MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Monday 6th October 2014 at 2.00pm Council Chamber, County Hall
A G E N D A 1. Apologies
2. Minutes of the Last Meeting 5th September 2014 (attached)
3. Matters Arising
4. Any Other Business
5. Schools Issues Area Briefings September 2014 (attached)
6. DfE School Funding Reform 2015-16 Outcomes of the Consultation on the Proposals for Changes to the Existing New Mainstream Formula from April 2015 a) Responses to Consultation Issues * b) Analysis of Formula Options * c) Consideration of Recommended Actions *
* Given the consultation period does not close until 1st October 2014 these papers will be provided at the WSF meeting
7. F40 Group Update a) Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting th Steph Simcox on 6 September 2014 (attached) Head of Finance and b) Briefing Paper (attached) Resources c) Research Group – Towards a National
Children's Services Funding Formula for Schools (attached)
PO Box 73 8. Academy Update (attached) County Hall Spetchley Road Worcester Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday 14th January 2015 WR5 2YA At 2pm Kidderminster Room Tel 01905 766342 Fax 01905 766156 Please pass apologies to Andy McHale who can be contacted on E-mail Tel 01905 766285, fax 01905 766156 or e-mail [email protected] [email protected]
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Monday 6th October 2014 In the Council Chamber, County Hall, Worcester
The meeting started at 2.00 pm
IN ATTENDANCE:
WSF Members
Clive Corbett (Chair) - Pershore High School Lawrence Gittins - St. John's CE Primary School Julie Reilly - The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre Guy Shears - RSA Academy Arrow Vale (from 2.15pm) Malcolm Richards (Vice Chair) - Governor, Bromsgrove David Hargreaves - Governor, Redditch Peter Ingham - Governor, Wyre Forest Alistair Thomas - Governor, Malvern Hills David McIntosh - Governor, Wyre Forest Jeff Robinson - Governor, Malvern Hills Richard Taylor - Governor, Bromsgrove June Longmuir - Governor, Bromsgrove Steve Baker - Union Representative Tricia Wellings - PVI Sector Michael Kitcatt - 16-19 Providers
WSF Observer Member
Keith Howkins - Education Funding Agency (EFA)
Local Authority (LA) Officers
Stephanie Simcox - Resources Andy McHale - Children’s Services Caroline Brand - Children's Services Rob Phillips - Children's Services
Local Authority Members
Councillor Liz Eyre - Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families
Observer
Emma Lees - Finance Manager Droitwich High School
1. APOLOGIES AND WELCOME
Marian Gager - Evesham Nursery School
1 Elizabeth Spencer - St. Richards CE First School Paul Kilgallon - St. Barnabas First and Middle School Jane Long - Fort Royal Community Primary School Val Houghton - Church of England Board of Education Sean Devlin - Archdiocese of Birmingham Sean Williams - The Forge Pupil Referral Unit Vicky Dunn - PVI Sector
The Chair welcomed Keith Howkins (EFA) to the meeting in his capacity as Schools Forum observer member and Andy McHale back from his recent absence.
The Chair advised that Keith was willing to take funding questions as required.
2. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (5th SEPTEMBER 2014)
The Clerk was requested to record Elizabeth Spencer and David McIntosh as giving their apologies.
A member of the WSF requested clarification in the wording under Paragraph 7.3(b) concerning the LA view on the Low Prior Attainment (LPA) discussion and queried when this view was expressed. Steph advised that she recalled saying at the WSF meeting that she on behalf of the LA was surprised by the WSF decision.
Another member of the WSF also under Paragraph 7.3 queried the decision on the Options for consultation and the interpretation as the member felt the understanding was that LPA would not be adjusted in any of the options. The Chair responded he did not share that view and the existing LPA issue was an issue for Option 3 only. This position was shared by the majority of WSF members.
The minutes were then agreed.
3. MATTERS ARISING
3.1 In light of the discussions at the last WSF meeting and issues arising since the Chair reminded members of their responsibilities to represent their groups and sectors and the need to not champion individual school issues.
3.2 To support this, the Chair proposed setting up a strategic group of WSF members and others to consider the longer term strategic principles for the National Fair Funding Formula (NFFF) and the local funding model. The Vice Chair supported this and reminded the WSF that the major issue is the lack of adequate funding for Worcestershire.
RESOLVED – The WSF to set up a sub group when required and for any nominations to be made direct to the Chair and for the Clerk to ensure all schools are contacted to ensure a wide representation of views.
4. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None.
2 5. SCHOOL ISSUES AREA BRIEFINGS SEPTEMBER 2014
5.1 Andy confirmed both meetings were well attended and the issues discussed and raised were included in the consultation feedback. The WSF noted the issues included on the agenda for the meetings.
6. DfE SCHOOL FUNDING REFORM 2015-16 – OUTCOMES OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO THE EXISTING MAINSTREAM FORMULA FROM APRIL 2015
6.1 Andy introduced the item and confirmed the consultation had concluded at 5pm on 1st October 2014. A significant number of responses were received during the last two days and as such the outcomes had been complied as quickly as was practicable.
6.2 To support the WSF meeting the following information had been provided prior to the WSF meeting by e-mail on 3rd and 6th October 2014 with copies also available at the WSF meeting: - The written responses to the consultation and area meetings summary – Agenda Item 6(a). The overall outcomes of the consultation detailing the number of responses – Agenda Item 6(b). The overall options analysis based upon the preference votes linked to size of school based on pupil numbers – Agenda Item 6(b) Appendix A. A summary of the recommended actions – Agenda Item 6(c)
6.3 Responses to Consultation Issues
(a) The WSF noted the issues arising from both the consultation responses and the area consultation meetings. The papers provided a FAQ document from the area meetings.
(b) Andy advised that all the feedback would be part of the Cabinet papers for their meeting on 16th October 2014.
6.4 Analysis of the Consultation Formula Options
(a) There were 109 returned questionnaires, which represents 48% of schools. This is a high response rate but the turnout was varied between the sectors with this being much higher in the secondary sector compared to the primary sector.
(b) In terms of the overall summary, excluding the formula options, Andy advised there was support for: - The treatment of any additional Schools Block DSG in 2015/16 is allocated via the AWPU using the ratio of 1:1.27 for primary and secondary schools. Support for the minor changes to the existing split site formula for newly qualifying schools. Schools Block Funding is retained in that block and that no transfer is made to the Early Years or High Needs Blocks. Continuing with the existing arrangements in 2014/15 into 2015/16 as permitted by the DfE for the: - Delegation and de-delegation of centrally retained DSG services for maintained schools, except for those included in the Learning and Achievement (L&A) review.
3 Other centrally retained DSG services for all maintained schools and academies.
(c) Members of the WSF commented as follows: - Their appreciation of the extremely quick turnaround on the consultation outcomes. That a number of primary schools may not have understood the issues on the treatment of the additional DSG and queried whether it had to be allocated through the AWPU. The outcome not to transfer funding to the Early Years and High Needs blocks was not surprising although there were encouraging comments made on Early Years in particular. In terms of a longer term strategy the need to review and assess criteria definitions for deprivation, sparsity, etc.
(d) Steph confirmed that the primary/secondary AWPU values in Options 4 to 6 where the MFLs were used, originally related to the MFL values, but were then adjusted for the addition of the £6.2m expected extra DSG and that any additional DSG would need to be allocated through the formula. This together with the MFG/capping had impacted on the draft AWPU units of resource. It was agreed that there was a need to include WSF members and other interested parties in the longer term strategy analysis.
(e) In terms of the outcomes for the local school formula, Andy confirmed the most popular option after taking account of the preference votes linked to pupil numbers was Option 6 i.e. the use of the DfE MFLs for 2014-15 WCC factors plus sparsity (tapered) and widening to include IDACI 1 to 3. This was followed by Options 4, 1, 5, 2 and 3 in that order.
(f) A member of the WSF queried the weighting levels applied to the preference feeling the 2nd and 3rd preference weightings were too high. Andy advised it was the system from 2014-15 and differentiated between the options and size of school as agreed. The WSF noted the results and the differences in number of schools and pupils in each of the preferences for the 6 options.
6.5 Consideration of Recommended Actions
(a) Andy requested the WSF consider Agenda Item 6c) which provided a summary of the consultation outcomes and recommended actions. These would then form part of the decisions required by the WCC Cabinet.
(b) The WSF were reminded that, apart from the delegation and de-delegation matters where maintained school members were the decision makers, the decisions were for the WCC Cabinet. The WSF were requested to endorse or otherwise the recommended actions.
(c) Andy advised that the voting arrangements were as follows: - All School Members (Nursery, First, Primary, Secondary, High, Special and PRU's) – Funding formula and Other WSF business. Non School PVI Members – Funding formula and Other WSF business. Maintained Mainstream School Members Only – Delegation and de-delegation for their phase only. Non Schools Members – Other WSF Business.
4 (d) Consultation Question 1 – Formula Option for 2015-16
The Chair requested that the WSF consider a decision on the formula to be recommended for 2015-16. It was felt the high turnout gave credence to the most favoured Option 6. In coming to a decision the WSF took account of all the above issues, the consultation responses, the submissions by schools on the consultation issues and the results of the options analysis. On a show of hands the relevant WSF representatives endorsed (For 8 votes; Against 4 votes; Abstentions 1 vote) Option 6 as the favoured option for the local schools funding formula from April 2015 for 2015-16.
(e) Consultation Question 2 – Use of Additional Schools Block DSG
On a show of hands the relevant WSF representatives endorsed (For 9 votes; Against 2 votes; Abstentions 2 votes) that this be allocated via the AWPU using the ratio 1:1.27 for primary and secondary schools.
(f) Consultation Question 3 – Amendment to the Existing Split Site Formula Criteria
On a show of hands the relevant WSF representatives endorsed (For 11 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 2 votes) the amendment to the existing split site criteria for newly qualifying schools be made.
(g) Consultation Question 4 – Transfer from the Schools Block
On a show of hands the relevant WSF representatives were split (For 4 votes; Against 4 votes; Abstentions 5 votes) on any transfer of Schools Block DSG to the Early Years Block. On a show of hands the relevant WSF representatives were split (For 5 votes; Against 6 votes; Abstentions 2 votes) on any transfer of Schools Block DSG to the High Needs Block.
(h) Consultation Question 5 Part A – Delegation and De-delegation of Centrally Retained DSG Services for Maintained Mainstream Schools for Services Not Covered By the Learning and Achievement (L&A) Review
The WSF considered its statutory responsibilities in making decisions on the delegation or de-delegation of services currently centrally retained in the DSG. In line with the Schools Forum (England) Regulations 2012, the WSF maintained school members by phase considered these areas. On a show of hands the WSF maintained school members unanimously by phase (Primary: For 4 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 0 votes; and Secondary: For 2 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 0 votes) agreed to approve to either delegate or de-delegate these areas by reducing the formula amounts for maintained mainstream schools as follows: -
5 Phase/Service Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Delegation De- Delegation De- delegation delegation School Specific No Yes No Yes Contingency (SSC) Support for Schools in Yes No Yes No Financial Difficulty 14-16 Practical Learning N/A N/A Yes No Options Support for Minority Ethnic No Yes No Yes Pupils or Underachieving Groups – EMAG Support for Minority Ethnic No Yes No Yes Pupils or Underachieving Groups – Travellers Children Free School Meal Eligibility No Yes No Yes Schools Insurance Yes No Yes No Licenses and Subscriptions No Yes No Yes Staff Costs Supply Cover – No Yes No Yes Civic Duties Staff Costs Supply Cover – No Yes No Yes Trade Union Duties Staff Costs Supply Cover – No Yes No Yes HR Related Duties
RESOLVED –
The maintained mainstream school members of the WSF unanimously agreed the recommendation for the delegation or de-delegation of the services as listed and to reducing the formula amounts as required for maintained mainstream schools.
(i) Consultation Question 5 Part B – Delegation and De-delegation of Centrally Retained DSG Services for Maintained Mainstream Schools for Services Covered By the Learning and Achievement (L&A) Review
Andy advised on the outcomes for these services: - FSM eligibility – de-delegation supported in both sectors. Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils or Underachieving Groups EMAG – majority support for delegation. Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils or Underachieving Groups Travellers Children – majority support for delegation. However maintained school members of the WSF felt the issues for the Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils or Underachieving Groups needed to be considered carefully. This was due to: - The outcomes being very close in terms of delegation and de-delegation. The need to consider if a school champion could be identified. The need for both EMAG and Traveller Children support for specific instances and there being no pattern to incidence. Delegation would spread the resource too thinly with a risk that schools would not be able to address the needs of these vulnerable groups. It was stated it would be useful to gather interested schools and LA representatives together to consider this further.
6 On a show of hands the WSF maintained school members unanimously by phase (Primary: For 4 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 0 votes; and Secondary: For 2 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 0 votes) agreed to approve to de-delegate the resource for FSM eligibility to include in the L&A Contract for a 3rd Party Provider by reducing the formula amounts for maintained mainstream schools as required. On a show of hands the WSF maintained school members unanimously by phase (Primary: For 4 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 0 votes; and Secondary: For 2 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstentions 0 votes) agreed to defer a decision until the January 2015 WSF meeting on the delegation or de-delegation for Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils or Underachieving Groups for EMAG and Traveller Children pending further work between schools and the LA.
RESOLVED –
The maintained mainstream school members of the WSF unanimously agreed the recommendation for the delegation or de-delegation of FSM eligibility as detailed and to reducing the formula amounts as required for maintained mainstream schools.
The maintained mainstream school members of the WSF unanimously deferred a decision for the Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils or Underachieving Groups for EMAG and Traveller Children.
(j) Consultation Question 6 – Centrally Retained DSG Services
The WSF also considered its statutory responsibilities in making decisions on other centrally retained DSG services. On a show of hands the WSF members (For 14 votes; Against 0 votes; Abstention 1 vote) approved the continued central retention in 2015-16 of the following services to be the same as those retained in 2014-15, limited to the 2013-14 budget level or further DfE prescription (indicative budgets are shown) for: - Funding for significant pre-16 pupil growth to meet basic need and to enable all schools to meet the infant class size requirement i.e. pupil growth fund – £200k. Funding to support falling rolls satisfying DfE and local criteria – £185k. Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) and Music Publishers Association (MPA) licences – subject to DfE prescription. Contributions to Combined Services – the Early Intervention Family Support (EIFS) service budget – £1.5m. Capital Expenditure Funded from Revenue (CERA) – £1.030m. Termination of Employment/Redundancy Costs – £200k. Co-ordinated admissions scheme – £846k. Servicing of the Schools Forum – £55k. Carbon Reduction Commitment – subject to DfE top slice from DSG.
RESOLVED –
The WSF unanimously agreed the continued central retention of the centrally retained services in 2015-16 as detailed.
7 (k) The WSF considered the need to exercise its responsibilities to inform the County Council Cabinet of the issues discussed and endorsements for the 2015-16 funding formula and in its WSF decisions on delegation/de-delegation for maintained schools.
RESOLVED –
The WSF agreed that these decisions be communicated to the County Council Cabinet as required.
6.6 EFA Issues
(a) Keith Howkins briefed the WSF on the role of the EFA in terms of compliance checking the formula submissions. He confirmed the MFL is not a NFFF but merely a means to allocate further Schools Block DSG in 2015-16.
(b) Keith was encouraged by the extensive, full and open consultation processes that had been undertaken in Worcestershire including the Area Meetings as well as the electronic communication. He commented favourably on both the extensive and thorough consultation which Worcestershire had followed during this process and level of responses being good compared to other County authorities.
(c) The EFA were pleased to see the LA had reconsidered the level of the formula lump sum, which was currently the lowest nationally.
(d) Keith advised the WSF that even though there was more Schools Block DSG in 2015-16 those schools on MFG will not benefit or see an increase as the resource cannot be excluded from the MFG/capping and it has to allow the formula to flow.
(e) Keith confirmed the DfE had only looked at an interim for the Schools Block to date and also further research was being commissioned for High Needs.
(f) Keith responded to members of the WSF to issues raised as follows: -
Q. Is there any confirmation on the future position after 2015-16?
A. The additional Schools Block DSG for 2015-16 has been allocated using a national methodology. The detail for 2016-17 and beyond will be a matter for the new Parliament and next Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).
Q. The current DSG allocations across all LAs include a significant amount used to fund the MFG are the DfE likely to change the rules on that?
A. The current regulations limit the capping to fund the cash MFG requirement but LAs can if they wish have a MFG factor using DSG to fund this. This is no different to the pre 2013-14 position and the regulations will not change from this in 2015-16.
Q. There is significant inequality on VAT status between different providers e.g. school 6th forms and 6th form colleges, PVI and maintained nurseries – is this to be resolved?
A. This is an issue but there are no plans to change the current position. In respect of PVI they are private organisations anyway.
8 7. F40 GROUP UPDATE
7.1 Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting 6th September 2014
(a) The WSF noted the minutes previously circulated.
(b) The Vice Chair confirmed that two Worcestershire members were no longer F40 executive members and the County Council was represented by Councillor Liz Eyre and Steph Simcox.
7.2 Research Group Briefing Papers
(a) The WSF noted the current position and one WSF member requested that sparsity continue to be considered.
(b) Andy confirmed the LA will continue to be represented on the Research Group.
8. ACADEMY UPDATE
8.1 The WSF noted the current list of academy conversions as at 1st September 2014.
The meeting closed at 3.20pm
Date of next meeting: -
Wednesday 14th January 2015 at 2.00pm, Kidderminster Room, County Hall
9 1
AGENDA ITEM 5 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 6th OCTOBER 2014
District Area Briefings Schools Issues
22 & 25 September 2014
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 2
Welcome
Liz Eyre Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 3
Introduction and purpose of the session
Gail Quinton Director of Children’s Services
www.worcestershire.gov.uk [Slideshow Title - edit in Headers & Footers] 4
Agenda • IBS Schools – Peter Bishop / Steve Batt • Commissioning of Support Services – Steph Simcox • Update on Learning & Achievement including Commissioning – John Edwards • High Needs – Peter Harwood / Liz Holt • Funding Formula Consultation Issues – Steph Simcox • Q&A
www.worcestershire.gov.uk Systems & Customer Access
Commissioning Update – IBS Schools
September 2014
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 6 Recommended Bidder • The recommended bidder is Capita Business Services Ltd • Why did they win? • Experience within the education marketplace • Experience of carrying out similar types of transaction (TUPE, pensions etc.) • Described a strong vision for the future of the business and enhancement of services to schools • Financial stability and low risk • Continuity of service www.worcestershire.gov.uk 7
What Does It Mean For Schools • Minimal change • Maintain local presence • Build on existing relationships • Certainty over delivery with strong future • Maintain competitive prices • New propositions and services
www.worcestershire.gov.uk
8
Questions
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 9
Commissioning of HR and Finance Services
Schools Briefing
Steph Simcox Project Lead
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 10
Update – Progress so far • Engagement with schools: . Schools Expert Group 9 September 2014 Schools requirements and KPIs Opportunities for improvements identified . Schools Liaison Working Group 18 September 2014 Review of Expert Group outcomes Wider circulation / opportunity for feedback • Draft ITT advertised to market 22 September 2014 . Requirements for school services drafted by service leads based on current level of services and feedback from engagement www.worcestershire.gov.uk
11
How can you get involved? • Review outcomes from Expert Group . Widely circulated document • Review of Draft ITT documentation . Available to view via e-Tendering Portal • Feedback to [email protected] • Join the Schools Liaison Working Group • Further opportunities following supplier feedback in October 2014 • Face to face supplier meetings – November • Liaison with preferred supplier – April 2015 www.worcestershire.gov.uk 12
How will things change for schools? • Preferred supplier identified April 2015 • Supplier starts to liaise with schools April 2015 • Contract start date for new supplier of HR and Finance Services to schools: 01 September 2015 • Schools contracts transfer to the new supplier • Schools contract directly with the new supplier • Opportunities for efficiencies • Opportunity to establish level of service required by individual schools or clusters directly with the supplier www.worcestershire.gov.uk 13
Learning and Achievement Services in Worcestershire
Schools Briefing
John Edwards Strategic Commissioner – Education Services
www.worcestershire.gov.uk Learning and Achievement Update • Part of Children’s Services – promoting improved educational outcomes for children and young people • Provisional 2014 attainment data • Changing relationship with stakeholders, e.g. - developing school autonomy - increasing number of academies and free schools - different role for the local authority • Worcestershire County Council’s aspiration to be an excellent commissioning Council
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 15 Learning and Achievement Commissioning • Most Learning and Achievement services to be commissioned with effect from July 2015 • Currently in the tendering process – ongoing and future engagement of stakeholders • Retained services – provision planning, capacity to manage the commissioning contract • SEND services to be retained initially, depending upon development of reforms • Culture of continued working with all stakeholders – knowing our schools
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 16
High Needs Funding
Schools Briefing
Peter Harwood / Liz Holt Group Manager
www.worcestershire.gov.uk High Needs Funding • ‘Place funding’ – funding for places in specialist institutions where the vast majority of pupils have high level needs and for students aged 16 to 25 with high needs in all institutions • ‘Top-up funding’ for institutions that follows individual pupils and students • Funding for SEN support and other high needs services provided centrally by the local authority
www.worcestershire.gov.uk Key changes for 2015 to 2016 • EFA aims: consistency, consolidation and, where possible, simplification • Rolling forward 2014 to 15 place numbers as the basis for 2015 to 16 allocations • Exceptional case process running until the 17th October • Changing the way post-16 places are planned within the high needs funding system. With a move from residency basis to location basis, by the local authority in which the institution is located
www.worcestershire.gov.uk Alternative Provision (1)
• The scope for changes to local authorities’ high needs allocations on account of changes to alternative provision will be more limited • Local authorities and their schools bear the cost of any increase in alternative provision places for pupils who would otherwise be in mainstream schools but for the placement decisions they have made
www.worcestershire.gov.uk Alternative Provision (2)
• Alternative provision places in free schools will be funded from a central departmental budget for the first and second year the free school is open • From the third year the cost of the place funding will be met by deductions from the relevant local authorities’ DSG, in the same way that their DSG bears the cost of all other alternative provision places, so that the alternative provision offered by free schools is fully integrated into local planning and funding arrangements
www.worcestershire.gov.uk Discussion Point • Worcestershire LA currently supports Base places, pre statutory assessment and transition through the flexible use of Higher Needs funding • In small groups spend five minutes considering key additional priorities that we should consider addressing though flexible HNS funding
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 22
Schools Block Mainstream Funding Formula
Schools Briefing
Steph Simcox Head of Finance and Resources
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 23 Key National Issues (1) • National Fair Funding Formula (NFFF) delayed • Additional £390m in 2015-16 for the Schools Block DSG only to increase the per pupil budgets of the 'least fairly funded local areas‘ • Estimate for Worcestershire is £6.2m • For any additional resource different formula methodologies are not permitted • Introduced concept of 'Minimum Funding Levels' (MFLs) • Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) is -1.5% per pupil • New capping restrictions remain • Changes to operation of the sparsity factor
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 24 Key National Issues (2) • There is no obligation on LAs to use all the formula factors covered by the MLFs • Mandatory factors remain as the current– the basic per pupil amount (AWPU) and the deprivation factor • There will be no changes to the factors LAs are allowed to use except minor changes to the sparsity factor • Sparsity funding may be targeted at eligible schools only if they meet two criteria: - • Located in an area where pupils would have to travel a significant distance to an alternative school should the school close • Are small schools www.worcestershire.gov.uk 25 Minimum Funding Levels(MFLs) Formula MFL MFL WCC WCC WCC Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Comparison £ £ £ £ AWPU 2,880 2,891 Higher 3,950 KS3 3,455 KS3 Lower 4,502 KS4 4,116 KS4 Lower FSM 882 1,052 858 726 Lower IDACI 1 209 289 0 0 Not Used 2 260 379 0 0 Not Used 3 347 470 0 0 Not Used 4 422 554 894 1,251 Higher Both 5 477 614 1,118 1,531 Higher Both 6 691 819 1,229 1,672 Higher Both LAC 1,004 1,004 0 0 Not Used Low Prior Attainment 669 940 1,237 2,876 Higher Both EAL 466 1,130 929 2,273 Higher Both Lump Sum 115,797 125,155 42,000 42,000 Lower Both Sparsity 44,635 66,656 0 0 Not Used
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 26
Consultation Process for 2015-16 (1) • Consideration of options by a Formula Group and Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) • Local authority, endorsed by Cabinet member, decision on options for consultation taking into account views of the WSF Formula Group and WSF • School consultation on the options • Consideration of options and outcome of consultation by the WSF • Final approval of the preferred option by WCC Cabinet by 16 October 2014
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 27
Consultation Process for 2015-16 (2) • Formula group consisted of 21 participants from the WSF, schools, the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families and LA officers • The options considered included a no change option, and changes to 2014-15 by: - • Reviewing existing units of resource by movement within the formula e.g. Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) to Lump Sum or Low Prior Attainment (LPA) to AWPU • Widening the formula scope e.g. sparsity • Introducing the MFL's for some formula aspects • How to distribute any additional Schools Block DSG if received
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 28
Consultation Process for 2015-16 (3) • WSF considered the potential options and had differing views to the Formula Group on a couple of the options • LA decision on options for consultation • LA have taken account views of Formula Group, specific feedback from schools, WSF and Cabinet Member • 6 models for consultation (consultation question 1 refers) • Distribution of any additional DSG to be allocated via AWPU (consultation question 2 refers )
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 29 Issues identified • Unavoidable use of MFG / Cap causes gains as well as losses to be mitigated • Minor changes create a different winners and losers • No model where there are no losers • All models have changes • Will not be a model which is supported by all schools • The modelling tool is difficult to understand • Cannot vary the data for our own purposes – DFE prescribed • Sparsity = 16 schools?
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 30 “Sparse Schools” – 1 Secondary; 15 Primary
• Tenbury High • Flyford Flavell • Broadwas • Grimley & Holt • Church Lench • Inkberrow • Clifton-on-Teme • Lindridge • Cutnall Green • Martley • Eldersfield Lawn • Pebworth • Elmley Castle • Suckley • Far Forest Lea • Upper Arley
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 31 Options For Consideration 1 No Change 2 As Option 1 + inclusion of MFL level for sparsity with a fixed value 3 As Option 1 +Change to Secondary LPA +Change to Primary Lump Sum 4 Revised formula using DfE MFL's + widened scope of IDACI bands to 1 – 6 + New Factor for Sparsity at tapered amount Balance afforded through lump sum 5 Revised formula using DfE MFL's + widened scope of IDACI bands to 1 – 6 + New Factor for Sparsity at tapered amount Balance afforded through AWPU 6 Revised Formula using 95.88% of DfE MFL's + widened scope of IDACI bands to 1 – 6 + New Factor for Sparsity at tapered amount www.worcestershire.gov.uk 32
Primary / AWPU LPA Lump sum Sparsity No of No of Secondary £ £ £ £ Gainers/ % Losers/ % 1 Primary 2,972.03 1,236.57 42,000.00 0 132 / 59% 93 / 41% Key Stage 3 3,558.11 2,875.47 42,000.00 0 Key Stage 4 4,218.49 2 Primary 2,956.81 1,236.57 42,000.00 44,635 138 / 61% 87 / 39% Key Stage 3 3,555.71 2,875.47 42,000.00 66,656 Key Stage 4 4,216.09 3 Primary 2,845.13 1,236.57 70,000.00 0 140 / 62% 85 / 38% Key Stage 3 3,942.06 1,321.99 42,000.00 0 Key Stage 4 4,602.44 4 Primary 2,961.13 669.00 61,297.00 44,635 132 / 59% 93 / 41% Key Stage 3 4,053.04 940.00 70,655.00 66,656 Key Stage 4 4,605.04 5 Primary 2,783.14 669.00 115,797.00 44,635 177 / 79% 48 / 21% Key Stage 3 3,875.05 940.00 125,155.00 66,656 Key Stage 4 4,427.05 6 Primary 2,839.13 641.44 111,026.16 42,796.04 180 / 80% 45 / 20% Key Stage 3 3,886.05 901.27 119,998.61 63,909.77 Key Stage 4 4,415.31
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 33 Points to note • The additional £6.2m has been allocated into the AWPU using ratio of 1:1.27 for primary and secondary schools which is the figure that the DfE suggest for the whole of the school block funding • There are 6 excel documents included within the consultation which detail the impact on each school for each of these options • The additional £6.2m is included in the budget for 2015/16 so straight comparisons to 2014/15 is impossible • The DfE have decided that any additional DSG cannot be excluded from the MFG/Capping as it is not ‘new’ delegation so the impact for individual schools will vary significantly e.g. some schools will see increases whereas other will see no increases but merely a reduced MFG requirement • Also included in each option is the district and phase impact www.worcestershire.gov.uk 34
Key findings from modelling analysis • Sparsity affects 15 schools (20 in 2014/15) • All models affect small schools • Any change to factors affects AWPU • Option 5 and 6 have less losers • All options have losers and gainers • 104 schools (46%) gain in all options • 25 schools (11%) lose in all options • Those schools who lose in all options are those who are protected via MFG level
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 35
Consultation Papers available • Document emailed to all heads, governors, WAG, Chair of WASBM, Members, Unions • Available on Edulink • Consultation document including • statutory questions required by EFA • options for consideration for the Worcestershire formula • details as to how “votes” will be counted • weighting on order of preference • linked to size of school by pupil numbers.
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 36
Consultation questionnaire (6 questions) 1. Which option do you prefer? Ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd 2. Your views on allocation of the additional £6.2m 3. Your views on the amendment to the existing split site formula qualifying criteria for any new schools 4. Your views on transferring funding from the Schools Block into the Early Years Block or the High Needs Block 5. Delegation of central services 6. Other centrally retained services
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 37 Next Steps Action Date WSF to consider the results of the consultation and to formulate 6 October recommendations to Cabinet Report to Cabinet making recommendations for changes (if any) to the 16 October existing local schools funding formula for 2015-16 Submission of local schools funding formula APT 2015-16 by the LA to the By 31 October Education Funding Agency (EFA) Confirmation by the EFA of October 2014 census data, Revised APT for Late December 2015-16 & Schools Block DSG 2015-16 including additional allocation LA to consider impact of the new October 2014 data sets on submitted Early January October 2014 APT Meeting of the WSF to consider impact of the new October 2014 data 14 January sets and agree submission for the final APT 2015-16 to the EFA LA to submit final data for Schools Budget DSG pro forma for 2014-15 By 20 January LA to confirm school budget shares 2015-16 for their maintained schools By 27 February EFA to confirm General Annual Grant (GAG) to academies By 31 March
www.worcestershire.gov.uk 38
Questions?
www.worcestershire.gov.uk
AGENDA ITEM 6a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 6th OCTOBER 2014
SUMMARY OF THE MAIN ISSUES INCLUDED ON THE CONSULTATION RESPONSES SEPTEMBER 2014
CONSULTATION QUESTION 1
Please indicate which options (please rank as 1st 2nd and 3rd) you would support as the mainstream schools local funding formula for 2015-16 and comment.
See Agenda Item 6b) for the analysis of the consultation outcomes and formula options.
FIRST/PRIMARY MAINTAINED
Options 1, 2 and 3 would give our school a large decrease in funding. Given the school is running very close to a deficit budget currently with a minimum level of staffing any of these funding options would cause the school to stop being financially viable.
Under the existing base Options 1, 2 and 3 only works for us in the short term because of MFG/ Capping. Most of our gains under the new formula have been capped.
Given so much turbulent change for County with commissioning out, we firmly believe that things need to stay as they are until the County changes take place. We would like some stability and therefore our preferences are as above with Options 1, 2 and 3 in that order.
Under the existing base Options 1 to 3 small schools were hit hardest by the lack of an obvious replacement for significant small school protection in the previous funding system. Sparsity and larger lump sums will go some way to reducing the gap.
Options 2 and 3 help out small schools which were hit hardest by the new formula, but often only to reduce their MFGs. We gain more from the reduced cap than we lose by reduced AWPUs.
In Option 3, the LPA is already 3x the national average which cannot be justified. Reducing the factor to bring the overall factor funds back to the previous year seems appropriate.
Option 4 causes a significant move from small schools to larger ones, which benefits secondary rather than primary schools which inevitably does not suit us.
The MFL based Options 4 to 5 are radically different from the current base. Looking through the lens of national averages at the current base it is difficult to see how Worcestershire can justify several factors that are 2 to 3 times the national average. Large schools like ours gained a lot through the new formula but at the expense of smaller schools. Surprisingly, the MFL options are closer to the old system than the one we use which is derived from it. We gain under all options but MFLs are best for Worcestershire as a whole.
Prefer Options 4 to 6 on the new base using the 2014 factors. Have suffered from the removal of the small school protection measures in the previous funding formula. Surprisingly, the MFL options produce less turbulence than the base whose factors were apparently derived from the old system.
Higher fixed income Options 4 to 6 does of course provide a certain level of protection against 'excessive falling roles' but these should be separately analysed via school performance and census data which will confirm whether the issues relate to poor school performance or local vagaries as above.
The larger lump sums mitigate the relatively small impact of the tapered Sparsity factor. Having most factors close to the MFL seems to favour our cluster schools. The AWPUs stated in the model are much higher than the MFLs and in Option 5 have been reduced by equal amounts. We would like the published MFL AWPUs to be reduced proportionally to get within budget.
Options 4 to 6 are the fairest of all as more schools gain and a minority lose out. Impact on funding for individual pupils is minimised.
Our preferred options are all based on the DfE’s MFLs on Options 4 to 6. Of these, Option 6 causes least harm to the fewest number of schools in Worcestershire and is our top preference.
Options 4 to 6 are likely to most closely approximate the future NFFF, and therefore minimise future funding volatility.
Our ideal base is Option 5 with lump sum sparsity (limited to current Sparsity funds in £6.2m until national formula is implemented) with MFL AWPUs reduced proportionally to come within budget.
Options 5 and 6 are the only ones where the school and like small schools would gain.
The majority of small primaries are best served by Options 5 or 6. The larger lump sums mitigate the poor performance of the tapered Sparsity factor.
We do not want Options 5 and 6 as we would lose money which would be a very unfair situation given the tremendous difficulties we had last year with maintenance of 1950s/1960s buildings combined with the need not only to look after the children’s education, but also the health and safety issues which remain on-going due to the constant demands and challenges of our old building and inadequate facilities.
Under the MFL base there is little to choose between Options 5 and 6. Leaving most factors at the MFL and reducing AWPU to achieve budget balance seems most logical as a budget issue, although AWPUs must be reduced proportionally. Reducing all factors evenly seems more logical from overall fairness, merely scaling the MFL concept to fit.
Option 6 is the fairest for all schools giving the fewest number of losers and appears to be the fairest to the largest number of schools. This option looks towards a future national formula and makes a break from previous formulae.
Option 6 seems to create the smallest number of losers and would be fairer for small schools.
Purely, from a funding point of view, Option 6 gives our school an additional £10k. The school has seen its budget reduce over the past few years, and with rising numbers of children with statements, needs any extra funding available. Our deficit has reduced over the past twelve months to near half of what it was, but it is difficult to operate the same level of service to our children within a tighter financial position.
Option 6 seems to best reflect the national picture. It is also one of the options that creates the fewest number of school ‘losers’ and a higher number of school ‘gainers’.
Option 6 would mean more winners. It would also do more to protect smaller rural schools. However, although more small schools are effective as more of them are outstanding and the DfE are recognising rural issues by offering the sparsity factor, this will be ignored as votes will be on pupil numbers so large high schools will have by far the majority view. Our school offers good value for money; is outstanding, monitor our spending carefully and have raised an additional 17% on top of our budget in grants, fundraising etc.
Option 6 is the fairest for all schools giving the fewest number of losers. Although it is not the best option for our own school it is not the worst. We are particularly keen to see all 6 IDACI bands used as well as a sparsity factor. This option looks towards a future national formula and makes a break from previous formulae.
Option 6 based upon the MFLs represents a current national poll of all schools relating to funding formula values and as such is a hard body of evidence to overlook. Several Worcestershire factor values are 2x or even 3x the national average which is hard to justify. The MFL options actually produce less turbulence when compared with the previous funding formula.
We have significant EAL and LPA so Option 6 with increased EAL and LPA (say MFL + 50%) would suit the needs of our pupils best.
Option 6 is the purest of the MFL options because all factors are reduced proportionally, preserving the relationship between them. This is the fairest for Worcestershire until a national formula is provided.
Under the MFL base Option 6 then 5. As a larger school, it suits us to have all factors a little lower and AWPUs a little higher. However AWPUs must be reduced proportionally in option 5 rather than at a flat rate because that seriously disadvantages primary schools.
MFLs
The publishing MFL AWPUs should be the start point and then be reduced proportionally to get within budget.
The change in funding strategies are clear when comparing the current with the MFL options. In many respects the benefits of fixed income applies to all schools especially now that there is an encouragement to consider MFLs as the way forward. Certainty of core funding is fundamental to all schools - in a small school this is particularly so.
National averages produce a one-size-fits-all solution that cannot be right for Worcestershire. We should investigate raising EAL and LPA above the MFL according to any past funding research still available or with reference to the needs of schools facing those challenges. No more than +50% for EAL and +25% for LPA initially. No increase for deprivation measures since already that is already doubled funded with Pupil Premium.
Whilst an MFL-base is better than the current base for Worcestershire, a one-size-fits-all national average system cannot reflect Worcestershire's specific needs.
The MFL-based options are fundamentally different from the current base. The existing base was derived from the old funding formula where 38 factors were mapped onto 12. A key thrust of recent funding initiatives has been to minimise turbulence. It’s rather shocking then to find that when compared to funds/pupil from 2012-13, the national averages cause less turbulence than the funding base derived from our old factors. Assuming that the 2012-13 system developed over many years was fair, albeit too complicated, every year we stay with the current base we move further away from that fairness as the MFGs decline.
Sparsity/Small Schools
Our response to this question is made having considered the impact of all options to our school and to the other schools in the Upton cluster. Two of these schools are among the 25 schools in Worcestershire that lose under all six options. A third school qualifies for sparsity funding.
The Sparsity factor should be lump sums not tapered but with the overall fund limited to around £400k.
Small schools were hit hardest by the lack of an obvious replacement for significant small school protection in the previous funding system. Sparsity and larger lump sums will go some way to reducing the gap.
The Sparsity factor is even less fit for purpose than last year. Need to have a Worcestershire Working group, possibly in partnership with Herefordshire and Shropshire (1st and 3rd most sparse LAs in England), to finally make some sense of this factor.
A sparse school might argue for a lump sum sparsity factor rather than tapered.
The inevitable dilemma is that smaller schools require a greater proportion of fixed income to cope with the vagaries of pupil movement year on year. This will apply particularly in the next few years as many small villages will see new housing developments which will – again – have a greater pro rata impact on pupil numbers whilst attempting to maintain a stable staffing environment. The problem will always be the uncertainty of timing arising from new housing.
We wish to make the same point as we did last year. If the County Council is serious about protecting small schools, with their unique and family orientated ethos and reputation for high standards, then only options with a smaller AWPU and a larger lump sum will achieve this in the long run. Large schools have bigger voices and obviously got their way last year, but such schools are in a much stronger position to absorb any cut to their budget. Small schools have already been adversely affected by the previous change in the rules which resulted in every school being allocated the same lump sum. Any chosen funding option should compensate for this reduction in funding and we urge the inclusion of a ‘sparsity’ option.
All the options result in a loss to our school. As an identified ’sparsity’ school, it seems unfair that the school loses funding elsewhere and therefore is unable to benefit from this additional funding – if our numbers continue to grow with proposed housing/parent choice, then this additional funding would help support building improvements.
Low Prior Attainment (LPA) and Deprivation
The LPA is already 3x the national average which cannot be justified. Reducing the factor to bring the overall factor funds back to the previous year seems best.
It would increase our school budget if the Deprivation factor was moved further up the priorities as this amount has been cut by MFLs.
Schools might comment on their willingness to support measures to increase factors that do not directly affect them. So for example, no sympathy for extended deprivation measures since already double funded with Pupil Premium; some sympathy for extending EAL given the sparse nature of the problem compared to larger cities.
An urban school might make the case for EAL, LPA or Deprivation being moved back up to some degree since all are significantly higher than the MFLs.
Implementing IDACI in full will support our mainly low level deprivation, but with Pupil Premium on top, that is enough. It would be more transparent if all deprivation funding was in one place; in the funding formula.
If WCC Funding weighting for Low Prior Attainment was reduced in line with National figures could this be added to the AWPU?
General
As finances have become tighter in recent years with less in reserves this is a more stressful environment in which to operate. These stresses not only impact on Headteachers and staff (e.g. future employment prospects) but also governors who are not only required to focus on school performance but also a 12 month budgeting process!
We have considered the Options with regard to our school as an individual school but also with regard to the wider County profile.
We have opted accordingly and for our community pyramid of schools.
The disparity between what a High School can gain through a low lump sum and higher AWPU compared with Primaries greatly influenced the ranking.
The rationale for our choice is the maximum increase to our budget. A national funding formula would help to make a fairer system.
We lose funding regardless of which model you use.
We support a move to a national funding formula as soon as possible.
We reiterate the need to keep up pressure for a move to a national funding formula as soon as possible
Must keep up pressure for a national fair funding formula as soon as possible
FIRST/PRIMARY ACADEMY
Option 6 based upon the MFLs represents a current national poll of all schools relating to funding formula values and as such is a hard body of evidence to overlook. Several Worcestershire factor values are 2x or even 3x the national average which is hard to justify. The MFL options actually produce less turbulence when compared with the previous funding formula and as such, until a national funding formula is agreed, this base seems the fairest for Worcestershire to proceed with.
MIDDLE MAINTAINED
Secondary schools lost out considerably in the 2014/15 budget which did contain some elements which created massive reductions in funding which affected many schools including ours. It is necessary now to correct these mistakes and ensure the implications of any changes are fully thought through before the budget is set. We have been campaigning along with High Schools in the Bromsgrove District and attended a meeting with our local MP on this very issue which has been taken up with the County Council.
The school lost during the 2013/14 financial year and do not feel it would be right or proper to lose again during this year, hence we have to vote for the best for our pupils, whilst also acknowledging that more schools/pupils will gain with the above 3 choices than they would for the 3 we have omitted.
SECONDARY/HIGH MAINTAINED
Under the existing base: Options 1, 2 and 3 small schools were hit hardest by the lack of an obvious replacement for significant small school protection in the previous funding system. Sparsity and larger lump sums will go some way to reducing the gap.
Under the MFL base Options 4, 5 and 6 there is little to choose between 5 and 6. Leaving most factors at the MFL and reducing AWPU to achieve budget balance seems most logical as a budget issue, although AWPUs would need to be reduced proportionally. Reducing all factors evenly seems fairer overall, merely scaling the MFL concept to fit.
The need is to keep up pressure for a move to a national funding formula as soon as possible.
SECONDARY/HIGH ACADEMY
Options 1 to 3, in our view, will just continue widen the gap between gainers and losers and will do nothing address fair funding issues.
Options 1 to 3 provide the greatest opportunities for disadvantaged students. This is critical given Worcestershire's failure to progress across the County in this key group of students.
Options 1, 4 and 5 best suit our school.
Option 2 provides the highest number of NOR gainers and the lowest number of NOR losers so is supported.
Option 2 is supported as the LPA is important. This Option shows the greatest number of gainers per NOR. We are not in support of the EAL, LPA or Deprivation reductions to the MFL levels. Options 4 and 5 also support secondary schools, especially those with Sixth Forms, where further losses will be imminent.
Options 4, 5 and 6 are appropriate as a move to a new formula appears to be necessary soon to accommodate changing factors.
Options 4, 5 and 6 are the most preferable. All three factor in sparsity and the DfE MFLs IDACI 1 to 6 ensuring that smaller rural schools are supported and that all students with levels of deprivation benefit from appropriate support.
Options 4 to 6 does at least give some consideration of the IDACI 1-3 index which are overlooked by all other funding methods
Options 4 to 6 broadening the scope of IDACI bands from 4-6 to 1-6 is not supported.
Option 6 whilst we still lose a considerable amount from our budget, this model potentially eludes to some future scope for adjustment i.e. could not the weighting within the IDCAI band itself be looked at to avoid double funding higher needs students (who will already be receiving Pupil Premium and possibly SEN funding) and distributing the money fairly to all groups?
We support investment in higher IDACI band pupils. We are concerned about the change in policy direction which the consultation suggests is to divert funds away from the most vulnerable groups disadvantaged with LPA.
We are in favour of redressing the significant imbalance in funding created last year by diverting funds away from the secondary AWPU to fund the increased LPA in other schools. This had a severely detrimental impact on our funding which will be exacerbated in 2015/16 unless addressed.
For a small rural academy with low pupil numbers and a large site, the above options provide a greater benefit. The sparsity factor is important to us as a means of sustainability due to lack of budget protection (in the current formula) for small isolated schools with no access to collaborative learning.
As one of 20 schools that see funding reduced on every Option and as this is for one year only rather than a longer term plan, we feel we have no choice but to 'vote' for those which impacts us least in financial terms
CONSULTATION QUESTION 2
Do you agree with the methodology that any additional schools block DSG is allocated via the AWPU using the ratio of 1:1.27 for primary and secondary schools which is the figure that the DfE suggest for the whole of the school block funding?
FIRST/PRIMARY MAINTAINED
Yes –
The existing model is skewed too far in favour of secondary schools in relation to national norms, and allocating funds at 1:1.27 brings our system back from these extremes.
No –
A flat rate across all primary and secondary would be fairer.
There is already an imbalance between primary and secondary funding per pupil which is greater than the national ratio. Using a flat rate allocation will bring the Worcestershire in balance more into line with the national.
It always feels as if the funding for Primary school pupils plays second fiddle to that of Secondary aged pupils, as proposed here. There may well be a perfectly reasonable argument for this. However in the light of the long term gains provided by getting the basics firmly in place would question the fundamental assumption this funding imbalance implies. To allocate this money evenly across ALL pupils would seem more equitable.
The funding should be used to smooth out turbulence in funding by way of a grant or lump sum.
The funding should be allocated using a flat rate across primary and secondary schools. There is already an imbalance between primary and secondary funding per pupil which is greater than the national ratio of 1:1.27. Using a flat rate allocation will bring the Worcestershire imbalance more into line with the national. Using the methodology suggested will widen the imbalance further which seems an illogical and indefensible position.
All pupils should get the same additional funding whether in primary or secondary schools.
Close the gap between primary and secondary funding. Also why not use the additional resource to help all the losers in the model?
Many county councils such as Shropshire have produced a formula, which is more sympathetic to the needs of small rural primary schools, why cannot Worcestershire adopt a similar model?
There needs to be more money for primary schools.
Equal funding is required due to the increased social and emotional development needs in primary schools
FIRST/PRIMARY ACADEMY
No –
If primary age children receive the strongest start the secondary it would be much easier therefore the weighting should be towards the primary age range not secondary to enable support and nurture of the youngest most vulnerable pupils.
SECONDARY/HIGH ACADEMY
Yes –
It is essential that secondary schools receive a fair proportion of the additional funding to support the additional costs e.g. specialist KS4 provision and the cost of external examination fees.
We would like to see any additional funding being allocated to schools that are losing in the first instance. However, we appreciate that the LA may not be allowed to do this.
We cannot see any other fairer alternative – the fact remains that secondary schools do have higher costs (e.g. exam fees, broader curriculum coverage, etc).
We agree with this for one year only and any such additional monies in future years to be reviewed, possibly allocated via High Needs.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 3
Do you support the proposal to slightly amend the existing split site formula qualifying criteria for any newly qualifying split site schools as detailed?
FIRST/PRIMARY MAINTAINED
Yes but subject to the qualification that the outcome would be revenue neutral on any school currently in receipt of lump sum funding that wishes to federate in the future, i.e. that the change would not result in a school that merges/federates with other schools receiving less funding than at present.
SECONDARY/HIGH MAINTAINED
Yes as there is potentially scope for additional split sites schools to be established in the future with partnerships and mergers and this could put significant pressure on the DSG budget if care is not taken.
SECONDARY/HIGH ACADEMY
Yes –
It is important to implement safeguards to ensure that existing of new split site schools do not receive unfairly advantageous levels of funding which will reduce the resource available to all other organisations.
If schools choose to expand and this results in a split site the cost of that expansion should be borne directly by the school.
Schools may decide (via mergers and partnerships) to declare themselves as a ‘split site’ - caution needs to be applied to ensure this does not become an incentive to gain additional funding
We believe this is fair given the likely impact from the possible increase in school federations.
No –
The severity of the existing spit site funding has hit our school unfairly we have no voice on this and are severely disadvantaged. As a school that was guaranteed funding it is impossible to run a school effectively without considerable higher funding.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 4
Do you support transferring funding from the Schools Block into the Early Years (EY) Block or the High Needs (HN) Block?
FIRST/PRIMARY MAINTAINED
Yes to EY –
We are increasingly taking younger children onto school sites due to national policy.
This funding is even worse than for schools. Better EY provision means fewer issues for Primary Transfer to EY, particularly the new money such as the £6.2m.
When the individual funds per pupil for the Schools Block and EY were devised from historical norms with in the DSG in 2013-14, there was a slight shift from EY to the Schools Block. Worcestershire is 5th worst funded LA in terms of EY. Some of the £6.2m could be used to change this. The best option is to push for a National Formula (NFFF) in EY to inform the much harder move to NFFF for the schools block.
Yes to HN –
Should be funding all HN pupils from the HN block by moving funds across. If we move to MFLs the 'proxy factors' will fall even shorter of the nominal £10k than they do today.
As long as HLN is means tested, then we do support transferring funding from the Schools Block into the High Needs Block.
No to HN –
Until the new system pans out, how the pot to make bids for works for Primary schools with the re- grading of SEN children under the new SEN support system needs to be finalised. Serious concerns over who will fund what between Health and Education e.g. severe diabetics.
No to both –
But what are the implications for First/Primary Schools? In theory we support proper funding of both the early years and high needs but exactly what proper funding looks like is difficult for us to determine. Happy to consider this in future with additional information but at the moment are unable to agree.
We recognise the challenges faced by Worcestershire to implement new government policies to increase the level of Early Years provision. However, we believe that funding for this change in government policy should come directly from the DfE rather than top-slicing schools’ budgets.
SECONDARY/HIGH ACADEMY
No to both –
The funding for the Schools Block is intended for just that purpose to fund all young people in schools. It would therefore be inappropriate to redirect and restrict it to a narrower group of students.
There is barely enough funding in the Schools Block anyway.
There is insufficient information presented to justify moving funds between blocks. A rationale to amend allocation needs to be presented and an assessment needs to be presented for our support for this.
With the one year funding methodology we would stand only to lose. We would re-consider this position if the transfer of funding were a longer term strategy with accountability for its impact.
As the High Needs (HN) and Early Years (EY) blocks will be subject to national review after 2015- 16, we agree with County’s opinion that it is not considered appropriate to allocate further resources at present.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 5
Do you support the arrangements for delegation and de-delegation, except for those areas part of the L&A review, as detailed for 2014-15 to continue for 2015-16.
For the areas covered by the L&A review (not ranked in 1st 2nd or 3rd order) please indicate your preference and comment.
See Appendix 3 for the analysis of the options.
FIRST/PRIMARY MAINTAINED
FSM works well under the current system.
GRT impacts other areas more than us and is important. A central Champion who can look after the best interests of all is required.
Agree with schools being the best place to champion the training and support necessary for these groups of learners but feel that a third party to be able to structure it better in the first instance. Schools will need breathing space to get a handle on how this could look in their setting.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 6
Do you support the arrangements for centrally retained services as detailed for 2014-15 to continue for 2015-16?
FIRST/PRIMARY MAINTAINED
Yes –
However it is difficult to see how this will work with key elements being contracted out. For instance, how can accommodation function efficiently with admissions contracted out? There will need to be consultants at a greater cost than if they remained under one body.
Provided the cost of services is the same between maintained schools and academies.
The schools has received huge benefit from our LA School Improvement Adviser. As a small school access occasionally to someone with a high level of professional expertise is of enormous value. A fully qualified critical friend is essential.
The finance services and Family Support Worker functions are also invaluable.
We are concerned about cost inflation in this area and we regard outsourcing as a retrograde step.
FIRST/PRIMARY ACADEMY
Yes – particularly in relation to the Early Intervention Family Support Service as this is an excellent service.
SECONDARY/HIGH ACADEMY
Yes support the central retention of admissions, schools forum, capital expenditure supported by revenue and the Early Intervention Family Support Service. However, further information is required on other services.
Yes but with reservation. Some areas are clear (e.g. Schools’ Forum) but others appear to us to need greater clarity over the use of the funds. Why, for example, should schools be contributing to other school’s infant class size requirements? As a secondary academy we are not unsympathetic to their need, but the cost to us in unquantified. The 2014/15 arrangements however appear to work well, so a continuation to 2015/16 on the same basis is sensible.
In the main we agree with this proposal, although we would query why resources are retained centrally that reduce the funding available to Academy Schools that Academy schools cannot then access i.e. Capital Expenditure Funded from Revenue (CERA) and ‘Termination of employment/Redundancy Costs’
There are two areas where academy schools do not benefit from the funding that has been top sliced from the schools block. These are CERA and funding of redundancies. It appears unfair that academies are subsidising these expenses in maintained schools.
Very concerned as academies we lose on some of the centrally retained areas e.g. CERA. As a WCC school we received nothing on this and for redundancies.
PLEASE DETAIL ANY FURTHER COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE ON THE CONSULTATION ISSUES: -
FIRST/PRIMARY
This consultation has been conducted in an open and transparent way where schools have been informed of all decisions and have had ample opportunity to respond and be represented. Many thanks for all your hard work in preparing and presenting this so concisely to schools.
First, we would like to thank colleagues for such a comprehensive explanation of the funding changes and the logic behind each of the funding Options. We look forward to hearing which option has been selected so that we can plan for the 2015-16 year. Second, we were somewhat surprised to find that one of the schools in our cluster does not qualify for sparsity funding as by our calculations it should.
It is wrong that there continues to be the inequality of funding nationally – we still don’t have a level playing field!
SECONDARY/HIGH
Support for MFLs
The Government has sensibly published MFL's for each of the formula factors which it allows LAs. The publication of MLFs is part of the move towards the need for national Fair Funding Formula and does allow all LAs to ensure that its formula is fair to all children across the area. The concept of Every Child Matters is vitally important to all aspects of education not least the Funding Formula.
WCC has for a long time argued that the national education funding should be reviewed to ensure that all LAs have fair funding. How can the LA therefore accept a local formula that ignores the fairness of the MFLs?
The 2014-15 formula in Worcestershire has clearly not taken account of the MFLs. It is recognised that WCC could not afford to allocate the MFL for all factors as it does not receive sufficient funding but it clearly should use these as a guide to securing the fairest allocation of its budget. A review of the 2014-15 formula and percentage of MFLs allocated is shown below: -
Funding Formula Factor Percentage of Minimum Funding Level Primary AWPU 100.4% KS3 AWPU 87.5% KS4 AWPU 91.4% FSM Primary 97.3% FSM Secondary 69.0% IDACI Category 1 0%
IDACI Category 2 0% IDACI Category 3 0% IDACI Category 4 Primary 211.8% IDACI Category 4 Secondary 225.8% IDACI Category 5 Primary 234.4% IDACI Category 5 Secondary 249.3% IDACI Category 6 Primary 117.9% IDACI Category 6 Secondary 204.2% LAC 0% Low Prior Attainment Primary 184.9% Low Prior Attainment Secondary 254.5% EAL Primary 199.4% EAL Secondary 201.2% Lump Sum Primary 36.3% Lump Sum Secondary 33.6% Sparsity 0%
This table clearly demonstrates that the LA has developed a formula that supports a cohort of children with LA schools i.e. children with a high IDACI category, with Low Prior Attainment and EAL students. However, significant groups of other students are not supported and the Options 1 and 2 in the new consultation paper would maintain this unfairness and allow some schools to receive what can only be described as a disproportionate allocation. Further, the schools that benefitted from the formula in 2014-15 will benefit once again and drive a significantly wider discrepancy between the schools within the LA. The County have a duty to ensure that 'Every Child Matters' and if they adopt either Options 1 or 2 there would be a gross disservice to many children in this LA.
Further, if the LA maintains its current strategy there could be massive turbulence if and when a national Fairer Funding Formula is introduced - possibly as early as 2017/18. The adoption of Option 6 is the fairest model available now and is logical and strategically sound.
Support for Current LPA Funding
The addition of an estimated £6.2m of funding into Worcestershire under the DfE’s Fair Funding initiative is a welcome move as recognised in our local MPs letter of April this year that quotes gains per pupil of £71. Indeed it would be reasonable to expect each pupil in each school to benefit from the increase. The reality for some Worcestershire schools may be very different. They could see a reduction in overall funding. There are 2 main factors that will result in 'losers': - The mechanics of the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) which ensures gains or losses per pupil as a result of funding changes are within agreed limits; and, more worryingly The potential change in allocation methodology towards lower funding for deprived children (particularly as defined by lower prior attainment (LPA))
It is this second point that causes huge concern amongst Head Teachers and Governors in the most challenging areas of the County, including Redditch.
WCC have presented 6 options for consultation, 4 of which relating to the MFLs reduce LPA by up to 48% for Primary schools and 69% for Secondary schools. The LPA for secondary schools could reduce from £2,875 per pupil to £901. The lower levels are based on the national minimum funding
level (MFL). Inclusion of the one option to reduce LPA is incidentally directly against the view of Worcestershire Schools Forum, where it was agreed that the Forum would not support the proposal.
The potential impact in monetary terms is illustrated by the following estimated losses – Arrow Vale £-36,000, North Bromsgrove £-43,000, Trinity High £-54,000 Woodrow First £-16,000.
Even some schools that would gain under all options presented would see lower gains under the options that reduce LPA.
The argument for offering an option to reduce LPA is that Worcestershire currently pays higher than the national MFL for this element of funding. However, adopting the MFL would assume that this low national average is appropriate to Worcestershire. It is our belief that it certainly is not appropriate for the majority of Redditch! In better funded LAs, during times of budget reduction, schools in urban areas such as Birmingham and Coventry are able to divert funds that may have been used elsewhere, to prop up the needs of the LPA students, given they cost more to educate, and that standards will take a rapid fall if this work does not continue. In Worcestershire, where you are aware funding is much lower, the staffing of our schools has a much higher percentage against total budget for obvious reasons (our staffing is austere, but takes most of the funding.) There simply are no funds to divert to meet the needs of these children. As a result of this, if the LPA MFL is applied, we truly believe it will lead to a significant number of schools heading into an Ofsted category. The impact of the MFL implementation of LPA has simply not been thought through – the application of MFL is not a logical step, but has been argued as such by schools in affluent areas, with already high headline result figures, that do not have to bear the additional costs of teaching LPA students. If reduction of the LPA rate is to happen, then we would strongly urge a mid-way reduction, perhaps to around the £2,000 mark, rather than the misguided and misunderstood full implementation of the MFL.
The LA, as part of the area meeting presentations at the Arrow Vale, acknowledged the attainment gap of Worcestershire’s lowest performing children. The correlation with deprivation is obvious and a reduction in LPA would exacerbate this and cause some schools in Worcestershire to yet again face financial decisions that will impact on the learning of all children.
I would urge the Cabinet to adopt an option that protects current levels of deprivation funding in the County, or at least to set them far higher than the MFL, if not at the current levels.
Other Issues
It is important to be mindful that schools with large Sixth Forms will take an additional hit outside of this Funding Formula arrangement in 2015-16.
We feel it is vitally important that Worcestershire continues to lobby Government on the issues of Fair Funding. We also feel that there needs to be some joined up thinking about schools with Sixth Forms who have also had to deal with three consecutive years of funding reduction along with Academies who have increased running costs but whose ESG monies continues to be cut year on year.
The consultation issues were not given enough time for adequate discussion and information was received too late for consideration.
We are asking that schools have enough money to function – to pay running costs, afford basic resources and to be able to afford enough staff on its payroll to undertake its core function. For many schools, including ours, this is now an issue and with the current proposals will become significantly worse which we fear will affect outcomes.
SUMMARY OF THE MAIN ISSUES RAISED AT THE AREA CONSULTATION MEETINGS 22 AND 25 SEPTEMBER 2014
BACKGROUND
As part of the statutory consultation and given the scope and importance of the proposed options for change for mainstream schools 2 Area briefing meetings were arranged. These detailed a number of current issues and in particular gave Headteachers, Chairs of Governors and School Business Managers the opportunity to discuss and comment on the formula options.
These took place on from 6.00pm to 8.00pm on: -
Monday 22 September 2014 at County Hall, Worcester. Thursday 25 September 2014 at RSA Academy Arrow Vale, Redditch.
Over the two sessions there were 125 Headteachers, Governors, and Business Managers in attendance. The LA was represented by the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, the Director of Children's Services, the Head of Finance and Resources and Children's Services Finance Officers.
FORMAT OF THE BRIEFINGS
Welcome by Cabinet Member Children and Families Worcestershire County Council. Introduction by the Director of Children's Services. Updates on IBS Schools, Commissioning of Support Services, Learning and Achievement Review and High Needs by LA Officers. Summary of the Schools Block Current Position and Options for Change by the Head of Finance and Resources, Directorate of Children's Services, Worcestershire County Council. Questions and Answers throughout the sessions.
PAPERS PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED TO ALL SCHOOLS AND OTHER CONSULTEES AT THE START OF THE CONSULTATION PROCESS ON 10 SEPTEMBER
Consultation document and questionnaire including statutory questions required by DfE and details on the 6 formula options. Consultation questionnaire: - (6 questions) Options preferred – ranked 1st 2nd 3rd. Treatment of any additional Schools Block DSG in the AWPU. Minor amendment to split site formula criteria for newly qualifying schools. Delegation/de-delegation of central services. Impact of L&A review on central services delegation. Other centrally retained services. Formula modelling based on Oct 2013 data for each of the 6 options for consideration for the Worcestershire formula for 2015-16 including: - Summary of the formula factors. School by school analysis. Pyramid analysis. Phase Summary
FURTHER PAPERS CIRCULATED AFTER THE AREA MEETINGS ON 26 SEPTEMBER
Copy of Area Meetings Presentation detailing the current position and proposals for change. A summary by school of the variations in the options detailing pupil numbers and indicative Pupil Premium allocations where available. Table showing the how the options in summary vary with respect to pupil numbers.
ISSUES RAISED
These are summarised as follows as Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) under the following key headings.
Formula Factors and Data Sets
Q. If the sparsity factor is added in 2015-16 would it have an effect on the rates of other factors?
A. There is a finite Schools Block DSG funding allocation and so using all the Minimum Funding Levels (MFLs) factors will not be affordable. So, with this and potentially adding further factors such as sparsity from those used in 2014-15 will put pressure on the funding available and could affect the value of other factors.
Q. Why is the value of WCC lump sum so low when comparing it with the MFLs?
A. The calculation of the £42,000 lump sum for 2013-14 was part of the change to the new funding formula requirements for 2013-14 which significantly restricted LAs on the number and types of factors permitted. The historic fixed and variable lump sum allocations for 2012-13 totalled £9.5m which gave £42,000 per school as there was no scope to differentiate between size and/or phase of school. Also, given the low funded level in Worcestershire adding any further DSG into this element of the formula would have meant a reduction in pupil led factors. However, the DfE now allows a differential lump sum by phase only but the inclusion of a higher lump sum was not the favoured option from the results of the consultation for 2014-15 which concluded that the majority of schools who offered a preference wanted no change from the 2013-14.
Q. The change in the data qualification for Low Prior Attainment (LPA) in 2014-15 caused a significant impact so is this being reconsidered?
A. The impact of the significant increase in the LPA data sets for both primary and secondary has been explained and documented previously. In particular for secondary pupils the qualification being changed to English or Maths at Level 4 at KS2 impacted significantly on the secondary AWPUs. The consultation options provide for this to be re-considered on either the current model or through the MFLs. There is also the option for no change.
Q. Pupils with LPA and from deprived backgrounds cost more in terms of educational resource and there seems to be a lobby from a small number of schools to re-consider this issue. As the WSF resolved not consult on this aspect why is still included in the consultation options?
A. The WSF draft minutes of the September 2014 meeting reflect the decisions made by the WSF. In particular the WSF agreed not to include a change to the secondary LPA in respect of the one consultation option relating to the existing formula. The WSF is a consultative group whose opinion is considered by the LA who may or may not concur. In this case the LA as the decision making body decided to continue with consultation to include the proposed change for the secondary LPA element in
the options relating to the existing formula. The consultation options using the MFLs including the reduced LPA rates for primary and secondary were agreed by the WSF.
Q. Has there has been an opportunity missed to look more closely at deprivation and why has not the need of such pupils been a factor in the formula options?
A. Deprivation funding has been targeted in the past e.g. pockets of deprivation and the national pupil premium has increased funding significantly over the last 3-4 years. Also, some of the options provide for using all of the IDACI bands 1 to 6. The underlying issue is the extremely low level of funding in Worcestershire and the need to provide a base funding level for all pupils. Some schools have argued the base is already skewed towards deprivation at the expense of all schools.
Q. How are middle school profiles and data sets recognised in the funding?
A. The DfE framework provides for primary and secondary and they view middle schools in their deemed phases primary or secondary. However the data sets recognise the different year groups in all schools including middle schools and the AWPU funding is linked to the Key Stages – primary, KS3 and KS4.
Q. Will there be a need to rebase the funding rates after the October 2014 census?
A. The approved formula has to be initially submitted to the DfE by 31 October 2014 on the current 2013 data sets. Subsequently all aspects of the approved formula would need to be reworked using the October 2014 census and other revised 2014 data. This will be provided by the DfE in late December 2014 together with the DSG settlement for 2015-16. The LA then has until 20 January 2015 to make any resubmission if there are significant changes to the data sets and funding level. The submitted formula factors cannot be altered but the units of resource can change.
Any changes to data sets for 2015-16 could have an effect on the units of resource used, if they are not affordable. So the formula models and allocations to schools provided are a guide only and will change due to the 2014 data sets, the DSG 2015-16 available together with the effect of the statutory MFG and operation of the cap.
The DfE have decided that any additional DSG cannot be excluded from the MFG/Capping as it is not ‘new’ delegation so the impact for individual schools will vary significantly e.g. some schools will see increases whereas other will see no increases but merely a reduced MFG requirement
Consultation Models and Decisions
Q. How were the consultation models developed?
A. Given the late DfE policy notification on 17 July 2014 and the even later issue by them of the national LA modelling tool the Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) Formula Group were only able to meet on 18 August 2014. Thanks go to that group for putting forward options for consideration by the WSF on 5 September. Following this the LA agreed the final consultation options which were circulated on 10 September.
Q. How will the formula options be scored?
A. This will be the same system as for 2014-15 by weighting the preferences 1st 2nd and 3rd linked to size of school by pupil numbers. Overall there was a very good overall response to the consultation last year of 40%. However this varied significantly by sector and a greater response is required from primary and middle schools.
Q. The definition of school's preferences is noted but it is felt the consultation responses will not readily influence the County Council's decision?
A. The methodology was changed in 2014-15 from previous years, which was a single indication of preference per school. This as a consequence of the challenge that it was sector driven only and did not reflect sector size. On the decision making ultimately it is the LA responsibility to agree and approve the funding factors and formula. However the LA does take into account the responses, the outcome of the consultation with schools and the views of schools and the WSF in coming to its final decision.
Q. Is this a genuine consultation or a case of the loudest takes priority?
A. The final report to Cabinet will contain all of the consultation feedback to inform the decision that Cabinet makes. It is extremely important that schools respond.
Q. Will the final decision be one of the 6 options?
A. Cabinet will be given all of the consultation feedback on the options in order to make its decision.
Other Funding Streams
Q. Can reductions in Post 16 funding be taken into account in the pre-16 formula?
A. The LA acknowledges that there are still issues with the level of post 16 funding. However, this is outside of the control of the LA. There is no scope to account for the effect of this in the local pre-16 formula. This issue affects both maintained schools and academies.
Q. Is there the ability to reflect the reductions in Education Service Grant (ESG) for academies?
A. The ESG is being reduced nationally and both the LA and academies are experiencing reductions. The EFA are reducing the per pupil rate for academies to come in line with those paid to LAs and there is some transitional protection available. As with Post 16 the ESG rates are set nationally so the LA has no scope to vary these or account for the effect in the local pre-16 funding formula.
Q. Is the Pupil Premium to be discontinued after 2015-16?
A. There is no indication of this.
General Issues
Q. Where is the link between the educational improvement strategy and the funding consultation options?
A. This is an extremely complex and difficult area. The funding is just one aspect and there may not necessarily be a correlation between the two, which can readily be addressed through the formula. There are multi complex issues – 2 and 3 tier, urban/rural, large/small – so whatever the formula there will be impact. The fundamental issue is the overall low resource level allocated to Worcestershire. No school would ever agree they were overfunded.
Essentially, there is not a simple linear relationship between resource levels and standards. The County Council's education strategy is to promote educational outcomes for all children and young people. In
recent years there has been substantial progress in educational outcomes as evidenced by examination results and Ofsted inspection judgements, but there remain significant gaps in performance between some vulnerable groups of learners and their peers. Further reducing these gaps is a key educational priority for the Council, and is a focus for the work of officers in schools and settings throughout the County.
As mentioned there is financial support for targeted pupils through the Pupil Premium and the use of the grant is now a key focus in Ofsted inspections. Within this context, discussions regarding funding allocations to schools and settings need to consider the potential impact of funding changes on the quality of educational provision. The relationship is complex; in recent years, for example, some of the largest gaps between vulnerable groups of learners and their peers have been in areas of deprivation, involving small number of learners. During this time, the performance of many schools has improved, despite reductions already seen in funding.
Q. Is this a formula for 2015-16 only and what happens after then can the model be revisited?
A. As in the two previous years this is a consultation for one year 2015-16 and will be reviewed again as required. Cabinet will only approve the formula for one year. The extent of any future changes will depend upon the DfE policy direction which has not yet been confirmed as it depends upon the next Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and the intended move towards a National Funding Formula (NFFF) in the next parliament.
Q. Is the anticipated new Schools Block DSG £6.2m guaranteed post 2015-16?
A. As this is an interim position there is no firm indication on this but it is hoped as it is a step towards fairer funding and a new NFFF then it will part of the future position.
Q. Can the LA continue to take up the funding issues with the DfE and EFA as although the restrictions of the new formula funding factors are understood it is believed by some schools that the formula was 'broken'?
A. The LA through the Cabinet, WSF, its MPs, the F40 group are and will be continuing to lobby government on all matters related to school and early years funding. This is crucial given the commitment to a new National Fair Funding Formula (NFFF) in the next parliament.
OPTIONS ANALYSIS APPENDIX A FUNDING FORMULA FOR MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS 2015-16
FORMULA OPTIONS - ALL MAINTAINED SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES
Respondents were requested to rank 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences with these being considered linked to size of school as in 2014-15. This is based upon a system to take account of the preference votes and pupil numbers.
|---- OPTION ------| |---- OPTION ------| |---- OPTION ------| |---- OPTION ------| |---- OPTION ------| |---- OPTION ------| OPTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 No change from 2014-15 1st PREFERENCES except data 2014 changes
No. of Schools 8 6 8 19 11 57 2 As Option 1 plus No. of Pupils 3,867 3,244 5,014 13,092 1,599 12,896 Sparsity on MFL (fixed) Weighting 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total Score 11,601 9,732 15,042 39,276 4,797 38,688 3 As Option 1 plus ↓ Primary AWPU 2nd PREFERENCES ↑ Primary Lump Sum ↓ Secondary LPA No. of Schools 15 11 4 4 42 14 ↑ Secondary AWPU No. of Pupils 7,057 6,964 2,625 1,923 11,521 2,943 Weighting 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 Use of DfE MFLs for Total Score 14,114 13,928 5,250 3,846 23,042 5,886 2014-15 WCC factors plus Sparsity (tapered) and IDACI 1 to 3 3rd PREFERENCES but lump sum adjusted
No. of Schools 10 12 23 19 4 7 5 Use of DfE MFLs for No. of Pupils 6,664 4,847 6,168 4,486 2,876 4,194 2014-15 WCC factors plus Weighting 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sparsity (tapered) and IDACI 1 to 3 Total Score 6,664 4,847 6,168 4,486 2,876 4,194 but AWPUs adjusted
Grand Total 32,379 28,507 26,460 47,608 30,715 48,768 6 Use of DfE MFLs for 2014-15 WCC factors plus Sparsity (tapered) and IDACI 1 to 3 all factors adjusted
OPTIONS FOR IMPACT OF L&A REVIEW ON DELEGATION/DE-DELEGATON - MAINTAINED SCHOOLS ONLY
Number of Schools
Maintained Maintained Maintained Totals First/Primary Middle Secondary/High
FSM Option 1 Delegate 14 2 1 17 FSM Option 2 De-delegate 3rd Party Provider 27 5 2 34
EAL Option 1 Delegate 20 2 2 24 EAL Option 2 De-delegate School Champion 15 4 19 EAL Option 3 De-delegate 3rd Party Provider 4 1 5
GRT Option 1 Delegate 17 2 2 21 GRT Option 2 De-delegate School Champion 15 3 18 GRT Option 3 De-delegate 3rd Party Provider 8 1 1 10 AGENDA ITEM 6b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM FAIR FUNDING CONSULTATION RESPONSES OCTOBER 2014 - FUNDING FORMULA FOR MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS 2015-16 6th OCTOBER 2014
Academy Maintained Maintained Nursery/ Maintained Academy Academy Category of Provider/Responder First/ Secondary/ Other Total First/ Middle Middle Secondary/High Primary High Primary Number of All Providers 158 18 14 6 6 23 N/A 225 Number of Responses 66 6 7 5 5 20 109 % of Responses to Number of All Providers 42 33 50 83 83 87 N/A 48 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Q1 Indication of which options are supported as the mainstream schools local funding formula for 2015-16 (ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd - see attached analysis of preferences in Appendix A). N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Q2 Do you agree that any additional schools block DSG is allocated via the AWPU using ratio of 1:1.27 for primary and secondary schools which is the figure that the DfE suggest for the whole of the school block funding. 39 20 3 2 7 4 5 15 1 73 23 Q3 Do you you support the proposal to slightly amend the existing split site formula qualifying criteria for any newly qualifying split site schools. 42 4 4 6 1 3 4 13 2 72 7 Q4 Do you support transferring funding from the Schools Block into the Early Years Block? 19 34 2 3 2 5 2 1 1 2 2 16 28 61 Q4 Do you support transferring funding from the Schools Block into the High Needs Block? 19 34 4 2 5 1 2 1 2 3 13 26 60 Q5 Do you support the arrangements for delegation and de-delegation, except for those areas part of the L&A review, as detailed in the consultation document for 2014-15 to continue in 2015-16? (For L&A review decisions see analysis in Appendix A). 51 2 6 1 3 60 3 Q6 Do you support the arrangements for centrally retained services as detailed in the consultation document for 2014-15 to continue in 2015-16? 55 1 5 7 3 5 14 3 89 4
Note - Some schools did not respond to all the questions.
AGENDA ITEM 6c) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 6th OCTOBER 2014
FAIR FUNDING CONSULTATION OUTCOMES 2015-16
KEY ISSUES ARISING FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2014 CONSULTATION
QUESTION SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Q1 Indication of which options are supported as the See Analysis in Agenda mainstream schools local funding formula for Item 6b) Appendix A 2015-16 (ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd).
Q2 Do you agree with the methodology that any Supported overall by all additional schools block DSG is allocated via the schools and in each sector AWPU using the ratio of 1:1.27 for primary and secondary schools which is the figure that the DfE suggest for the whole of the school block funding?
Q3 Do you support the proposal to slightly amend the Supported overall by all existing split site formula qualifying criteria for any schools and in each sector newly qualifying split site schools.
Q4 Do you support transferring funding from the Schools Block into the: -
Early Years Block? Not Supported overall by all schools and in each sectors except for Academy Middle
High Needs Block? Not Supported overall by all sectors and in each sector
Q5 Do you support the arrangements for delegation Supported by maintained and de-delegation, except for those areas part of schools overall and in each the L&A review, as detailed in the consultation sector document for 2014-15 to continue in 2015-16?
Indication for the areas covered by the L&A review See Analysis in Agenda the option supported for 2015-16. Item 6b) Appendix A
Q6 Do you support the arrangements for centrally Supported overall by all retained services as detailed in the consultation schools and in each sector document for 2013-14 to continue in 2014-15?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE EXISTING WORCESTERSHIRE LOCAL FUNDING FORMULA FROM APRIL 2015 FOR 2015-16
Approve the following changes to the existing factors for inclusion in the local funding formula for Worcestershire mainstream schools from April 2015 based upon required DfE data sets included any prior years changes where applicable (as per consultation question 1).
Approve this to be based upon option 6 circulated for consultation with the final units of resource being subject to final confirmation when the impact of the October 2014 census, other data changes (both in-year and for prior years) and the final DSG for 2015-16 is confirmed.
Approve the use of any additional Schools Block DSG into the AWPU be allocated via the AWPU using the ratio of 1:1.27 for primary and secondary schools (as per consultation question 2)
[Note - The details of the current estimated units of resource are detailed in the following paragraphs].
Approve the new model to contain, from April 2015, the following formula factors and estimated units of resource using the prescribed DfE data sets from October 2013 and including the effect of the assumed additional Schools Block DSG:
AWPU – 3 rates: Primary £2,839.13, KS3 £3,886.05 and KS4 £4,415.31 Deprivation – FSM Annual: Primary £845.66; Secondary £1,008.66 and IDACI all bands 1 to 6: Primary £200.39, £249.29, £332.70, £404.61, £457.35, £662.53 Secondary £277.09, £363.39, £450.64, £531.18, £588.70, £785.26 Low Cost/High Incidence SEN – Prior attainment: Primary £641.44; Secondary £ 901.27 EAL – maximum of 3 years: Primary £446.80; Secondary £1,083.44 Lump Sum for Every School – Primary £111,026.16; Secondary £119,998.61 (Middle Schools an average of these rates) Sparsity (Tapered) – Primary £42,796.04; Secondary £63,909.77 Split Site – an individual school cash sum allocated via the approved 2014-15 formula with schools having to meet the qualifying criteria Rates – Actual Costs individual to each school Private Funding Initiative – Agreed Costs for those schools in the PFI contract Exceptional Premises Costs – an individual school cash sum for those qualifying schools as approved by the EFA MFG – at -1.5% per pupil as prescribed Cap – at the % level required to scale back gains for some schools to fund the MFG requirement only as prescribed by the DfE. This is currently +5.746% at the scaling factor of 100%.
Approve the current estimated formula units of resource as detailed above are adjusted in January 2015, if required, to take account of:
Any changes required to the cap for 2015-16 as a consequence of the impact of the MFG requirements of the School and Early Years Finance Regulations October 2014 census data impact and requirements Other DfE prescribed data changes including those from prior years The impact of the final Schools Block DSG for 2015-16 including any additional allocation.
Approve the amendment to the existing split site formula criteria for any newly qualifying schools as detailed (as per consultation question 3).
Approve that Schools Block Funding be retained in that block and that none is transferred to the Early Years or High Needs Blocks (as per consultation question 4).
Approve the continued initial delegation and transfer of the following centrally retained services for 2015-16 as in 2014-15 as follows:
FORMULA FACTOR SERVICE Basic Per Pupil School Specific Contingencies (not early years) Support for Schools in Financial Difficulties 14-16 Practical Learning Options Insurance Staff Costs Supply Cover Licences and Subscriptions Deprivation FSM Eligibility EAL Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils Low Cost High Incidence SEN Support for Underachieving Groups Prior Attainment Behaviour Support Services
Approve the decision of the WSF to continue in 2015-16 to the following delegation and de-delegation of the following centrally retained services for maintained schools only by phase as determined through the WSF, apart from those part of the L&A review, as follows (as per consultation question 5):
Phase/Service Primary Primary Delegation De-delegation School Specific Contingency (SSC) No Yes Support for Schools in Yes No Financial Difficulty 14-16 Practical Learning Options N/A N/A Behaviour Support Services N/A N/A Schools Insurance Yes No Licenses and Subscriptions (DfE No Yes Prescribed) Staff Costs Supply Cover – No Yes Civic Duties Staff Costs Supply Cover – No Yes Trade Union Duties Staff Costs Supply Cover – No Yes HR Related Duties
Phase/Service Secondary Secondary Delegation De-delegation School Specific Contingency (SSC) No Yes Support for Schools in Yes No Financial Difficulty 14-16 Practical Learning Options Yes No Behaviour Support Services Yes No Schools Insurance Yes No Licenses and Subscriptions (DfE No Yes Prescribed) Staff Costs Supply Cover – No Yes Civic Duties Staff Costs Supply Cover – No Yes Trade Union Duties Staff Costs Supply Cover – No Yes HR Related Duties
Approve for those services subject to de-delegation by the formula factors detailed above by reducing the formula amounts in 2015-16 for maintained schools only on the basis detailed above.
Approve for those services within the L&A review (as per consultation question 5):
Phase/Service Primary Primary Delegation De-delegation Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils Yes No or Underachieving Groups – EMAG Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils Yes No or Underachieving Groups – Travellers Children Free School Meal Eligibility No Yes 3rd Party Provider
Phase/Service Secondary Secondary Delegation De-delegation Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils Yes No or Underachieving Groups – EMAG Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils Yes No or Underachieving Groups – Travellers Children Free School Meal Eligibility No Yes 3rd Party Provider
Approve the decision of the WSF to the continued central retention in 2015-16 of the centrally retained services as detailed limited to the 2014-15 budget level or further DfE prescription (indicative budgets are shown) for (as per consultation question 6):
Funding for significant pre-16 pupil growth to meet basic need and to enable all schools to meet the infant class size requirement i.e. pupil growth fund – £0.2m Funding to support falling rolls satisfying DfE and local criteria – £0.185m Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) and Music Publishers Association (MPA) licences – subject to DfE prescription Contributions to Combined Services – the Early Intervention Family Support (EIFS) service budget – £1.5m Capital Expenditure Funded from Revenue (CERA) – £1.030m Termination of Employment/Redundancy Costs – £0.2m Co-ordinated admissions scheme – £0.846m Servicing of the Schools Forum – £0.055m Carbon Reduction Commitment – subject to DfE top slice from DSG
As approved, this is based upon the option 6 as the best supported model from the formal consultation with the above estimated units of resource. The final units of resource and cap for 2015-16 are subject to final confirmation with the EFA and change when the impact of the October 2014 census and other data changes and the final DSG for 2015- 16 are confirmed.
As in previous years the formula model for 2015-16 will continue not to include factors for: Pupil Mobility – not deemed to be a significant issue Looked After Children (LAC) – funded through the significant LAC Pupil Premium Post-16 top up – not permitted as not a pre-2013 formula factor Higher Teacher Costs – only applies to London fringe LAs.
AGENDA ITEM 7a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 6th OCTOBER 2014
f40 Executive Committee Meeting Saturday, 6 September 2014 at Amerton Farm, Staffordshire
1. Attendance and apologies Present: Ivan Ould, Leics (Chair); Robin Walker MP, Worcester (Vice Chair); Doug Allan, (Secretary); Joe Jefferies, NASUWT, Notts; Tony Norton, North Lincs; Chris Chapman, Cheshire; Stewart King, Gloucs; Bernadette Hunter, Staffs/NAHT; Sally Bates, NAHT; Eunice Finney, Staffs; Liz Eyre, Worcs.
Apologies); Nic Dakin MP (Vice Chair); Gillian Allcroft, NGA; Sam Ellis (Financial Consultant); Helen Donovan, Worcs; Jon Pearsall, Worcs; Edwina Grant, Central Beds; Francis Loftus, North Yorks; David Harty, Cambs; Margaret Judd, Dorset; Gillian Hayward, Gloucs; Steph Simcox, Worcs; Pauline Hibbert, Stockport; Christine Atkinson, ERYC.
DA reported that Sam Ellis, who for several years has provided financial consultancy support via ASCL, has retired. Although he wishes to continue to receive information about the campaign, he will not be continuing to attend meetings. The Committee asked for Sam’s contribution to the fair funding campaign to be noted in the minutes…and requested that DA contact SE to pass on thanks for his past advice and support.
IO reported that he had spoken to Ruth Johnson at the LGA about Edwina Grant (formerly of Central Bedfordshire Council, but now at LGA) about her continuing her involvement with f40’s Executive Committee. This was thought to be a positive idea and will be supported.
2. Minutes of the meeting held 12 April 2014 The minutes of were approved as a correct record of the meeting. DA flagged up the fact that the date in the title of Item 2 should read 2013, not 2014.
3. Appointment of Chair and Vice Chairs It was AGREED that Ivan Ould will be Chair and Nic Dakin MP, Robin Walker MP and Sir Nick Harvey will be Vice Chairs for the next two years. In the future, these positions will be considered by the Executive Committee on every two years.
4. Contractual Arrangements with DTW Doug Allan provides secretarial and PR services to f40 as an employee of DTW. This arrangement has been in place since the late 1990s though the terms and costings have remained the same throughout this time. It has been suggested that the service might need to be subjected to market testing on a periodic basis, though the legal position for f40, a campaign group with membership made up from a range of LAs, is not entirely clear. Having tested the position with officers from his own authority and Derbyshire CC (our banking authority), IO suggested that it is a matter for the Executive Committee to decide and review periodically and as long as there is a committee minute reference about DTW’s position, all should be fine. There was a discussion about the services that DA provides as part of the arrangement, and whether another company or another agency could reasonably provide the same service, bearing in mind the background, contacts, knowledge, cost/competitiveness, value for money etc. There was unanimous agreement that the Executive
Minutes of Exec Committee 6 September 2014 Page 1
Committee should determine the appointment and that DA (and therefore DTW) should continue to provide the service. This matter will be considered on the agenda every two years.
5. Labour Party’s Review of Local Government’s role in Education DA reminded members that in February 2014 a letter had been sent to David Blunkett MP with f40’s suggestions in respect of the Labour Party’s debate on the future role of local government in the delivery of education services. The report “The Labour Party Review of Local Oversight of Schools” was published late April 2014. NOTED
6. Activities since the last meeting (note that the scheduled meeting for April was postponed)
Westminster Hall debate – 29 April 2014 Robin Walker reported on the debate that he had secured. It was an extremely successful event with plenty of MPs from f40 authorities present and speaking. There was good cross-party attendance and strong arguments in support of a change to the existing funding formula. RW hoped that the debate had helped influence government thinking, particularly the subsequent announcement of extra funding. AGREED that RW be thanked for securing this high profile debate. F40 Briefing for MPs – April 2014 It was NOTED that an updated Briefing Paper was prepared and circulated to MPs Fairer Schools Funding in 2015-16 – f40’s Consultation Response The initial announcement on additional school funding for 2015-16 had indicated that £350m would be shared by 62 of the most poorly funded LAs. At this point 23 f40 LAs stood to gain a total of £172m of extra funding. The announcement was subject to a consultation and f40 submitted a response on 30 April 2014. NOTED Final Outcome of Fairer Schools Funding in 2015-16 Consultation In July 2014, the government announced the outcome of the Fairer Schools Funding consultation and increased the total funding package to £390m, of which £210.6m is allocated to 28 f40 member authorities. This is considered to be a real success for f40 and an acknowledgement of the arguments the group has made. However, it was emphasised that this is just an interim step on the route to a new fair funding formula. The campaign will continue to argue its case and undertake in depth development work on a possible new formula (see below).
RW asked for clarification on the CRC (Carbon Reduction Commitment) deductions from the extra funding and whether these reductions ultimately mean that a lesser sum was actually gained by each LA. He was advised that the full amounts indicated for each LA would actually be paid, but that the CRC applied to all LAs. The responsibility for carbon reduction is being shared by all, and if LAs don’t contribute from the extra funding they will have to find the cash from savings elsewhere in the budget.
AGREED that DA should prepare a letter from the chair to be sent to all member authorities (Lead Members, Directors and Chairs of Schools Forum) to outline f40’s position re Fairer Schools Funding, the work of the Finance Managers Research Team and referring to the fact that f40 is increasingly seen as one of the most successful funding campaign groups in the country. On reflection, it was considered that two separate letters should be prepared – one for the real gainers and a separate one for those who gained less or not at all.
• F40 Briefing for MPs – September 2014 • Westminster Hall debate – 29 April 2014 DA reported that a request for a fair funding information sheet had been received from Andrew Bridgen MP. He wanted something that explained the background and current state of play that could be used in discussions with Headteachers and others in his constituency. DA prepared an
Minutes of Exec Committee 6 September 2014 Page 2
updated Briefing Paper incorporating a spreadsheet showing Fairer Schools Funding for 2015-16. AGREED that this is a good idea and that a copy should be sent by DA to all MPs representing f40 areas, with a suggestion that it might inform discussions within constituencies. 7. Finance Managers Research Team
The Following notes of meetings held since the last Executive Committee meeting were NOTED Notes of Finance Managers Research Team meeting with DfE – 5 June 2014 Notes of Finance Managers Research Team meeting – 5 June 2014 Notes of Finance Managers Research Team meeting – 21 July 2014 Notes of Finance Managers Research Team meeting – 2 September 2014
Stewart King, Chair of the Finance Managers Research Team, then reported generally on the detailed work that the team is undertaking. The keys points are:
The main features of the proposed formula are as set out in the agreed covering narrative paper. The aim is to come up with a formula-based distribution of the DSG, with separate formulae for each of the three blocks – schools, early years and high needs. Local authorities, in consultation with their Schools Forums, should then be free to allocate the DSG in accordance with local needs, with no restrictions on transferring money between the blocks.
The team has agreed a draft formula for each element of the DSG but further work is needed to fill in the gaps in the agreed dataset (mainly on deprivation) needed for the Schools and Early Years blocks and to ‘sense check’ the overall outcome for f40 and other LAs. It is expected that this work will be completed by the end of October, in time for the Executive Committee’s consideration on 6 December.
Schools Block: the proposal is for the total at national level to be distributed between LAs based on 6 formula factors. The value for each of the main factors (other than EAL and sparsity – see below) is based on an underlying assumption or set of assumptions e.g. on average teaching group sizes. This is a critical difference from the DfE’s Minimum Funding Levels used for the Fairer Schools Funding calculation which is based on average spending levels. The lump sum for primary and secondary schools takes as its starting point the need to adequately fund schools of ‘normal smallest size’ – defined as 60 pupils for primary (2 classes) and 600 pupils (4 classes per year group for an 11-16 school). Any school below this size should only receive additional financial support if it qualifies for sparsity in the local formula. For the English as an Additional Language and sparsity factors we have resorted to using average spend data so have simply applied the DfE’s Minimum Funding Level values.
Early Years Block: the proposal is to allocate 5% of the total for deprivation with the remainder being based on numbers of two year olds and three and four year olds, with no allowance for existing specialist provision. The allowance for deprivation is intended to cover additional costs in areas of high deprivation both for providers and for local authorities. As for the schools block we suggest accepting that the early years pupil premium is a separate funding stream and have not sought to adjust the allocation for deprivation in the main formula.
High Needs: we are proposing a formula distribution using a summary of the research undertaken by PriceWaterhouseCooper in 2009. It is acknowledged that this is out of date and will need to be replaced following the outcome of the major piece of research the DfE is commissioning in the autumn of 2014.
Area costs would be added for each of the blocks, using the ‘hybrid’ method.
Minutes of Exec Committee 6 September 2014 Page 3
Preliminary conclusions: As expected f40 authorities as a whole would gain significantly from a move from historic funding to a formula-based approach. And London authorities would lose heavily. The high needs formula produces big gains, again as expected, for those low-funded authorities that gained little or nothing from the Fairer Schools Funding distribution for 2015/16 e.g. Staffordshire and East Riding of Yorkshire. The overall picture will be clearer when we have the complete dataset. But it is inevitable that the pattern of gains (and potentially losses) will vary considerably across f40’s membership. There will of course be major issues for the committee to address on communications, managing the political environment and an inevitable backlash from London authorities, and what approach to take to transition.
SK emphasised the need for a simple, transparent and relatively easy to understand formula. The model being developed is similar to the DfE’s total distribution, but demonstrates significant funding changes, particularly for London boroughs. IO referred to the London Challenge and fact that its success had been down to the extra funding: he suggested that f40 LAs could make a similar difference if the funding is made available. CC expressed some concern that fair funding might be further adversely impacted by political whims such as pupil premium and other ‘emotional’ requests. LE pointed out that it’s the indicators that are the main issue. IO said that the real issue is about bridging the funding gap: that has always been f40’s goal. TN added his worries about the effect of pupil premium but RW emphasised that pupil premium is here to stay and there is no point in arguing further about its pros and cons. CC hoped that the new model could have inbuilt protection from future political meddling, but RW pointed out that politicians will always tweak policies: that is part of their job. TN suggested the narrative should spell out exactly what can be achieved by this new formula. IO suggested a future aim for f40 would be to secure funding that moves with the child so that the problem of cross border education is removed. LE raised the question of sparsity and SK agreed that absolute local discretion is required. SK concluded by stating that the work on modelling a new formula had clearly shown that the existing formula is not coherent but that f40 may be on the cusp of providing a solution.
AGREED that the FMRT be thanked for their important work on modelling a new national funding formula and that they should continue with a view to presenting their proposals to the Executive Committee on 6 December 2014.
8. Towards a National Funding Formula – Next Steps
The following actions were AGREED: 1. The work of the FMRT is central to f40’s current activities and the team will meet again on 8 October 2014 to finalise its proposals – narrative and modelling. 2. The FMRT will report to the Executive Committee on 6 December 2014. 3. On agreement of the proposals, the proposals will be shared with f40 member authorities. 4. Simultaneously, the proposals will be shared with the DfE team that f40 has been working closely with during recent months. This will probably involve face to face meetings. 5. In early February 2015 there will be an MPs Briefing, similar to the one held in Westminster in February 2014. 6. IO will speak privately about f40’s work to Secretary of State Nicky Morgan, who is a Leicestershire MP. 7. It was suggested that DA should write to five main political parties asking them to include a fair funding reference in their forthcoming election manifesto. DA to contact Vice Chairs for appropriate contacts in Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems.
Minutes of Exec Committee 6 September 2014 Page 4
8. RW suggested that f40 might wish to contact Natasha Engels MP for North East Derbyshire (an f40 area) as she is chair of the Back-bench Business Committee, and as such carries some weight in Parliament. It can do no harm to ensure she is fully aware of f40’s agenda. 9. BH reported that NAHT will soon be meeting with NGA and ASCL to discuss their own manifestos. She will ensure that the idea of a reference to fair funding and the need for a commitment to a new national funding formula is considered. 10. F40 must find a way of approaching Parliamentary Candidates in f40 LAs in the general election to establish their views on fair funding. Schools and parents should also be encouraged to ask similar questions.
9. Total Politics Advertisement – Conference Edition DA reported that, with the Chair’s authorisation, he had purchased a full page advertisement in the annual conference edition of the magazine, Total Politics. The cost was £1150 + VAT. NOTED
10. Correspondence with the Secretary of State DA reported on correspondence with the new Secretary of State. F40 had congratulated Nicky Morgan MP on her elevation to Secretary of State and requested a meeting once she had settled in to her duties. The response was very warm towards f40 and its campaign work and the SoS looks forward to working closely with f40 in the future, however, the idea of a meeting was difficult at this time and f40 was asked to put the idea on hold for the time being. This suits f40’s timetable at the moment and we will again ask for a meeting in the New Year, once the model is public. AGREED
11. Early Years Pupil Premium and Funding for Two Year Olds – Consultation Submission A submission to this consultation has been made. Thanks were given to Martin Wade, Cambs CC, who prepared the first draft for the group’s consideration. AGREED
12. Social Media – Training in the use of Twitter DA suggested that he may benefit from some training in the use of Twitter. F40 has an account and DA undertakes fairly basic activity, but feels there may be more to be gained if he knew how to do it! RW and LE suggested that there is a person in Worcestershire that would be able to assist at no cost and a training session could be organised in LE’s office at county hall. AGREED
13. Membership Report and Finances DA reported that all 34 2013-14 member authorities had paid their subscription for 2014-15. This ensures that the group has a healthy balance sheet. Disappointment was expressed by several members that many low funded authorities have not bothered to support f40’s campaign for fair funding, but are gaining from its work. AGREED that DA will identify and circulate a list of low funded authorities who should be encouraged to join the campaign. F40 members will be asked to encourage non-members to join.
14. Any Other Business TN thanked f40 on behalf of the schools in North Lincolnshire which have gained as a result of the campaign. IO said that campaigns of this sort do not have overnight success, they require well- balanced argument and commitment. Ours has been an intellectually sound campaign and all concerned deserve many thanks for their tenacity and consistent hard work.
15. Dates of future Executive Committees The next meeting is on 6 December 2014. Dates for meetings in 2015 were provisionally AGREED as Saturday 28 February, 6 June, 5 September and 5 December. Please note these in your diary!
Minutes of Exec Committee 6 September 2014 Page 5
AGENDA ITEM 7b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 6th OCTOBER 2014
School Funding Briefing Paper – August 2014
This Briefing Paper outlines the f40 Group’s view of the current school funding situation. 1. The f40 group represents 34 English local authorities with historically low funding for education. We have been campaigning for a fairer system for the allocation of funding for schools for nearly two decades.
2. Our aim has been to influence a change in the way the government allocates funding to local education authorities and schools. The current government has acknowledged the problem, recognising that the existing system is unjustifiable and unfair.
3. In March 2014, the government announced that an extra £350million of funding will be made available in 2015-16 to “the least fairly funded authorities”. Sixty two local authorities were identified as gainers, including 23 of f40’s thirty four members. The f40 authorities were set to share £172.5million of the extra funding.
4. Following a consultation on the proposal, the government announced (July) that it would increase the extra funding to £390m and confirmed the details of how it would be allocated. The outcome for f40 authorities is that 28 member authorities will gain a total of £210.6 million in 2015-16.
5. A comprehensive spreadsheet and graph showing the impact of the extra funding on all local authorities is attached as an Appendix.
6. The introduction of additional funding to the DSG is a welcome step towards a fairer system of funding. However, the methodology proposed for 2015/16 produces some obvious anomalies, with children and schools in many low-funded authority areas receiving little or no benefit. Those low funded schools and authorities will continue to struggle to meet their responsibilities without additional funding. We think it is odd that so many local authorities in the higher part of the funding league table (too high in the league to be f40 members) are gainers, whilst local authorities that are obviously more poorly funded have small gains or are overlooked.
7. f40 has had meetings with the Education Funding Group at the Department for Education where we expressed concerns about the way in which the extra funding for 2015-16 has been allocated.
8. It remains the view of f40 that fair funding will only be achieved by introducing a formula- based approach covering the whole of DSG i.e. mainstream schools, Early Years and High Needs. The introduction of a Minimum Funding Level (MFL) based only on the mainstream schools funding still leaves a funding system that is neither transparent nor fair. We questioned the decision to focus the additional funding solely on the Schools Block of DSG, but the government chose not to change its allocation method. There is a strong inter- relationship between schools and the High Needs Block: excluding the High Needs Block from the calculation is therefore difficult to justify. We feel that authorities where SEN costs are predominately met in the mainstream sector have been unfairly disadvantaged.
9. We acknowledge that the government is not able to offer certainty about funding beyond 2015-16. However this leaves local authorities and Schools Forums with real difficulties in financial planning. If the extra funding proves to be only temporary for some or all authorities the effect will have been to introduce further Minimum Funding Guarantee for succeeding years.
10. Schools are facing major cost increases at a time of ‘flat cash’ funding settlements, particularly: September 2014’s 1% pay increase for teachers (typically, teacher’s salaries account for 65% of school costs) The anticipated increase to non-teaching staff pay – which as yet remains unknown. The increase in the employer’s superannuation contribution from 14.1% to 16.4% from September 2015 The introduction of a flat rate state pension from April 2016, the impact of which will be to increase schools’ costs of in excess of 2% for teaching staff and most ancillary staff. For schools with sixth forms, a continuing reduction in sixth form funding Energy, fuel and other cost increases.
It is imperative that these cost pressures are fully taken into account in the Spending Review for 2016-17 onwards. Without additional funding a typical secondary school will need to identify compensating savings of around £350,000, the equivalent of ten teachers.
11. f40 will continue to campaign for the best outcome possible for all f40 members – fair funding for their schools, pupils and individual local authorities. Our focus is on ensuring that the government keeps its promise to consult on a new national school funding formula.
12. f40 wants to secure a firm commitment that a fair national funding formula and a clear timeline – three to five years – will be fully delivered in 2016-17, whichever party is in government. This will include:
Acknowledgement that the new national funding formula will cover the core costs of education reflecting the different needs and costs at the different key stages. The introduction of additional factors to reflect pupil needs beyond the core and also to fully support education within a reasonable distance from where pupils live. Passing funding to schools, but ensuring that Schools Forums have some influence to make local arrangements or de-delegate for maintained schools, subject to consultation. Ensuring that funding is the same for maintained schools and academies, and based upon the same financial year. Recognition that a new national funding formula will result in a shift of funding between local authorities and will require mechanisms to be in place to reduce turbulence.
13. f40 has always acknowledged that rectifying the root funding inequity will be politically difficult, but the first step in the right direction has now been taken. If we are to secure the life chances of children in f40 areas, it is imperative that all political groups, and particularly those in government, resolve this ongoing, worsening and dangerous funding inequity. F40 will continue to fight for a new, fairer allocation arrangement and it hopes that everyone interested in the funding of our children’s education will play their part to maintain pressure on the government – whichever party is in power – to deliver a new national funding formula.
2015-16 2015-16 Dedicated Schools Grant: 2014-15 2014-15 Indicative Indicative allocations with proposed 2015-16 total DSG Additional Additional Change In allocations allocation DSG - March DSG - July Indicative Amended % increase (£million) 2014 2014 allocation 2015-16 DSG in DSG f40 10,082.81 172.55 211.50 38.95 10,294.31 2.1% ENGLAND 38,665.95 366.95 424.50 57.55 39,090.45 1.1% 305 Bromley 232.26 19.10 19.50 0.40 251.76 8.4% 873 Cambridgeshire 383.61 20.50 23.20 2.70 406.81 6.0% 893 Shropshire 178.34 8.90 10.40 1.50 188.74 5.8% 929 Northumberland 208.53 10.60 12.00 1.40 220.53 5.8% 319 Sutton 166.75 7.90 9.10 1.20 175.85 5.5% 855 Leicestershire 414.52 17.25 20.60 3.35 435.12 5.0% 825 Buckinghamshire 365.92 15.20 18.00 2.80 383.92 4.9% 315 Merton 138.22 6.00 6.50 0.50 144.72 4.7% 803 South Gloucestershire 174.63 8.60 7.90 -0.70 182.53 4.5% 306 Croydon 284.46 12.40 12.70 0.30 297.16 4.5% 937 Warwickshire 359.75 13.00 15.40 2.40 375.15 4.3% 896 Cheshire West and Chester 230.87 9.40 9.40 0.00 240.27 4.1% 304 Brent 271.17 13.20 11.00 -2.20 282.17 4.1% 936 Surrey 723.87 24.80 28.40 3.60 752.27 3.9% 351 Bury 143.90 5.00 5.60 0.60 149.50 3.9% 878 Devon 445.47 16.20 16.70 0.50 462.17 3.7% 836 Poole 87.61 2.30 3.20 0.90 90.81 3.7% 926 Norfolk 531.47 16.00 18.00 2.00 549.47 3.4% 830 Derbyshire 499.93 14.00 16.30 2.30 516.23 3.3% 813 North Lincolnshire 117.82 3.40 3.70 0.30 121.52 3.1% 916 Gloucestershire 391.68 9.60 12.20 2.60 403.88 3.1% 857 Rutland 26.23 0.60 0.80 0.20 27.03 3.1% 823 Central Bedfordshire 182.39 3.80 5.30 1.50 187.69 2.9% 866 Swindon 152.16 2.90 4.30 1.40 156.46 2.8% 213 Westminster 125.90 3.10 3.30 0.20 129.20 2.6% 884 Herefordshire 110.88 2.60 2.90 0.30 113.78 2.6% 815 North Yorkshire 384.20 7.10 9.80 2.70 394.00 2.6% 868 Windsor and Maidenhead 100.69 2.10 2.50 0.40 103.19 2.5% 909 Cumbria 325.66 6.70 7.80 1.10 333.46 2.4% 895 Cheshire East 238.50 4.70 5.70 1.00 244.20 2.4% 317 Redbridge 254.04 6.60 5.90 -0.70 259.94 2.3% 935 Suffolk 452.88 9.20 10.50 1.30 463.38 2.3% 928 Northamptonshire 496.71 7.20 9.90 2.70 506.61 2.0% 867 Bracknell Forest 80.79 1.40 1.60 0.20 82.39 2.0% 861 Stoke-on-Trent 190.88 4.10 3.70 -0.40 194.58 1.9% 885 Worcestershire 356.21 4.90 6.70 1.80 362.91 1.9% 865 Wiltshire 304.50 5.40 5.70 0.30 310.20 1.9% 837 Bournemouth 101.76 4.60 1.90 -2.70 103.66 1.9% 355 Salford 181.12 3.10 3.10 0.00 184.22 1.7% 880 Torbay 89.18 1.50 1.50 90.68 1.7% 908 Cornwall 337.62 3.50 4.90 1.40 342.52 1.5% 933 Somerset 333.55 2.70 4.70 2.00 338.25 1.4% 890 Blackpool 104.26 1.30 1.40 0.10 105.66 1.3% 919 Hertfordshire 827.04 6.90 11.10 4.20 838.14 1.3% 840 Durham 350.69 4.30 4.70 0.40 355.39 1.3% 835 Dorset 252.40 1.80 3.10 1.30 255.50 1.2% 894 Telford and Wrekin 122.90 1.10 1.50 0.40 124.40 1.2% 2015-16 2015-16 Dedicated Schools Grant: 2014-15 2014-15 Indicative Indicative allocations with proposed 2015-16 total DSG Additional Additional Change In allocations allocation DSG - March DSG - July Indicative Amended % increase (£million) 2014 2014 allocation 2015-16 DSG in DSG f40 10,082.81 172.55 211.50 38.95 10,294.31 2.1% ENGLAND 38,665.95 366.95 424.50 57.55 39,090.45 1.1% 925 Lincolnshire 484.93 3.70 4.50 0.80 489.43 0.9% 334 Solihull 162.49 1.50 1.50 163.99 0.9% 811 East Riding of Yorkshire 210.49 0.50 1.80 1.30 212.29 0.9% 931 Oxfordshire 415.06 0.50 3.50 3.00 418.56 0.8% 921 Isle of Wight 87.42 0.20 0.60 0.40 88.02 0.7% 822 Bedford Borough 126.86 0.40 0.80 0.40 127.66 0.6% 872 Wokingham 112.51 0.70 0.70 113.21 0.6% 874 Peterborough 165.36 0.60 0.80 0.20 166.16 0.5% 879 Plymouth 179.05 0.50 0.80 0.30 179.85 0.4% 800 Bath and North East Somerset 118.05 0.50 0.50 118.55 0.4% 877 Warrington 148.42 0.50 0.50 148.92 0.3% 869 West Berkshire 119.64 0.30 0.40 0.10 120.04 0.3% 826 Milton Keynes 214.85 0.30 0.60 0.30 215.45 0.3% 887 Medway 209.17 1.90 0.50 -1.40 209.67 0.2% 938 West Sussex 518.56 0.90 0.90 519.46 0.2% 891 Nottinghamshire 526.61 0.90 0.90 527.51 0.2% 312 Hillingdon 238.62 0.20 0.40 0.20 239.02 0.2% 370 Barnsley 157.27 0.50 0.20 -0.30 157.47 0.1% 350 Bolton 233.75 0.20 0.20 233.95 0.1% 358 Trafford 174.55 0.10 0.10 174.65 0.1% 373 Sheffield 371.96 0.10 0.10 372.06 0.0% 860 Staffordshire 550.25 0.10 0.10 550.35 0.0% 201 City of London 2.40 0.00 2.40 0.0% 202 Camden 160.30 0.00 160.30 0.0% 203 Greenwich 244.71 0.00 244.71 0.0% 204 Hackney 225.79 0.00 225.79 0.0% 205 Hammersmith and Fulham 119.09 0.00 119.09 0.0% 206 Islington 163.90 0.00 163.90 0.0% 207 Kensington and Chelsea 82.65 0.00 82.65 0.0% 208 Lambeth 249.64 0.00 249.64 0.0% 209 Lewisham 268.65 0.00 268.65 0.0% 210 Southwark 240.69 0.00 240.69 0.0% 211 Tower Hamlets 315.51 0.00 315.51 0.0% 212 Wandsworth 196.14 0.00 196.14 0.0% 301 Barking and Dagenham 223.82 0.00 223.82 0.0% 302 Barnet 277.13 0.20 -0.20 277.13 0.0% 303 Bexley 201.32 0.00 201.32 0.0% 307 Ealing 287.99 0.00 287.99 0.0% 308 Enfield 293.79 0.00 293.79 0.0% 309 Haringey 229.04 0.00 229.04 0.0% 310 Harrow 183.30 0.00 183.30 0.0% 311 Havering 193.66 0.00 193.66 0.0% 313 Hounslow 219.92 0.00 219.92 0.0% 314 Kingston upon Thames 118.27 0.00 118.27 0.0% 316 Newham 367.71 0.00 367.71 0.0% 318 Richmond upon Thames 128.10 0.00 128.10 0.0% 320 Waltham Forest 236.63 0.00 236.63 0.0% 330 Birmingham 1,053.34 0.00 1,053.34 0.0% 331 Coventry 263.96 0.00 263.96 0.0% 2015-16 2015-16 Dedicated Schools Grant: 2014-15 2014-15 Indicative Indicative allocations with proposed 2015-16 total DSG Additional Additional Change In allocations allocation DSG - March DSG - July Indicative Amended % increase (£million) 2014 2014 allocation 2015-16 DSG in DSG f40 10,082.81 172.55 211.50 38.95 10,294.31 2.1% ENGLAND 38,665.95 366.95 424.50 57.55 39,090.45 1.1% 332 Dudley 235.58 0.00 235.58 0.0% 333 Sandwell 263.56 0.00 263.56 0.0% 335 Walsall 227.98 0.50 -0.50 227.98 0.0% 336 Wolverhampton 201.65 0.00 201.65 0.0% 340 Knowsley 115.05 0.00 115.05 0.0% 341 Liverpool 339.11 0.00 339.11 0.0% 342 St Helens 128.43 0.00 128.43 0.0% 343 Sefton 193.24 0.00 193.24 0.0% 344 Wirral 237.07 0.00 237.07 0.0% 352 Manchester 417.75 0.00 417.75 0.0% 353 Oldham 217.28 0.00 217.28 0.0% 354 Rochdale 177.66 0.00 177.66 0.0% 356 Stockport 191.31 0.00 191.31 0.0% 357 Tameside 174.85 0.00 174.85 0.0% 359 Wigan 229.65 0.00 229.65 0.0% 371 Doncaster 220.17 0.00 220.17 0.0% 372 Rotherham 217.30 0.00 217.30 0.0% 380 Bradford 471.25 0.00 471.25 0.0% 381 Calderdale 169.45 0.00 169.45 0.0% 382 Kirklees 325.06 0.00 325.06 0.0% 383 Leeds 537.83 0.00 537.83 0.0% 384 Wakefield 240.64 0.00 240.64 0.0% 390 Gateshead 134.48 0.00 134.48 0.0% 391 Newcastle upon Tyne 191.24 0.00 191.24 0.0% 392 North Tyneside 139.82 0.00 139.82 0.0% 393 South Tyneside 109.87 0.00 109.87 0.0% 394 Sunderland 197.42 0.00 197.42 0.0% 801 Bristol, City of 285.53 0.00 285.53 0.0% 802 North Somerset 139.57 0.00 139.57 0.0% 805 Hartlepool 76.04 0.00 76.04 0.0% 806 Middlesbrough 105.45 0.00 105.45 0.0% 807 Redcar and Cleveland 107.54 0.00 107.54 0.0% 808 Stockton-on-Tees 145.08 0.00 145.08 0.0% 810 Kingston Upon Hull, City of 194.62 0.00 194.62 0.0% 812 North East Lincolnshire 109.80 0.00 109.80 0.0% 816 York 112.17 0.00 112.17 0.0% 821 Luton 184.49 0.00 184.49 0.0% 831 Derby 197.10 0.10 -0.10 197.10 0.0% 841 Darlington 74.32 0.00 74.32 0.0% 845 East Sussex 332.03 0.00 332.03 0.0% 846 Brighton and Hove 164.65 0.00 164.65 0.0% 850 Hampshire 849.03 0.00 849.03 0.0% 851 Portsmouth 132.54 0.00 132.54 0.0% 852 Southampton 159.77 0.00 159.77 0.0% 856 Leicester 266.46 0.00 266.46 0.0% 870 Reading 97.38 1.50 -1.50 97.38 0.0% 871 Slough 138.89 0.00 138.89 0.0% 876 Halton 102.08 0.00 102.08 0.0% 881 Essex 967.14 0.00 967.14 0.0% 882 Southend-on-Sea 136.10 0.00 136.10 0.0% 883 Thurrock 128.01 0.00 128.01 0.0% 886 Kent 1,036.80 0.00 1,036.80 0.0% 888 Lancashire 844.55 0.00 844.55 0.0% 889 Blackburn with Darwen 138.30 0.00 138.30 0.0% 892 Nottingham 228.50 0.00 228.50 0.0% APPENDIX A
F40 Executive Committee 6th September 2014
Feedback from the Finance Managers Research Group
1 Introduction
The group met again on 2nd September and has agreed a draft formula for each element of the Dedicated Schools Grant i.e.: Schools Block Early Years Block High Needs Block
Further work is needed to: Fill in the gaps in the agreed dataset (mainly on deprivation) needed for the schools and early years blocks Sense check the overall outcome for f40 and other LAs
We expect that work to be complete by the end of October for the executive committee’s consideration.
2 Features of the proposed formula
As set out in the agreed covering narrative paper, the aim is to come up with a formula- based distribution of the Dedicated Schools Grant, with separate formulae for each of the three blocks – schools, early years and high needs. Local authorities, in consultation with their Schools Forums, should then be free to allocate the DSG in accordance with local needs, with no restrictions on transferring money between the blocks.
Schools Block
As set out in the narrative paper the proposal is for the total at national level to be distributed between LAs based on 6 formula factors. The value for each of the main factors (other than EAL and sparsity – see below) is based on an underlying assumption or set of assumptions e.g. on average teaching group sizes. This is a critical difference from the DfE’s Minimum Funding Levels used for the Fairer Schools Funding calculation which is based on average spending levels. The lump sum for primary and secondary schools takes as its starting point the need to adequately fund schools of ‘normal smallest size’ – defined as 60 pupils for primary (2 classes) and 600 pupils (4 classes per year group for an 11-16 school). Any school below this size should only receive additional financial support if it qualifies for sparsity in the local formula.
For the English as an Additional Language and sparsity factors we have resorted to using average spend data so have simply applied the DfE’s Minimum Funding Level values.
Early years Block
The proposal is to allocate 5% of the total for deprivation with the remainder being based on numbers of two year olds and three and four year olds, with no allowance for existing specialist provision. The allowance for deprivation is intended to cover additional costs in areas of high deprivation both for providers and for local authorities. As for the schools block we suggest accepting that the early years pupil premium is a separate funding stream and have not sought to adjust the allocation for deprivation in the main formula.
High Needs
We propose a formula distribution using a summary of the PriceWaterhouseCooper research from 2009. We acknowledge that this is out of date and will need to be replaced following the outcome of the major piece of research the DfE is commissioning in the autumn.
Area costs would be added for each of the blocks, using the ‘hybrid’ method.
3 Preliminary conclusions
As expected f40 authorities as a whole would gain significantly from a move from historic funding to a formula-based approach. And London authorities would lose heavily.
The high needs formula produces big gains, again as expected, for those low-funded authorities that gained little or nothing from the Fairer Schools Funding distribution for 2015/16 e.g. Staffordshire and East Riding of Yorkshire.
The overall picture will be clearer when we have the complete dataset. But it is inevitable that the pattern of gains (and potentially losses) will vary considerably across f40’s membership.
There will of course be major issues for the committee to address on communications, managing the political environment and an inevitable backlash from London authorities, and what approach to take to transition.
Stewart King Chair, f40 Finance Managers Research Team
AGENDA ITEM 7c) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 6th OCTOBER 2014
Notes of meeting of f40’s Finance Managers Research Team Tuesday 2 September 2014 at LG House, Westminster Present: Stewart King (Gloucestershire CC; Margaret Judd (Dorset CC); Anton Hodge (North Yorkshire CC); Karen Powlesland (Devon CC); Phil Herd (Trafford Council); John Bloomer, (Staffordshire); Simon Pleace, (Kent CC): Martin Wade and Doug Allan, Secretary to f40. Apologies: Malcolm Green (Herefordshire Council); Caroline Brand (Worcestershire CC); Karen Bowdler (Cheshire East & Chester Council); Christine Atkinson, ERYC; Gillian McKee (Oxfordshire CC); Lee Assiter, Staffordshire CC; John Holmes, Devon CC. 1. Minutes of the FMRT meeting – 21 July 2014 These were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting and there were no additional comments. 2. Developing the f40 Formula
Introductory Narrative: The version of the narrative, dated June 2014 and agreed by the f40 Executive Committee at its July meeting, continues to be the current version. The paper will develop further as the work on factors and modelling progresses. Comments received from Oxfordshire Schools Forum are still to be added, but this will be done during the next update.
Early Years Martin Wade (CCC), had further developed his spreadsheet on Early Years, using January 2014 data. His calculations ignore EY Pupil Premium. He reiterated his thoughts that the current pupil count methodology is basically sound. Initial DSG allocations are based on numbers from the previous January and are then adjusted retrospectively to reflect changes in the following January, allowing for any in-year increases/reductions in participation.
There was a short discussion about whether it might be appropriate to combine the EY Block with the schools Block, but on balance the view is that continuing with a separate block would be best.
The formula for Early Years should not take account of the pattern of provision – but should be a simple numbers-based formula calculated by taking the number of two, three and four year olds, and adding a sum – initial estimate 5% - in respect of deprivation. The spreadsheet displayed demonstrated how this might work, though it was agreed the 5% figure may change once the DfE publishes the anticipated EYPP rates. It was felt that one percentage rate was the best option across the country.
In considering the amount for each age group, it was pointed out that the 2 year olds figure is set by the DfE (£4.91). 3 & 4 year old rates derived by taking broadly the average rates currently used to find the best fit (£7.29). Perhaps the amount of funding should be concentrated on 2 year olds? There may also be an argument for setting the same amount for 2, 3 and 4 year olds and removing the current weighting on 3 and 4 year olds. Also concerns about relative disparity between the derived funding rates for 3 & 4
1
year olds and 2 year olds. Could be central costs included in 3 & 4 year olds figures skewing the data. Difficult to know as no easy pro-forma dataset to analyse. Figures would be adjusted for ACA.
Local authorities will have complete discretion, with the advice of the local Schools Forum, to allocate the funding to meet local needs and circumstances.
It is recognised that at present the data available re the take up of Early Years take up across all LAs is unreliable and this will impact on the calculations, but this will improve as details are gathered and made available by the DfE.
Discussion – should we think about building in a deprivation factor? Do we need to with the introduction of the EYPP? Group felt “yes” as government is very clear that the PP is “in addition to”. Also is consistent with schools funding. Is a single hourly rate the way we want to go? If not, what do we want to do instead? Patterns of local provision – sense is DfE would be keen for a transparent process not based on historical decisions taken locally. Maintained Nursery Units and Nursery Schools are more expensive – have added costs of QT’s and associated on-costs. MJ reminded the group that some historical decisions are based on previous government’s policies – MNU’s for example to enhance quality of provision and close the gap. We need a clear principle if we go the way of single funding rate not taking account of MNU’s and nursery schools.
AGREED to have a separate, higher rate for 2 year olds to reflect the fact that currently this is funding targeted for the most deprived pupils. The initial ratio that was suggested was 1:1.37, based on several LA’s current approach but is subject to further review. Deprivation funding will be based on a notional 5% topslice of the total EY pot, allocated initially to 3 & 4 year old numbers based on the EYPP indicative numbers.
AGREED that MW be thanked for his work and that he will re-work his modelling to take account of today’s discussion.
High Needs
Simon Pleace (Kent CC) had worked on a spreadsheet initially prepared by Gillian McKee (OCC), using figures extracted from PwC research undertaken a few years ago. Simon had also been in touch with Susan Fielden (Somerset CC) to discuss her views on High Needs.
His current calculations (£5.2 billion allocation) were prepared after requesting additional necessary information from the DfE. The spreadsheet demonstrated some substantial shifts between LAs, with some big gainers and losers. Stewart King (Gloucestershire CC) suggested that Simon’s work is rightly based on the best available information at this time, but in the future may have to be adjusted as more up-to-date information is made available. The fact that significant variations are showing isn’t as worrying as one might initially think: it is roughly what we might have anticipated.
The team AGREED it is happy with the basic outcome and look forward to seeing the way the calculations develop as part of the three block formula.
Schools Block/Lump sum Several spreadsheets had been circulated in advance of the meeting to show variations on modelling. Phil Herd (Trafford MBC) presented alternative suggestions re the primary/secondary balance, which he suggested represented views from his own LA, together with those of Karen Powlesland (Devon CC) and Christine Atkinson (ERYC).
2
Stewart King reminded everyone about the basic principles adopted earlier for this modelling: it is based on schools of the “smallest reasonable size, plus added on costs”. He suggested that the general funding pot should not be subsidising smaller schools.
a) AWPU constructed to reflect the direct costs associated with the pupil (teaching costs, non-contact time, TA, sickness and maternity allowance).
b) indirect costs associated with the pupil (responsibility points (for teachers); an element of the leadership costs – the rest in the lump sum).
c) allowance for learning resources, premises etc - applied an uplift of 0.35 to total cost of direct and indirect cost per pupil (the rest in the lump sum).
d) lump sum based on minimum requirement for the smallest schools: 60 primary; 600 secondary. Takes into account leadership costs; premises, insurance, finance and admin; supplies and services and for primaries an allowance for curriculum organisation, recognising that smaller primaries are highly likely to have “awkward” class sizes.
The variations to items raised by Phil, were considered and re-modelled into an updated spreadsheet. These included:
a) felt that M6 was too low – a high proportion of teachers are on UPS. Built in U1 rather than M6
b) added in an element for sickness and maternity cover at 2.5% of direct employee cost
c) added in an element for responsibility points – a lot of discussion around this as to what was an appropriate level, particularly when taken into account alongside the leadership overhead costs within the AWPU and non - contact time.
d) added assessment fees into KS4 AWPU at £275 (based on historical allowance of £250 Devon and £300 Dorset).
The team is mindful of comparison to MFL, but mostly concerned to sense check relationship of AWPU across KS1&2, 3 and 4.
Other formula factors
After a healthy discussion about the figures that should be used in relation to deprivation, it was AGREED that we will stick with those shown in the spreadsheet for both primary and secondary levels.
In terms of prior attainment, discussed appropriateness of having the same funding rate for primary and secondary. The increase in the primary rate was viewed as being an investment in early intervention
Average from APT is £800 primary and £1100 secondary. Arguments for and against: curriculum is more complex in secondary schools and have less time to bring pupils up to GCSE C grade standard BUT should there be as much priority funding going into Primary to deal with early intervention?
It was AGREED that despite various concerns about the accuracy of the data available, we should stick with the figures indicated - £1,000 for both primary and secondary.
Figures for EAL published by the DfE in July 2014 were included on the spreadsheet. Noted that many secondary’s don’t qualify for funding as pupils have been in school system for more than 3 years, however, if they do “land” at secondary stage then likely that costs will be high.
3
Deprivation – missing data as not all LA’s have used FSM+6 or IDACI – Simon Pleace will request complete data from DfE contact.
Sparsity – noted slight change in MFL average funding rate from indicative announcement in March. Marginal and therefore not updated.
No factor to be included for Looked After Children as this is covered through the pupil premium.
Next Steps Important to see impact on individual LA’s when all three blocks are brought together – cannot take each block in isolation. It is possible when modelling completed affordability is an issue. Will need to decide how to scale back. Group discussed briefly the political difficulties associated with a short(ish) transition, particularly where there are significant “losers”.
Stewart King will be attending the f40 Executive Committee meeting on Saturday 6 September to present the team’s latest developments on the new national formula and to seek approval to the general direction of travel. AGREED that all team members with further work to undertake should try to complete it in time for Stewart to have as complete a picture as possible for the executive.
It was also AGREED that a further meeting of the Team will be held in London on Wednesday 8 October in order that the final touches can be made to the research work and the Narrative and Modelling can be completed ready for formal approval and sign off by the Executive Committee on 6 December 2014.
It was also AGREED that we would hold off sharing details of our research from the DfE and f40 members generally until after the sign off by f40’s Executive Committee.
It was felt that these arrangements will fit reasonably well with the government’s timetable, though it was AGREED that Doug Allan should test this with the DfE.
END F40/DA/2 Sept 2014 (notes prepared with valuable assistance from Karen Powlesland)
4
List of Academies as at 1 September 2014
School Name Education DfE No. Date of District Conversion
South Bromsgrove High Bromsgrove 4003 01/11/2013
St John's CE Foundation Middle Bromsgrove 5404 01/02/2013
St Peter's Catholic First Bromsgrove 3310 01/07/2014
Droitwich Spa High School Droitwich 4005 01/07/2011
Bengeworth CE First School Evesham 3041 01/06/2014
Honeybourne First Evesham 2078 01/06/2013
Prince Henry's High Evesham 5403 01/03/2011
Vale of Evesham Evesham 7011 01/04/2013
Haybridge High School & Sixth Form Hagley 4010 01/07/2011
Baxter College Kidderminster 4007 01/09/2012
King Charles I High School Kidderminster 4501 01/04/2012
Dyson Perrins CE High School Malvern 4801 01/08/2011
Great Malvern Primary Malvern 2105 01/08/2011
Somers Park Primary Malvern 2204 17/08/2011
St Matthias CE Primary Malvern 3354 01/08/2011
Suckley Primary Malvern 2153 01/08/2011
The Chase School Malvern 4028 01/11/2011
The Chantry High School Martley 4435 01/07/2011 School Name Education DfE No. Date of District Conversion
Pershore High School Pershore 4030 01/07/2011
Arrow Vale High (sponsored) Old 4034 / Redditch 01/09/2012 Now Arrow Vale RSA Academy new 4008
Astwood Bank First Redditch 2127 01/10/2013
Ipsley CE Middle (sponsored) Old 4583 / Redditch 01/01/2013 Now Ipsley CE RSA Academy new 4009 Kingsley College Redditch 4438 01/04/2014 Now Tudor Grange Academy Redditch
Matchborough First Redditch 2919 01/11/2013
Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic First Redditch 5200 01/07/2014
Ridgeway Middle Redditch 4422 01/12/2012
St Augustine's Catholic High Redditch 5400 01/07/2014
St Bede's Catholic Middle Redditch 5401 01/07/2014
The Harry Taylor First (sponsored) Old 2130 / Redditch 01/09/2013 Now known as Crabbs Cross Academy New 2001 Old 7023 / The Kingfisher School (sponsored) Redditch 01/01/2014 New 7000
The Vaynor First School Redditch 2134 01/04/2012
Trinity High School & Sixth Form Centre Redditch 4437 01/08/2011
Walkwood Middle Redditch 4579 01/01/2013
Webheath First School Redditch 2135 01/04/2012
Woodfield Middle Redditch 4436 01/06/2012
Waseley Hills High Rubery 4044 01/09/2012 School Name Education DfE No. Date of District Conversion
Lickhill Primary Stourport 2904 01/02/2012
The Stourport High School & Sixth Form Stourport 4004 01/08/2011 Centre Tenbury High (sponsored) Old 4041 / Tenbury 01/09/2014 Now Tenbury High Ormiston Academy New 4013
Hanley Castle High School Upton 4500 01/08/2011
Bishop Perowne High School Worcester 4754 01/05/2012
Christopher Whitehead Language College Worcester 4432 01/07/2011
Gorse Hill Primary School Worcester 2167 01/06/2014 Now Hollymount School Newbridge Short Stay Secondary Old 1120 / Worcester 01/04/2014 (sponsored) New 1109
Nunnery Wood High Worcester 4434 01/08/2011
Old 3395 / Perry Wood Primary Worcester 01/12/2012 new 2000
Regency High Worcester 7024 01/10/2013
Old 7022 / Riversides (sponsored) Worcester 01/01/2014 New 7003
Tudor Grange Worcester 6905 01/09/2009
Warndon Primary (sponsored) Old 3399 / Worcester 01/10/2013 Now Oasis Academy Warndon New 2005
The Coppice Primary Wythall 2915 01/12/2011
Woodrush Community High - Specialist Wythall 4017 01/07/2011 Technology College
Conversions in progress
School Name Education DfE No. Target Date District for Conversion
Alvechurch CE Middle Bromsgrove 4576 01/01/2015
Cutnall Green CE First Droitwich 3316 01/10/2014
Hagley Catholic High Hagley 4800 01/10/2014
Heronswood Primary Kidderminster 2012 01/11/2014
St Ambrose Catholic Primary Kidderminster 3393 01/10/2014
St Wulstan's Catholic Primary Stourport 3380 01/10/2014
St Clement's CE Primary Worcester 3388 01/10/2014
Free Schools
School Name Education DfE No. Opening District Date
Aspire Academy Worcester 1110 01/09/2014 (alternative provision free school) ContinU Plus Academy Kidderminster 1108 01/09/2013 (alternative provision free school) Holy Trinity International School Kidderminster 6009 01/09/2014 (existing fee paying independent school)