total Spend 1,093,800 593,800 500,000
Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 5 9 November 2016
Report Title High Needs Block update for 2016-17 and forecast for 2017-18 Decision/Discussion/ For Information Information
Report Author/ Andrew Beckett, Director Disability Enablement Contact details Service, 020 8496 6512 [email protected]
Shehwar Sultan, High Needs Accountant 020 8496 6322 [email protected]
Appendices Appendix A: Projected outturn for 2016-17 Appendix B: Proposed high needs place numbers for academic year 2017/18
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform Schools Forum of the expected demands on the High Needs Block (HNB) in 2017-18; including • the reasons for the changes; • the changes in the demand and consequent forecast allocation; and • proposals on how to manage these demands and risks.
1.2 This report also informs Schools Forum of the decisions that will need to be made for the allocation of funding in 2017-18. The Local Authority (LA) will be presenting a report on the detailed proposed allocations to mainstream schools, specialist SEN, further education (FE) institutions, alternative provisions (AP) and pupil referral units (PRU) providers to Schools Forum on 11 January 2017.
1.3 This report has three main sections:
• Projected HNB Income and Expenditure for financial year (FY) 2016- 17;
• Proposed high needs place numbers for the academic year (AY) 2017/18; and
• Forecast Income and Expenditure within the HNB for (FY) 2017-18.
1
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Schools Forum to note:
2.1.1 Projected outturn figures for the HNB in FY 2016-17 as set out in Appendix A to this report.
2.1.2 Proposed place numbers for the HNB in AY 2017/18 as set out in Appendix B to this report.
2.1.3 The forecasted income and expenditure for the HNB in FY 2017-18 as set out in Table 1 under section 5.2 and Table 2 under section 5.11.
3 PROJECTED HIGH NEEDS BLOCK (HNB) INCOME AND EXPENDITURE FOR FY 2016-17
3.1 The DSG allocation for the HNB for Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 is £34.755m.
3.2 At the start of the academic year (AY) 2016/17 an adjustment was made to reflect an increase in post-16 place funding in further education colleges.
3.3 £0.044m was therefore deducted from the HNB base of £34.799m to fund 11 additional post-16 places (£6,000 per place) which the LA commissioned from further education providers in Waltham Forest.
3.4 Appendix A shows the projected outturn in major areas of the HNB in FY 2016-17. The current projections indicate a underspend of £0.540m, Appendix A provides reasons for this in the notes. There has been no reason so far to use the £0.500m contingency in 2016-17. This will therefore be carried forward into 2017-18 making the total projected carry forward of £1.040m.
4 PROPOSED HIGH NEEDS PLACE NUMBERS FOR THE AY 2017/18
4.1 As in AY 2016/17 the LA will continue to ensure that places funded through the HNB reflect both local authorities’ recent commissioning activity and strategic planning to secure suitable special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision and alternative provision (AP) in good and outstanding local provision in line with its statutory responsibilities.
4.2 In considering changes to places funded, the LA will consider all high needs providers in Waltham Forest. The LA will take account not only of its own commissioning decisions at these institutions but also the commissioning decisions of other local authorities.
4.3 Changes to pre and post-16 place numbers in maintained institutions will be managed at a local level using the high needs allocation flexibly. EFA does not need to be informed (via the place change notification process) of any changes to place numbers at a maintained institution.
2
4.4 Changes to pre and post-16 place numbers in non-maintained institutions, free schools, FE colleges and post-16 institutions have to be notified to the EFA because they are independent institutions. To ensure these institutions receive the correct place funding direct from EFA, the LA is required to notify the EFA by 25 November 2016, of changes to place numbers.
4.5 The LA is therefore currently in the process of reviewing all specialist provision and where possible it will reallocate places between institutions to match demand.
4.6 Appendix B shows the current proposed places required for AY 2017/18. This may change but will be finalised by 25 November 2016.
5 FORECAST OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE HIGH NEEDS BLOCK (HNB) FY 2017-18.
Income
5.1 The Department for Education (DfE) has advised the LA that for FY 2017-18, no local authority will see a reduction from its FY 2016-17 funding for high needs.
5.2 In July 2016 the DfE announced the indicative FY 2017-18 allocations for High Needs funding to be £35.180m, an increase of £0.380m because of an increase in post-16 funding as outlined below.
Table 1 High Needs Block forecasted income Financial year 2017-18 Description 2016-17 Indicative Net 2017-18 Change Income £'million £'million £'million EFA High Needs Block Allocation Base 34.799 34.799 0.000 Transfer of DfE's post-16 budget 0.380 0.380 As per DfE July 2016 announcement 34.799 35.179 0.380 Deduction for post-16 places AY 2016/17 -0.044 -0.044 0.000 34.755 35.135 0.380
5.3 This increase will be reduced by £0.044m as indicated in paragraph 3.3 to take account of the AY 2016/17 place funding deductions for post-16 places.
5.4 The £0.380m increase is from the DfE’s post-16 budget which is being transferred to local authorities HNB for AY 2017/18. This additional income will have no cash benefit to local authorities as it will be off-set by additional expenditure for place funding in further education colleges and post-16 commercial and charitable providers.
3
5.5 These institutions currently receive £6,000 per place from the EFA as part of their post-16 allocation. From AY 2017/18 all of these places will be funded from the initial HNB allocations to local authorities. The EFA will continue to pay this place funding directly to institutions by deducting it from the local authorities HNB.
5.6 Final High Needs allocations will be announced in December 2016. Further to that announcement, the EFA will deduct the amount required to fund the places in those institutions that receive place funding direct from EFA as a result of information collected from local authorities place change request.
5.7 On 11 August 2016 the DfE launched the consultation on an Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF) which funds the provision for free early education and childcare to eligible 2, 3 & 4 year olds. The proposal is to introduce an EYNFF in 2017-18, a year before national funding formulas for schools and high needs. One of the proposals is to create an Inclusion Fund by pooling from one or both of the Early Years Block (EYB) and the HNB.
5.8 The Inclusion Fund is to support providers in early years to improve outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The EYB already contributes £500K to SEND/ HN through an inter-block funding transfer to the HNB. It is therefore envisaged that this transfer from the EYB and a similar amount from the HNB will be assigned to the Inclusion Fund.
5.9 There is also a further £0.500m contingency underspend from previous years proposed to be brought forward.
4
Expenditure
5.10 The table below sets out the main areas of increased/decreased expenditure and the key reasons for the forecasted change.
Table 2 High Needs Block - Main areas of forecasted increase/reduction in expenditure Financial year 2017-18 Description Notes 2016-17 Indicative Net 2017-18 Change Expenditure £'million £'million £'million Special Resource Provisions 1 4.192 4.472 0.280 Special Schools and Academies 2 16.608 16.685 0.077 Further Education institutions 3 0.847 1.227 0.380 Independent, NMSS* & other 4 3.714 3.614 -0.100 Commissioned outreach service 5 1.090 0.916 -0.174
0.464 *NMSS : Non-maintained special schools
Notes 1. Growth in number of places AY 2016-17 to AY 2017-18 by 12 places & 7 spot purchases between April to August 2017 2. Growth in number of places AY 2016-17 to AY 2017-18 by 3 places and 3 spot purchases between April to August 2017 3. Place-led funding for all (Waltham Forest and other Local Authorities) high needs students in Waltham Forest institutions AY 2017/18 4. Reduction in other alternative and independent places 5. Revised outreach service contract
5.11 Income is cash flat in the HNB, however expenditure can be volatile since it is based on demand which is why the LA aims to keep contingency funding to meet unexpected expenditure.
6 CONSULTATION
6.1 The LA is engaging with those institutions where there is a proposed change in the high needs place numbers in the AY 2017/18.
5
Appendix A : Projected outturn for 2016-17
High Needs Block Projected Outturn Financial Year 2016-17 Description Plan EFA Revised Plan Forecast Variance Notes adjustment to (after EFA base adjustment) Income EFA High Needs Block Allocation £ 34,799,000 -£ 44,000 £ 34,755,000 £ 34,755,000 £ - 1 LA transfer from Early Years Block £ 500,000 £ 500,000 £ 500,000 £ - LA transfer from Schools Block £ - £ - £ - £ - Prior Year balance brought forward & utilised in 2016-17 £ 677,400 £ 677,400 £ 677,400 £ - Total Income £ 35,976,400 -£ 44,000 £ 35,932,400 £ 35,932,400 £ - Expenditure Special Schools £ 16,607,500 £ 16,607,500 £ 16,403,400 £ 204,100 2 Special Resource Provisions £ 4,191,800 £ 4,191,800 £ 4,191,800 £ - Mainstream Schools & Private Voluntary Independent Nursery £ 4,583,000 £ 4,583,000 £ 4,403,700 £ 179,300 3 Post-16 Provision £ 847,000 -£ 44,000 £ 803,000 £ 847,000 -£ 44,000 4 Alternative Provision and Pupil Referral Units £ 3,478,000 £ 3,478,000 £ 3,478,000 £ - SEN Placements in Independent, non-maintained special £ 3,713,600 £ 3,613,600 5 schools, other local authority school fees and other fees £ 3,713,600 £ 100,000 Support services in schools £ 1,453,000 £ 1,453,000 £ 1,351,500 £ 101,500 6 Support services local authority £ 1,102,500 £ 1,102,500 £ 1,102,500 £ - Total Expenditure £ 35,976,400 -£ 44,000 £ 35,932,400 £ 35,391,500 £ 540,900 Projected Outturn £ - £ - £ - £ 540,900 £ 540,900
Contingency brought forward in 2016-17 £ 500,000 £ 500,000 £ 500,000 £ - Contingency spend in 2016-17 £ 500,000 £ 500,000 £ - £ 500,000 Contingency Carry Forward £ - £ 500,000 £ 500,000
Notes 1. Base adjustment by EFA for academic year 2016/17 - Eleven further education places (11*£4,000) 2. Underspend in top-up funding - fall in occupancy of post 16 places in Belmont Park School 3. Clawbacks from schools for pupils who leave schools during the year; reasons include leaving the LA, transferring to another school 4. Overspend resulting from downward adjustment to plan for further education places (see 1 above) 5. Underspend from reduction in alternative and independent places 6. Saving due to revised value of outreach support contract Appendix B : Proposed high needs place numbers for academic year 2017/18
High needs place numbers for academic year 2017/18
Academic Year 16/17 Academic Year 17/18 Proposed Commissioned Actual Over (+) / % Proposed to be Increase (+) / Establishment Places Occupancy Under (-) commissioned decrease (-)
Special School Specialism Belmont Park School BESD 65.00 47.00 -18.00 72% 60.00 -5.00 Hornbeam Academy PMLD/SLD/SLCN/ASD 247.00 252.00 5.00 102% 255.00 8.00 Joseph Clarke School VI & ASD 92.00 93.00 1.00 101% 93.00 1.00 Whitefield School and Centre ASD/CLD/PDSI/SLCN/CI/HI 350.00 350.00 100% 350.00 Special School Total 754.00 742.00 -12.00 94% 758.00 4.00
Special Resource Provisions (SRP) in Mainstream Schools Whitehall Primary HI 22.00 20.00 -2.00 91% 22.00 South Grove Primary School ASD/GDD 18.00 16.00 -2.00 89% 18.00 Oakhill Primary School SLCN 6.00 3.00 -3.00 50% 4.00 -2.00 Frederick Bremer ASD 19.00 20.00 1.00 105% 24.00 5.00 Heathcote Secondary School HI 15.00 8.00 -7.00 53% 10.00 -5.00 Buxton School SLCN 16.00 17.00 1.00 106% 18.00 2.00 Highams Park Secondary School VI 6.00 5.00 -1.00 83% 6.00 Chingford Foundation Academy SLCN/ASD 25.00 20.00 -5.00 80% 25.00 Hillyfield Primary School ASD 12.00 14.00 2.00 117% 15.00 3.00 Davies Lane Primary School ASD 19.00 23.00 4.00 121% 25.00 6.00 The Woodside Primary Academy ASD 21.00 21.00 100% 22.00 1.00 Hawkswood Primary SEMH 6.00 6.00 100% 6.00 Hawkswood Theurapetic SEMH 6.00 5.00 -1.00 83% 6.00 SRP Total 191.00 178.00 -13.00 91% 201.00 10.00
Alternative Provision & PRUS Forest Pathways SEMH 64.00 64.00 Hawkswood PRU Schools SEMH 72.00 72.00 Alternative Provision SEMH 135.00 135.00 Total PRU & AP 271.00 271.00
Further Education Colleges Big Creative Academy Big Creative Training Ltd Leyton Sixth Form College 7 7.00 Sir George Monoux 6 Form College 8 8.00 Waltham Forest College 48 48.00 Total Further Education Colleges 63.00 63.00
Total 1279.00 1293.00 14.00
Abbreviation Type of Need Abbreviation Type of Need ASD Autism Spectrum Disorder PDSI Physical Disabilities and Sensory Impairment BESD Behaviour Emotional & Social Difficulties PMLD Profound & Multiple Learning Difficulties CI Communication and Interaction SLCN Speech, Language, Communication Needs CLD Complex Learning Difficulties SLD Severe Learning Difficulties GDD Global Development Delay VI Visually Impaired HI Hearing Impaired SEMH Social Emotional and Mental Health PD Physical Difficulty LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST
Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 6 9 November 2016
Report Title 2017-18 Provisional Local Funding Formula allocation
Decision/ For Information and Decision Discussion/ Information
Report Author/ Duncan James-Pike, Strategic Finance Advisor , 020 8496 3502 Contact details [email protected] Sanjaya Gunatilake, Principal Accountant : DSG 020 8496 6304 [email protected] Appendix A: Provisional allocations 2017-18 - using October 2015 census Appendices Appendix B: IDACI Funding rates – Fairness Principle vs. Stability Principle
1. INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY
1.1 This report sets out a provisional allocation for 2017-18 from the operation of the Local Funding Formula. It sets out the basis for the allocation and introduces a decision to be made on the IDACI funding factors.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Schools Forum to note: 2.1 The provisional allocation for 2017-18 in Appendix A and the basis for its calculation. Schools Forum to decide:
2.2 To maintain stability in individual schools’ funding within the deprivation funding envelope (as demonstrated in Table 1) OR 2.3 To adjust the IDACI funding factor rates so that funding is more proportionate to the deprivation level expressed in the IDACI scores (as demonstrated in Table 2).
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The first draft of the Local Funding Formula uses the October 2015 census figures adjusted by the EFA for revised IDACI bands. It excludes de-delegation decisions to be made in December. The following assumptions have been applied:
1
• The Schools Block Unit of Funding for 2017-18 will be £5,272 (£42 higher than 2016-17)
• The Growth Fund will be agreed at £3.25 million, the same as for 2016-17, requiring an additional £0.750 million from the Schools Block.
• The following will be agreed at 2016-17 funding levels: Admissions (£0.745 million), Schools Forum administration (£0.044 million) and Copyright Licences (£0.164 million).
• The LA’s retained duties funding removed from the Education Services Grant and added to the Schools Block will be funded at £0.623 million.
• PFI increases by 2.5%.
• Rates increase by 3%.
IDACI Funding Methodology
3.2 The EFA has updated the IDACI banding methodology to return the IDACI bands to a roughly similar size (in terms of proportion of pupils in each band) as in 2015 to 2016. The revised bands are named “A” to “G”: with the most deprived neighbourhoods being captured by band “A” (previously bands 6 and 5). For future updates, the EFA will aim to adjust the bands more promptly.
3.3 The provisional formula amounts have been chosen to fulfil Stability principle, by allocating the same proportion of the total budgets to deprivation, while minimising the financial variances for each school (Appendix A). In September 2016 Schools Forum agreed funding envelopes for deprivation as 7.8% for primary budgets and 13.5% for secondary budgets.
3.4 Appendix A shows that 18 schools see gains over £10,000 from the provisional formula and 13 schools lose over £10,000. Of the schools receiving less funding, 8 are subject to the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) compared to 13 in 2016-17. Some of the gains are due to the easing of the cap on gains due to the reduction in MFG overall.
3.5 The provisional figures will change when the October 2016 census figures are released, which will change both the numbers on roll and their characteristics.
3.4 Table 1, below, shows the amounts allocated to each band in the 2016-17 formula and the amounts allocated in the 2017-18 provisional formula.
2
Table 1: IDACI Funding Methodology Stability principle
2016-17 LFF Per 2017-18 Provisional Pupil LFF Per Pupil Band IDACI Score Primary Secondary Band IDACI Score Primary Secondary Between 0.60 and Between 0.50 and 6 1.00 £0 £0 A 1.00 £200 £500 Between 0.50 and Between 0.40 and 5 0.60 £200 £500 B 0.50 £200 £500 Between 0.40 and Between 0.35 and 4 0.50 £200 £500 C 0.40 £200 £500 Between 0.30 and Between 0.30 and 3 0.40 £200 £500 D 0.35 £200 £500 Between 0.25 and Between 0.25 and 2 0.30 £100 £150 E 0.30 £100 £150 Between 0.20 and Between 0.20 and 1 0.25 £60 £100 F 0.25 £60 £100 0 Less than 0.20 £0 £0 G Less than 0.20 £0 £0
3.7 The consequence of minimising financial variance compromises the Fairness principle. Alternative funding factor rates could be applied that weights funding with the level of deprivation expressed in the IDACI score. An example is shown in Table 2 below, and a comparison between the two methods is shown in Appendix B. Table 2: IDACI Funding Methodology Fairness Principle
2016-17 LFF Per Pupil Band IDACI Score Primary Secondary Between 0.60 and A 1.00 £450 £700 Between 0.50 and B 0.60 £350 £600 Between 0.40 and C 0.50 £200 £500 Between 0.30 and D 0.40 £170 £400 Between 0.25 and E 0.30 £100 £180 Between 0.20 and F 0.25 £40 £50 G Less than 0.20 £0 £0
3
4. SUMMARY
4.1 Schools Forum is asked to mandate officers to adjust the amounts allocated to each band so that the band values increase in line with the deprivation score, or to decide that the Stability principle should prevail.
4
Appendix A: Provisionla Allcoatoin 2017-18- using October 2015 census
Variances
IDACI Variance 2016.17 School funded School funded 16-17 Post MFG Basic Low 17-18 Post MFG School Name FSM (Stability EAL Rates PFI MFG Variance vs 2017.18 under:LFF vs. under:LFF vs. Budget Enttlement Attainment Budget Principle) Increase /(Decrease) MFG MFG
2016-17 2017-18 Ainslie Wood Primary School £1,800,015.92 -794.00 0.00 -120.00 0.00 0.00 1,834.18 0.00 6,524.51 £1,807,461 £7,444.69 LFF LFF Barclay Primary £4,332,618.51 -2,014.00 0.00 -202.01 0.00 0.00 345.07 0.00 0.00 £4,330,748 -£1,870.93 LFF LFF Barn Croft Primary £944,238.45 -380.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 1,010.35 0.00 0.00 £944,869 £630.35 LFF LFF Buxton School £8,180,098.35 -8,984.00 0.00 422.14 0.00 0.00 1,046.10 0.00 -125,407.14 £8,047,175 -£132,922.89 MFG LFF Chapel End Infants £1,241,691.33 -530.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 1,080.29 0.00 38,983.75 £1,281,225 £39,534.03 LFF LFF Chapel End Junior Academy £1,659,068.33 -762.00 0.00 -54.26 0.00 0.00 310.88 0.00 0.00 £1,658,563 -£505.39 LFF LFF Chase Lane Primary £3,078,396.73 -1,278.00 0.00 57.26 0.00 0.00 3,481.83 6,849.44 55,282.59 £3,142,790 £64,393.13 LFF LFF Chingford C of E Primary School £1,641,248.21 -822.00 0.00 -140.00 0.00 0.00 141.87 0.00 40,653.81 £1,681,082 £39,833.67 LFF LFF Chingford Foundation School £6,649,586.25 -11,810.00 0.00 -49.00 0.00 0.00 1,274.60 0.00 143,824.18 £6,782,826 £133,239.78 LFF LFF CHINGFORD HALL PRIMARY £1,233,340.68 -508.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 76.93 0.00 -8,473.65 £1,224,436 -£8,904.72 MFG LFF Connaught School for Girls £3,490,649.03 -5,920.00 0.00 11.71 0.00 0.00 388.60 0.00 0.00 £3,485,129 -£5,519.69 LFF LFF Coppermill Primary School £1,184,874.22 -502.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 971.49 0.00 0.00 £1,185,344 £469.49 LFF LFF Davies Lane Primary School £2,958,477.37 -1,340.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,269.72 0.00 -50,432.30 £2,907,975 -£50,502.58 MFG MFG Dawlish Primary School £913,032.55 -394.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 481.75 0.00 15,899.03 £929,019 £15,986.78 LFF LFF Downsell Primary School £2,744,665.26 -1,038.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,601.02 6,849.44 16,698.04 £2,768,776 £24,110.50 LFF LFF Eden Girls' School Waltham Forest £1,629,343.23 -2,520.00 0.00 191.16 0.00 0.00 1,044.55 0.00 29,796.48 £1,657,855 £28,512.18 LFF LFF Edinburgh Primary £2,903,264.59 -1,228.00 0.00 -56.52 0.00 0.00 3,924.83 0.00 -47,548.03 £2,858,357 -£44,907.72 MFG MFG EmmanuelCommunity School £576,552.84 -220.00 0.00 -40.37 0.00 0.00 88.13 0.00 970.07 £577,351 £797.84 LFF LFF Frederick Bremer School £5,904,090.81 -8,520.00 0.00 88.17 0.00 0.00 7,849.67 8,381.37 13,735.61 £5,925,626 £21,534.83 LFF LFF George Mitchell School £5,005,442.31 -5,794.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 2,924.71 0.00 -82,444.28 £4,920,129 -£85,313.57 MFG MFG George Tomlinson Primary £2,547,087.72 -1,160.00 0.00 -281.94 0.00 0.00 769.29 0.00 0.00 £2,546,415 -£672.66 LFF LFF GREENLEAF PRIMARY SCHOOL £1,901,096.52 -880.00 0.00 -88.88 0.00 0.00 683.39 0.00 0.00 £1,900,811 -£285.50 LFF LFF Gwyn Jones Primary £1,546,507.00 -722.00 0.00 -19.55 0.00 0.00 436.95 0.00 1,836.62 £1,548,039 £1,532.01 LFF LFF HANDSWORTH PRIMARY SCHOOL £1,661,607.12 -838.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 534.03 0.00 26,832.76 £1,688,136 £26,528.79 LFF LFF Heathcote Secondary School & Science College £5,702,328.13 -8,630.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,160.55 9,132.59 0.00 £5,710,991 £8,663.13 LFF LFF Henry Maynard Primary School £3,504,918.79 -1,664.00 0.00 -73.19 0.00 0.00 2,191.55 0.00 0.00 £3,505,373 £454.37 LFF LFF Highams Park School £6,565,626.82 -11,800.00 0.00 66.81 0.00 0.00 1,468.90 0.00 0.00 £6,555,363 -£10,264.29 LFF LFF Hillyfield Primary Academy £4,408,625.12 -1,871.00 0.00 -24.32 0.00 0.00 683.51 6,849.44 0.00 £4,414,263 £5,637.62 LFF LFF Holy Family Catholic School £5,374,247.21 -8,950.00 0.00 668.46 0.00 0.00 693.26 0.00 -43,655.73 £5,323,003 -£51,244.01 MFG LFF Kelmscott Secondary School £5,482,988.46 -8,660.00 0.00 214.85 0.00 0.00 4,196.85 0.00 0.00 £5,478,740 -£4,248.30 LFF LFF Larkswood Primary £3,074,800.65 -1,332.00 0.00 47.79 0.00 0.00 674.61 6,849.44 19,557.49 £3,100,598 £25,797.32 LFF LFF Leytonstone Business and Enterprise Specialist School £5,073,648.46 -8,370.00 0.00 393.99 0.00 0.00 2,766.81 0.00 0.00 £5,068,439 -£5,209.20 LFF LFF Longshaw Primary £1,804,199.05 -810.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 537.76 0.00 0.00 £1,803,927 -£272.24 LFF LFF Mayville Primary £1,834,553.99 -766.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 2,051.79 0.00 -28,309.95 £1,807,530 -£27,024.15 MFG LFF Mission Grove Primary School £3,213,037.35 -1,428.00 0.00 27.88 0.00 0.00 1,129.27 0.00 0.00 £3,212,766 -£270.85 LFF LFF Newport School £3,299,713.22 -1,494.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 1,181.34 0.00 0.00 £3,299,401 -£312.66 LFF LFF Norlington Boys £3,409,502.31 -5,120.00 0.00 -400.00 0.00 0.00 2,300.50 0.00 -54,373.29 £3,351,910 -£57,592.79 MFG MFG Oakhill Primary £983,211.37 -468.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 370.87 0.00 12,839.46 £995,954 £12,742.34 LFF LFF Our Lady and St George's Catholic Primary School £1,733,071.51 -806.00 0.00 10.80 0.00 0.00 98.59 0.00 0.00 £1,732,375 -£696.61 LFF LFF Parkside Primary School £1,972,281.11 -860.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 653.53 0.00 0.00 £1,972,075 -£206.47 LFF LFF Riverley Primary School £1,925,167.77 -768.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 404.14 4,566.29 1,859.82 £1,931,230 £6,062.26 LFF LFF Roger Ascham Primary £2,227,472.76 -972.00 0.00 96.37 0.00 0.00 149.38 0.00 0.00 £2,226,747 -£726.25 LFF LFF Rushcroft Foundation School £3,707,251.91 -5,850.00 0.00 -50.09 0.00 0.00 808.28 0.00 0.00 £3,702,160 -£5,091.80 LFF LFF Selwyn Primary School £2,565,783.76 -1,150.00 0.00 -148.08 0.00 0.00 905.30 0.00 0.00 £2,565,391 -£392.79 LFF LFF Page 1 of 2 Appendix A: Provisionla Allcoatoin 2017-18- using October 2015 census
Variances
IDACI Variance 2016.17 School funded School funded 16-17 Post MFG Basic Low 17-18 Post MFG School Name FSM (Stability EAL Rates PFI MFG Variance vs 2017.18 under:LFF vs. under:LFF vs. Budget Enttlement Attainment Budget Principle) Increase /(Decrease) MFG MFG
South Grove Primary £2,396,764.75 -930.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,139.87 4,566.29 0.00 £2,403,541 £6,776.16 LFF LFF St Joseph's Catholic Infants £794,321.14 -352.00 0.00 -149.29 0.00 0.00 105.31 0.00 24,522.26 £818,447 £24,126.29 LFF LFF St Mary's Catholic Primary £889,743.91 -436.00 0.00 -286.11 0.00 0.00 69.08 0.00 19,858.86 £908,950 £19,205.83 LFF LFF St. Joseph's Catholic Junior £1,024,840.91 -464.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 103.82 0.00 16,773.76 £1,041,254 £16,413.58 LFF LFF St. Mary's C of E Primary £2,121,046.55 -1,010.00 0.00 44.46 0.00 0.00 247.15 0.00 -35,421.08 £2,084,907 -£36,139.47 MFG LFF St. Patricks Catholic Primary £1,790,045.48 -814.00 0.00 68.27 0.00 0.00 219.17 0.00 7,318.16 £1,796,837 £6,791.59 LFF LFF St. Saviour's C of E Primary £1,639,907.08 -730.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 128.47 0.00 0.00 £1,639,306 -£601.53 LFF LFF Stoneydown Park Primary £1,949,133.23 -868.00 0.00 -66.37 0.00 0.00 1,422.27 0.00 56,771.14 £2,006,392 £57,259.04 LFF LFF Sybourn Primary School £2,706,781.40 -1,166.00 0.00 63.02 0.00 0.00 366.84 0.00 0.00 £2,706,045 -£736.14 LFF LFF The Jenny Hammond Pri. School £1,279,925.86 -578.00 0.00 17.15 0.00 0.00 422.00 0.00 0.00 £1,279,787 -£138.85 LFF LFF The Lammas School and Sixth Form £5,543,516.62 -7,280.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 6,100.98 15,220.98 -102,912.23 £5,454,646 -£88,870.28 MFG MFG THE WINNS PRIMARY £3,492,824.98 -1,572.00 0.00 173.18 0.00 0.00 1,290.14 0.00 0.00 £3,492,716 -£108.68 LFF LFF The Woodside Primary Academy £4,013,459.40 -1,719.00 0.00 -199.55 0.00 0.00 643.52 0.00 -17,552.46 £3,994,632 -£18,827.50 MFG LFF THOMAS GAMUEL PRIMARY £1,797,040.21 -794.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 226.94 0.00 24,441.77 £1,820,915 £23,874.71 LFF LFF Thorpe Hall Primary £2,161,645.28 -986.00 0.00 55.81 0.00 0.00 994.81 0.00 24,357.34 £2,186,067 £24,421.96 LFF LFF Walthamstow Academy £5,465,206.97 -8,700.00 0.00 663.63 0.00 0.00 1,453.35 0.00 0.00 £5,458,624 -£6,583.02 LFF LFF Walthamstow Primary Academy £220,850.13 -70.00 0.00 -144.12 0.00 0.00 136.81 0.00 933.06 £221,706 £855.75 LFF LFF WALTHAMSTOW SCHOOL FOR GIRLS £5,468,990.11 -8,960.00 0.00 199.44 0.00 0.00 7,344.49 0.00 0.00 £5,467,574 -£1,416.07 LFF LFF Whitehall Primary School £1,840,595.36 -812.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 1,601.02 0.00 0.00 £1,841,384 £789.02 LFF LFF Whittingham Primary Academy £1,928,440.93 -828.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 348.18 0.00 -23,722.80 £1,904,238 -£24,202.62 MFG LFF Willow Brook Primary Academy £2,464,724.39 -1,066.00 0.00 27.72 0.00 0.00 341.97 0.00 0.00 £2,464,028 -£696.32 LFF LFF Willowfield Humanities College £4,648,911.13 -7,190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,233.65 0.00 -38,290.13 £4,611,665 -£37,246.48 MFG LFF Woodford Green Primary £897,524.20 -392.00 0.00 -40.00 0.00 0.00 429.46 0.00 8,062.15 £905,584 £8,059.62 LFF LFF Yardley Primary £1,825,475.57 -904.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240.93 0.00 50,210.57 £1,875,023 £49,547.50 LFF LFF Number of schools funded under MFG 13.00 5.00
Page 2 of 2 Appendix B: IDACI Funding Rates - Fairness Principle vs. Stability Principle
Stability Priciple Fairness : IDACI Priciple : IDACI School Name Varieance Varieance Based on Rates Based on Rates in Table 1 in Table 2
Ainslie Wood Primary School -120.00 57.26 Barclay Primary -202.01 -4,107.54 Barn Croft Primary -0.00 3,440.00 Buxton School 422.14 -4,245.25 Chapel End Infants -0.00 -2,000.00 Chapel End Junior Academy -54.26 -3,045.99 Chase Lane Primary 57.26 -3,887.52 Chingford C of E Primary School -140.00 1,360.00 Chingford Foundation School -49.00 1,154.73 CHINGFORD HALL PRIMARY -0.00 16,545.67 Connaught School for Girls 11.71 -2,330.00 Coppermill Primary School 0.00 654.41 Davies Lane Primary School 0.00 -6,024.65 Dawlish Primary School -0.00 -4,852.17 Downsell Primary School 0.00 -1,326.73 Eden Girls' School Waltham Forest 191.16 192.21 Edinburgh Primary -56.52 -432.99 EmmanuelCommunity School -40.37 -285.63 Frederick Bremer School 88.17 -620.00 George Mitchell School -0.00 9,429.27 George Tomlinson Primary -281.94 -4,802.34 GREENLEAF PRIMARY SCHOOL -88.88 3,007.50 Gwyn Jones Primary -19.55 -2,160.00 HANDSWORTH PRIMARY SCHOOL -0.00 -2,754.50 Heathcote Secondary School & Science College 0.00 -4,010.00 Henry Maynard Primary School -73.19 -1,769.72 Highams Park School 66.81 3,280.00 Hillyfield Primary Academy -24.32 1,835.08 Holy Family Catholic School 668.46 914.90 Kelmscott Secondary School 214.85 -1,157.44 Larkswood Primary 47.79 -821.27 Leytonstone Business and Enterprise Specialist School 393.99 5,886.86 Longshaw Primary -0.00 -16,607.88 Mayville Primary -0.00 -21,609.44 Mission Grove Primary School 27.88 -6,608.38 Newport School -0.00 -1,605.57 Norlington Boys -400.00 -20,656.95 Oakhill Primary -0.00 -18,720.75 Our Lady and St George's Catholic Primary School 10.80 -7,910.00 Parkside Primary School 0.00 -6,533.73 Riverley Primary School 0.00 10,509.89
Page 1 of 2 Appendix B: IDACI Funding Rates - Fairness Principle vs. Stability Principle
Stability Priciple Fairness : IDACI Priciple : IDACI School Name Varieance Varieance Based on Rates Based on Rates in Table 1 in Table 2
Roger Ascham Primary 96.37 19,890.00 Rushcroft Foundation School -50.09 -6,011.31 Selwyn Primary School -148.08 -2,234.83 South Grove Primary 0.00 8,287.92 St Joseph's Catholic Infants -149.29 -393.58 St Mary's Catholic Primary -286.11 15,201.59 St. Joseph's Catholic Junior -0.00 5,851.33 St. Mary's C of E Primary 44.46 -2,931.82 St. Patricks Catholic Primary 68.27 9,750.79 St. Saviour's C of E Primary -0.00 -5,837.10 Stoneydown Park Primary -66.37 -2,060.38 Sybourn Primary School 63.02 1,791.18 The Jenny Hammond Pri. School 17.15 22,732.95 The Lammas School and Sixth Form -0.00 12,390.00 THE WINNS PRIMARY 173.18 16,690.95 The Woodside Primary Academy -199.55 2,020.06 THOMAS GAMUEL PRIMARY -0.00 -6,240.67 Thorpe Hall Primary 55.81 402.84 Walthamstow Academy 663.63 -1,914.79 Walthamstow Primary Academy -144.12 -5,488.48 WALTHAMSTOW SCHOOL FOR GIRLS 199.44 -30,372.77 Whitehall Primary School -0.00 9,333.49 Whittingham Primary Academy 0.00 -2,425.99 Willow Brook Primary Academy 27.72 9,595.16 Willowfield Humanities College 0.00 7,481.83 Woodford Green Primary -40.00 19,069.02 Yardley Primary 0.00 -4,560.00
Page 2 of 2 LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST
Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 7 9 November 2016
Report Title Growth Fund 2017-18
Decision/ For Information Discussion/ Information
Report Author/ Duncan James-Pike, Strategic Finance Advisor , 020 8496 3502 Contact details [email protected] Brendan Wells, Head of Commissioning, Capital and Planning 020 8496 6322 [email protected] Appendix A Existing Growth Fund scheme 2016-17 Appendices Appendix B Proposed scheme 2017-18 Appendix C Consultation document Appendix D Consultation questions
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Local Authority is required to consult with the Schools Forum regarding any changes to Growth Fund as this affects the total funding available to be delegated to all schools through the Local Funding Formula for 5 - 16 year olds.
2. SUMMARY
2.1 This report sets out the main considerations regarding the Growth Fund, including as appendices the existing and proposed schemes, the consultation document and questionnaire.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS Schools Forum to note: 3.1 The consultation papers on the Growth Fund 2017-18.
4 BACKGROUND
4.1 The Growth Fund has been supported from reserves over the last few years, but these are now used up so the Growth Fund for 2017-18 has to be met from the Schools Block of the DSG by top-slicing the budgets of all schools, academies and free schools.
4.2 The Growth Fund for 2016-17 was £3.25 million. A similar amount is anticipated for 2017-18.
1
From DSG From Reserves Total £ £ £ 2014-15 2,750,000 1,000,000 3,750,000 2015-16 2,500,000 1,250,000 3,750,000 2016-17 2,500,000 750,000 3,250,000
4.3 Eligibility for support from the Growth Fund is determined through criteria agreed by Schools Forum and should reflect the Schools Forum funding principles of transparency, fairness, stability, and support for vulnerable students. The criteria were last amended at Schools Forum on 10 February 2016.
4.4 The LA proposes some changes to the criteria to ensure that there continues to be a transparent and consistent basis for the allocation of funding with clear objective criteria.
5 CONSULTATION
5.1 A Schools Forum Task and Finish Group met on 24 October 2016 to test out some of the proposals and a consultation was launched to head teachers, chairs of governors and school business managers early November 2016.
5.2 The results of the consultation and recommendations will be reported to Schools Forum in December.
2
Growth Fund Appendix A
Existing Criteria for the allocation of funding through the Growth Fund
1 Permanent Expansions
AWPU and other Pupil Driven factors
1.1 Any primary and secondary schools, academies and free schools undergoing expansion planned by the LA, e.g. reception classes and at year 7 will be eligible. Payment will be 7/12ths of the annual factor rates for AWPU, FSM6, IDACI, EAL, Low Attainment and Mobility to cover the additional costs incurred between 1 September and 31 March.
1.2 The LA funds permanently expanding primary schools on the actual October Census data for Reception averaged over the previous two counts prior to the Academic Year of Growth. For example, for an expansion in September 2016, the average is taken over the counts at October 2014 and October 2015. Where growth data is not available the LA will use actual NOR + 30 per form of additional entry at Reception. New schools will be funded on 30 per form for the first year. For secondary schools the same applies, but using Year 7 data.
1.3 These figures will then be adjusted to take account of the actual number of pupils in the existing Year 6 or Year 11 on the October School Census. This is done to avoid double funding where there are bulge classes as well as permanent expansions.
1.4 These provisional allocations will be adjusted where the actual NOR in the October census is higher than the forecasted figure. It is not proposed to claw back funding if NOR are lower, as schools need a baseline figure with which to work.
1.5 For the next financial year, following admission, funding for the year group will be based on the actual NOR in the October census. Additional funding through the Growth Fund will cease when schools have reached capacity in all year groups. This funding of planned growth in pupil numbers is net of any bulge classes in the outgoing year 6 or year 11.
Leadership and Management Allowance
1.6 Where the planned expansion of the maintained school or academy is by at least 1FE, the Local Authority will provide additional Leadership and Management funding worth £150,000 over the first three financial years in recognition of the increase in management costs associated with a significant school expansion.
Expansion onto Second Sites
1.7 Where the planned expansion of the maintained school or academy involves a second site, the Local Authority will provide a split-site payment through delegated funding. In addition, the Local Authority will make a tapered payment to such schools in the first few years of expansion on to the second site in recognition of the fact that all the premises costs incurred for utilities, caretaking and cleaning and maintenance are now met solely out of AWPU. In the first few years the additional pupils do not generate sufficient funding to meet these costs. Broadly speaking the average costs (per pupil) have been calculated at £150 per pupil, e.g. 3FE site costs @£94,500 utilities and caretaking cost.
1
Growth Fund Appendix A
1.8 The formula used is set out in the table below. This relates to a 2FE expansion but the same method would apply to a 1FE or 3FE expansion on a second site.
• Applies to any school permanently expanding onto an additional site.
• An additional payment is made for the first 5 years of the expansion.
• Additional payment is based upon the capacity of the new site less the planned number of pupils in the expansion e.g. the shortfall in pupils compared with site capacity.
• Payment will be £150 per pupil to cover premises costs other than rates.
Table : Calculation of funding for planned expansions onto a second site
Capacity Year of Planned number Shortfall Funding at expansion of pupils on site £150 per pupil
420 1 60 360 £54,000
420 2 120 300 £45,000
420 3 180 240 £36,000
420 4 240 180 £27,000
420 5 300 120 £18,000
2 Bulge Classes
AWPU and other Pupil Driven factors
2.1 Any primary and secondary school and academy accepting an additional temporary (bulge) class planned by the LA will be eligible.
2.2 Payment will be 7/12ths of the annual factor rates for AWPU, FSM6, IDACI, EAL, Low Attainment and Mobility to cover the additional costs incurred between 1 September and 31 March.
2.3 Schools and academies will be funded for the planned number of pupils e.g. 30 per extra FE. However from the next financial year, funding for the year group will be based on the actual NOR in the October school census, subject to applying a class size funding guarantee (see below).
Resources
2.4 Where there is only a temporary one-off expansion, the maintained school or academy will receive an extra £200 per pupil towards the cost of additional resources over and above the AWPU and targeted pupil support. This is equivalent to a one–off payment of £6,000 per class.
2
Growth Fund Appendix A
Class size guarantee
2.5 The Local Authority will give a minimum class size guarantee of AWPU funding for 25 pupils per class or FE. This means that if the actual NOR in the class are only 23 at the time of the October census, the Local Authority will increase AWPU funding as if the actual NOR were 25. Class size protection for bulge classes will be capped when the shortfall reaches 10 pupils (i.e. a maximum of 15 places are guaranteed). This guarantee applies for as long as the bulge class remains within the school. If numbers in the bulge class fall to zero, the class size protection will cease.
Reception and Key Stage 1 classes
2.6 Where as a result of an appeal or the Local Authority asks a school to take a child (e.g. looked-after or with SEN) which takes the number in the reception or Key stage class to over 30, the Local Authority will meet the cost of an additional teaching assistant to keep the class size at 30 or below. Payments will be made termly in arrears based on submitted evidence of costs incurred by the school.
3 Good and Outstanding schools with surplus places over 20%
3.1 Where a school has more than 20% surplus places and has a current Ofsted judgement of good or outstanding and is in an area where the Local Authority expects school rolls to rise within three years, the Local Authority will allocate additional funding according to the following formula:
Number of pupils below 80% capacity x 75% of AWPU rate.
Example: Secondary school with capacity of 900 has 700 on roll in October census.
80% capacity = 900 x 0.8 = 720
No. of pupils below 80% capacity = 720 – 700 = 20
AWPU rate is £4,800.
75% of AWPU rate = £4,800 x 0.75 = £3,600
Funding = 20 x £3,600 = £72,000.
3.2 This support to Good and Outstanding schools with surplus places over 20% is capped at £100,000.
3
Growth Fund Appendix B
Proposed Growth Fund Scheme 2017-18
In this document “school” means any maintained school, academy or free school
1 Permanent Expansions
1.1 When a school admits an additional form of entry as part of a permanent expansion planned by the LA it will be eligible for support from the Growth Fund.
First year funding guarantee
1.2 Each new form of entry will receive a first year funding guarantee: a minimum of 7/12 x 25 x average pupil-led funding rate for the school, i.e. for a minimum of 25 places for seven months (September to March).
1.3 If more than 25 pupils appear on the following October census for Reception / Year 7, additional average pupil-led funding will be allocated. There will be no claw-back if less than 25 pupils appear.
Second and subsequent entry years of expansion
1.4 Ordinarily, the first year funding guarantee will apply in the second and subsequent years to each new form entry until the fully expanded PAN has been reached.
1.5 Where more than one form of entry has been implemented, and more than 30 additional pupils appear on the following October census, the first year funding guarantee will apply for the first form of entry up to 30, then for any subsequent forms up to the NOR.
Years after admission
1.6 Funding for the year group for the financial year following admission will reflect the actual NOR in the October census, in line with all other year groups.
Permanent expansion when a bulge class is in its final year
1.7 When a permanent expansion occurs in the same year as a maturing bulge class, an adjustment is necessary as the school would benefit from the bulge class final year protection but does not require assistance with a contraction in resources. The bulge class final year protection will be deducted from the permanent expansion’s first year funding guarantee to avoid double-funding
1
Growth Fund Appendix B
Leadership and Management Allowance
1.8 Where there is a planned expansion of a school by at least 1FE, the local authority will provide additional leadership and management funding worth a maximum of £150,000 in recognition of the increase in management costs associated with expansion.
1.9 This shall be released in staged payments. If at any stage the proposal to expand is cancelled the staged payments shall only be paid up to the end of the stage at which the project is stopped.
Leadership And Management Allowance Primary
Stage 1 At point of the second bulge class intake £20,000
At point of approval of the permanent Stage 2 expansion of PAN by Cabinet/Secretary of £30,000 State.
September of the first form entry of the Stage 3 £75,000 permanent expansion.
April preceding the September entry of the Stage 4 £25,000 second year of expansion.
Leadership And Management Allowance Secondary At point of approval of the permanent Stage 1 expansion of PAN by Cabinet/Secretary of £50,000 State.
September of the first form entry of the Stage 2 £50,000 permanent expansion.
April preceding the September entry of the Stage 3 £50,000 second year of expansion.
2
Growth Fund Appendix B
Second sites
1.10 Commitments made to schools which have expanded onto second sites in agreement with the local authority will be honoured, but further expansions onto second sites will not receive additional funding.
Year of Planned number Shortfall Funding at Capacity expansion of pupils on site £150 per pupil
420 1 60 360 £54,000
420 2 120 300 £45,000
420 3 180 240 £36,000
420 4 240 180 £27,000
420 5 300 120 £18,000
Resources
1.11 An additional £5,000 will be paid for each new FE towards the cost of additional resources when the first year funding guarantee is applicable.
3
Growth Fund Appendix B
2 Temporary (Bulge Class) Expansions
2.1 When a school admits an additional form of entry as a temporary expansion (bulge class) planned by the LA it will be eligible for support from the Growth Fund.
First year funding guarantee
2.2 Each new bulge class will receive a first year funding guarantee: a minimum of 7/12 x 25 x average pupil-led funding rate for the school, i.e. for a minimum of 25 places for seven months (September to March).
2.3 Where more than one bulge class has been implemented for the same year group in an academic year, and more than 30 additional pupils appear on the following October census, the first year funding guarantee will apply for the first bulge class up to 30, then for any subsequent classes up to the NOR.
2.4 If more than 25 pupils appear on the following October census for Reception / Year 7, additional average pupil-led funding will be allocated. There will be no claw-back if less than 25 pupils appear.
Years after admission: minimum class size guarantee
2.5 The Local Authority will give a minimum class size guarantee of AWPU funding for 25 pupils per bulge class until the final year the bulge class is in the school unless the numbers in the bulge class fall to zero, when the class size guarantee will cease.
2.6 Class size protection for bulge classes is capped at 15 AWPUs.
2.7 In the final year the class size protection will be reduced to 5/12 of AWPU to reflect that the bulge class matures after five months.
4
Growth Fund Appendix B
over PAN (excluding top up places primary AWPU top bulge) places funded up (2016-17) £3,482 25 or more 0 0 £0 24 1 25 £3,482 23 2 25 £6,964 22 3 25 £10,446 21 4 25 £13,928 20 5 25 £17,410 19 6 25 £20,892 18 7 25 £24,374 17 8 25 £27,856 16 9 25 £31,338 15 10 25 £34,820 14 11 25 £38,302 13 12 25 £41,784 12 13 25 £45,266 11 14 25 £48,748 10 or less 15 25 £52,230 0 0 0 £0
Final year protection
2.8 The final year of a bulge class gives protection to the school. When a bulge class matures, the seven months (September to March) funding generated by the bulge class pupils is retained by the school to assist with the contraction in resources.
Resources
2.9 An additional £5,000 will be paid for each new FE towards the cost of additional resources when the first year funding guarantee is applicable
3 Reception and Key Stage 1 classes
3.1 Where as a result of an appeal or the Local Authority asks a school to take a pupil which takes the number in the reception or Key Stage 1 class to over 30, the Local Authority will meet the cost of an additional teaching assistant to keep the class size at 30 or below. Payments will be made termly in arrears based on submitted evidence of costs incurred by the school.
5
Growth Fund Appendix C
Proposed Growth Fund Scheme 2017-18: Consultation Document
In this document “school” means any maintained school, academy or free school
Introduction i The Local Authority is required to consult with the Schools Forum regarding any changes to Growth Fund as this affects the total funding available to be delegated to all schools through the Local Funding Formula for 5 - 16 year olds. ii Schools Forum decides on the size and allocation of Growth Fund.
The Growth Fund has been supported from reserves over the last few years, but these are now used up so the Growth Fund for 2017-18 has to be met from the Schools Block of the DSG by top-slicing the budgets of all schools, academies and free schools. iii The Growth Fund for 2016-17 was £3.25 million. A similar amount is anticipated for 2017-18.
From DSG From Reserves Total £ £ £ 2014-15 2,750,000 1,000,000 3,750,000 2015-16 2,500,000 1,250,000 3,750,000 2016-17 2,500,000 750,000 3,250,000
iv Eligibility for support from the Growth Fund is determined through criteria agreed by Schools Forum and should reflect the Schools Forum funding principles of transparency, fairness, stability, and support for vulnerable students. The criteria were last amended at Schools Forum on 10 February 2016. v The LA proposes some changes to the criteria to ensure that there continues to be a transparent and consistent basis for the allocation of funding with clear objective criteria. vi A Schools Forum Task and Finish Group met on 24 October 2016 to test out some of the proposals in this document.
1
Growth Fund Appendix C
Proposed Growth Fund Scheme for 2017-18
In this document “school” means any maintained school, academy or free school.
1 Permanent Expansions
1.1 When a school admits an additional form of entry as part of a permanent expansion planned by the LA it will be eligible for support from the Growth Fund.
This clause has the same meaning as in the existing scheme
First year funding guarantee
1.2 Each new form of entry will receive a first year funding guarantee: a minimum of 7/12 x 25 x average pupil-led funding rate for the school, i.e. for a minimum of 25 places for seven months (September to March).
This is a change from the current scheme which guarantees funding for 30 pupils. The LA believes that 25 pupils should be sufficient to fund a class.
The term ““pupil-led factor rate” is used in anticipation of changes in allowable pupil- led formula factors, for example the EFA’s proposal to remove Mobility. The current scheme refers to “annual factor rates for AWPU, FSM6, IDACI, EAL, Low Attainment and Mobility”
1.3 If more than 25 pupils appear on the following October census for Reception / Year 7, additional average pupil-led funding will be allocated. There will be no claw-back if less than 25 pupils appear.
This clause is the same as the current scheme except it uses 25 pupils rather than 30
Second and subsequent entry years of expansion
1.4 Ordinarily, the first year funding guarantee will apply in the second and subsequent years to each new form entry until the fully expanded PAN has been reached. 2
Growth Fund Appendix C
1.5 Where more than one form of entry has been implemented, and more than 30 additional pupils appear on the following October census, the first year funding guarantee will apply for the first form of entry up to 30, then for any subsequent forms up to the NOR.
This is a change to the current scheme which uses the actual October Census data for Reception averaged over the previous two counts prior to the Academic Year of Growth; and, where growth data is not available, actual NOR + 30 per form of additional entry at Reception. New schools are funded on 30 per form for the first year. For secondary schools the same applies, but using Year 7 data.
The LA believes the proposed scheme is more transparent by being simpler to understand in that is uses the first year funding guarantee as the basis for the new forms.
Years after admission
1.6 Funding for the year group for the financial year following admission will reflect the actual NOR in the October census, in line with all other year groups.
Permanent expansion when a bulge class is in its final year
1.7 When a permanent expansion occurs in the same year as a maturing bulge class, an adjustment is necessary as the school would benefit from the bulge class final year protection but does not require assistance with a contraction in resources. The bulge class final year protection will be deducted from the permanent expansion’s first year funding guarantee to avoid double-funding.
These clauses have the same meaning as in the existing scheme.
Leadership and Management Allowance
1.8 Where there is a planned expansion of a school by at least 1FE, the local authority will provide additional leadership and management funding worth a maximum of £150,000 in recognition of the increase in management costs associated with expansion.
1.9 This shall be released in staged payments. If at any stage the proposal to expand is cancelled the staged payments shall only be paid up to the end of the stage at which the project is stopped. 3
Growth Fund Appendix C
Leadership And Management Allowance Primary
Stage 1 At point of the second bulge class intake £20,000
At point of approval of the permanent Stage 2 expansion of PAN by Cabinet/Secretary of £30,000 State.
September of the first form entry of the Stage 3 £75,000 permanent expansion.
April preceding the September entry of the Stage 4 £25,000 second year of expansion.
Leadership And Management Allowance Secondary At point of approval of the permanent Stage 1 expansion of PAN by Cabinet/Secretary of £50,000 State.
September of the first form entry of the Stage 2 £50,000 permanent expansion.
April preceding the September entry of the Stage 3 £50,000 second year of expansion.
This clause specifies when the payments are released. The current scheme states only that “..the Local Authority will provide additional Leadership and Management funding worth £150,000 over the first three financial years…”
4
Growth Fund Appendix C
Second sites
1.10 Commitments made to schools which have expanded onto second sites in agreement with the local authority will be honoured, but further expansions onto second sites will not receive additional funding.
Year of Planned number Shortfall Funding at Capacity expansion of pupils on site £150 per pupil
420 1 60 360 £54,000
420 2 120 300 £45,000
420 3 180 240 £36,000
420 4 240 180 £27,000
420 5 300 120 £18,000
The LA believes that there will be no further planned expansions that would need this provision.
Resources
1.11 An additional £5,000 will be paid for each new FE towards the cost of additional resources when the first year funding guarantee is applicable.
This clause would extend the additional resources given to bulge classes to permanent expansions (at a rate of £200 each for 25 pupils) in order to treat all new forms of entry the same.
5
Growth Fund Appendix C
2 Temporary (Bulge Class) Expansions
2.1 When a school admits an additional form of entry as a temporary expansion (bulge class) planned by the LA it will be eligible for support from the Growth Fund.
This clause has the same meaning as in the existing scheme.
First year funding guarantee
2.2 Each new bulge class will receive a first year funding guarantee: a minimum of 7/12 x 25 x average pupil-led funding rate for the school, i.e. for a minimum of 25 places for seven months (September to March).
This is a change from the current scheme which guarantees funding for 30 pupils. The LA believes that 25 pupils should be sufficient to fund a class.
The term ““pupil-led factor rate” is used in anticipation of changes in allowable pupil- led formula factors, for example the EFA’s proposal to remove Mobility. The current scheme refers to “annual factor rates for AWPU, FSM6, IDACI, EAL, Low Attainment and Mobility”
2.3 Where more than one bulge class has been implemented for the same year group in an academic year, and more than 30 additional pupils appear on the following October census, the first year funding guarantee will apply for the first bulge class up to 30, then for any subsequent classes up to the NOR.
This is a new clause to ensure that limits to the first year funding guarantee where there are two or more bulge classes in the same year.
2.4 If more than 25 pupils appear on the following October census for Reception / Year 7, additional average pupil-led funding will be allocated. There will be no claw-back if less than 25 pupils appear.
This clause is the same as the current scheme except it use 25 pupils rather than 30
Years after admission: minimum class size guarantee
6
Growth Fund Appendix C
2.5 The Local Authority will give a minimum class size guarantee of AWPU funding for 25 pupils per bulge class until the final year the bulge class is in the school unless the numbers in the bulge class fall to zero, when the class size guarantee will cease.
2.6 Class size protection for bulge classes is capped at 15 AWPUs.
over PAN top up places primary AWPU top (excluding bulge) places funded up (2016-17) £3,482 25 or more 0 0 £0 24 1 25 £3,482 23 2 25 £6,964 22 3 25 £10,446 21 4 25 £13,928 20 5 25 £17,410 19 6 25 £20,892 18 7 25 £24,374 17 8 25 £27,856 16 9 25 £31,338 15 10 25 £34,820 14 11 25 £38,302 13 12 25 £41,784 12 13 25 £45,266 11 14 25 £48,748 10 or less 15 25 £52,230 0 0 0 £0
This clause has the same meaning as the current scheme
2.7 In the final year the class size protection will be reduced to 5/12 of AWPU to reflect that the bulge class matures after five months.
This clause restricts the class size protection to when the bulge class is actually in the school
Final year protection
2.8 The final year of a bulge class gives protection to the school. When a bulge class matures, the seven months (September to March) funding generated by the bulge class pupils is retained by the school to assist with the contraction in resources. 7
Growth Fund Appendix C
This is a new clause that makes explicit the position when a bulge class mature. It does not change the scheme.
Resources
2.9 An additional £5,000 will be paid for each new FE towards the cost of additional resources when the first year funding guarantee is applicable
This is a change from the current scheme which would pay £5,000 (£200 x 25) rather than £6,000 (£200 x 30)
8
Growth Fund Appendix C
3 Reception and Key Stage 1 classes
3.1 Where as a result of an appeal or the Local Authority asks a school to take a pupil which takes the number in the reception or Key Stage 1 class to over 30, the Local Authority will meet the cost of an additional teaching assistant to keep the class size at 30 or below. Payments will be made termly in arrears based on submitted evidence of costs incurred by the school.
This clause is the same as the current scheme
4 Good and Outstanding schools with surplus places over 20%
It is proposed that the Falling Rolls fund is discontinued. LAs may top-slice the DSG to create a small fund where local planning data shows that surplus places will be needed within the next three financial years but the existing surplus places do not need protecting as they do not reflect a shortfall of pupils. The existing scheme states that:
Where a school has more than 20% surplus places and has a current Ofsted judgement of good or outstanding and is in an area where the Local Authority expects school rolls to rise within three years, the Local Authority will allocate additional funding according to the following formula:
Number of pupils below 80% capacity x 75% of AWPU rate.
Example: Secondary school with capacity of 900 has 700 on roll in October census.
80% capacity = 900 x 0.8 = 720
No. of pupils below 80% capacity = 720 – 700 = 20
AWPU rate is £4,800.
75% of AWPU rate = £4,800 x 0.75 = £3,600
Funding = 20 x £3,600 = £72,000.
This support to Good and Outstanding schools with surplus places over 20% is capped at £100,000.
9
Growth Fund Appendix D
Proposed Growth Fund Scheme 2017-18: Consultation Questions
Q1 What school do you work for?
Q2 What is your role at the school?
Head teacher
Chair of Governors / Academy Trust
Other
If other, please specify role
Permanent Expansions
Q3 Do you agree to change the existing scheme for permanent expansions from guaranteeing funding for 30 pupils to guaranteeing funding for 25 pupils?
Q4 Where more than one form entry of permanent expansion has been implemented for the same year group in an academic year, do you agree to limiting the first year funding guarantee to the first form entry up to 30, then for any subsequent classes up to the NOR?
Leadership and Management
Q5 Do you agree to change the existing Leadership and Management funding scheme from providing additional Leadership and Management funding worth £150,000 over the first three financial years to the following staged payments?
Primary Stage 1: At the point of second bulge class intake £20,000 Stage 2: At point of approval of the permanent expansion of PAN by cabinet/Secretary of State £30,000 Stage 3: September of the first form entry of the permanent expansion £75,000 Stage 4: April preceding the September entry of the second year expansion £25,000
Secondary Stage 1: At point of approval of the permanent expansion of PAN by cabinet/Secretary of State £50,000 Stage 2: September of the first form entry of the permanent expansion £50,000 Stage 3: April preceding the September entry of the second year expansion £50,000
1
Growth Fund Appendix D
Q5 Do you agree to the LA removing split site funding for future expansions?
Q6 Do you agree to extending the additional resources funding given to bulge classes to permanent expansions?
Temporary (Bulge Class) Expansions
Q7 Do you agree to change the existing scheme for bulge classes from guaranteeing funding for 30 pupils to guaranteeing funding for 25 pupils?
Q8 Where more than one bulge class has been implemented for the same year group in an academic year, do you agree to limit the first year funding guarantee to the first bulge class up to 30, then for any subsequent classes up to the NOR?
Q9 Do you agree to restrict the class size guarantee to when the bulge class is actually in the school?
Q10 Do you agree to reducing the additional resources form £6,000 (£200 x 30) to £5,000 (£200 x 25)
Good and Outstanding schools with surplus places over 20%
Q11 Do you agree to remove the Falling Rolls fund from the scheme?
Comments
Q12 Do you have any other comments on any of the questions? If so, please enter below:
Thank you for completing the consultation questionnaire.
2