• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

B Committee: School Forum Meeting Date: 18th October 2013 Title: Changes to the Schools block 2014-15 Author: Michael Quinton Decision making / Decision Making consultative / information: What is the Forum being asked to decide? 1. Schools Forum is asked to approve Annex F which is the proposed pro-forma for funding schools in 2014-15. Specifically: 1.1 The introduction of the sparsity factor which will be funded from reallocations within the Schools Block. 1.2 Redistribution of Deprivation funding from the higher bands of IDACI to a Free School Meal (FSM) band that is not directly linked to the cost of a FSM. 1.3 Removal of the mobility factor from the Suffolk formula. 1.4 Reducing the value per pupil element of the Secondary schools Low Cost High Incidence (LCHI) value due to the change in the proxy measure and more children being ‘picked up’. 1.5 Introduction of Rent as an exceptional factor. Reason for recommendation 2. Following on from the Government and Suffolk Schools Forum review of the formula the changes have been recommended: 2.1. The government have listened to school requests to have a factor that supports small rural schools. Suffolk County Council is committed to supporting small schools and it is in our interest to make use of this new Sparsity factor. This factor is aimed at smaller rural schools and we feel that introducing this factor will benefit Suffolk schools. By using this targeted funding it will ensure the long term viability of some of the schools as well as enabling those schools to look at other ways of working such as federations. 2.2. School Forum have discussed that IDACI unfairly penalised some schools in 2013-14 because of the way the data is collected. As a result the Forum agreed that to the recommendation that more funding can be distributed through a change to the FSM band. The value of the higher IDACI bands will be lowered to fund this. This will re- balance some of that funding without having a major impact on individual schools allocations. 2.3. The DfE introduced a 10% threshold to the mobility factor which means that less schools would receive this funding. However there are still serious concerns over the accuracy of this data. As a result it is recommended that the factor is removed and the funding redistributed to the lump sum to help mitigate the reduction caused by the introduction of the Sparsity factor. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 31 2.4. The DfE have changed the proxy measure for Secondary Schools LCHI factor. The change will result in approx 6,000 extra pupils being included in the data for Suffolk with no additional funding. Therefore it is recommended the value per pupil reduces. 2.5. School Forum also agreed to the recommendation for the LA to support schools with complicated and historic rental agreements. A request was submitted to the DfE which was subsequently accepted in August 2013. Therefore there will be a small redistribution in the block to this factor. Alternative options 3. For each of the above changes an alternative option is listed below: 3.1. The Forum could decide not to introduce the Sparsity factor. This may face challenge from the small rural schools and the DfE as this factor was introduced for rural counties such as Suffolk. However this was agreed at the June meeting. 3.2. This FSM redistribution was agreed after recommendations were put forward at the June meeting so there are no alternative options. 3.3. The mobility factor could be kept in place. 3.4. The value for LCHI in secondary schools could be kept the same and the additional funding needed could be removed from the lump sum or AWPU but this would cause unnecessary turbulence is the schools block. 3.5. Rent has already been agreed as an exceptional factor, so there are no alternatives. Who will be affected by this decision? 4. The following stakeholders will be effected by each individual recommendation: 4.1. Sparsity - 57 schools (50 primary and 7 Secondary) would be eligible for £2.4m of funding through the sparsity factor, all other schools would see their lump sum reduced or funded as a result in a reduction of MFG. 4.2. FSM band - all schools would see a slight redistribution of funding through the deprivation factor. 4.3. Mobility - 116 schools would no longer receive a small allocation through mobility; all schools would see a slight increase in other pupil led factors. 4.4. LCHI - Secondary schools will see a redistribution of funding through the Low cost high Incidence factor. 4.5. Rent - 9 Schools will receive £111k through the rent factor; all other schools would see a slight decrease in the lump sum. Main body of the Report - Background 5. During the first half of the year there has been a comprehensive review of 2013-14 School funding arrangements. The review has resulted in a number of small changes that will need to be implemented in time for 2014 -15. The Schools accountancy team has been modelling these changes; this paper will report on the effect of these changes on the Suffolk pro forma and individual schools. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 31 6. The process to reform school funding started in 2012 to ensure that it is fairer, more consistent and transparent. The aim is that it reaches schools and the pupils that need it most. This is a big shift in funding for schools and the transitional years 2013-14 and 2014- 15 will hopefully assist in bedding in the new funding reform. 7. Most of the arrangements put in place for 2013-14 will remain in place for next year. The DfE have made a number of changes in order to move to a closer national funding formula and address some unintended issues which arose as a result of 2013-14 reforms. The aim is to move towards a pupil-led system and there will be changes and some reallocation in 2014- 15. 8. This paper follows on from the paper presented at the June Schools Forum. At the meeting the Forum were asked to agree to the introduction of the Sparsity factor and the re- distribution of the funding in the deprivation factor. 9. The mobility factor to be removed; the introduction by the Government of a 10% threshold has resulted in this factor only being relevant to a few schools in Suffolk. Given the ongoing difficulties and unreliability of the government data for this factor it has been decided it should be removed and the funding redistributed in to other factors. 10. The DfE has also changed the proxy measure used to identify secondary pupils LCHI SEN. This will re-distribute the funding in this factor between schools. 11. Although there are several small changes to the Suffolk pro-forma, the affect of MFG and capping will mean that Suffolk schools will see very little difference to their cash budget in 2014-15. However their notional budget may have changed considerably, Schools need to bear this notional budget in mind as there is currently no indications in any DfE publications of the speed of change and protection after 2014-15. Annex A shows the affect of the new formula on individual schools, Sparsity 12. The sparsity factor has been introduced to address the concerns of small rural schools. The DfE looks at the postcode of the pupil compared to the postcode of the closest school (which the pupil may not attend) then the distance to the second closest school by post code and works out an average sparsity mileage for the school. Schools then qualify for funding if they meet the following criteria: • Primary Schools with less than 150 pupils on roll and a minimum average of 2 miles. • Secondary Schools with less than 600 pupils on roll and a minimum average of 3 miles. See Annex B for an illustrative diagram on Sparsity – as previously seen in Paper D at June 28th forum and Annex H for the impact on schools. 13. Allocation for qualifying schools of £100,000, this is tapered to number of pupils on roll. Tapering works by giving the percentage of the funding based on the pupils you don’t have up to the (150/600) thresholds. To minimise turbulence and disruption to the schools block, the Sparsity factor will be funded by reducing the lump sum. 14. For those schools receiving sparsity funding; it will be removed from their MFG baseline (like the Lump Sum factor) to ensure that when calculating the MFG baselines for 2014-15 schools are compared on a like for like basis. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 31 Deprivation 15. In 2013-14 Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) was introduced to distribute deprivation funding to schools – a shift form the old measure ACORN. The new approach had the effect of diluting deprivation in particular affecting more rural areas. Where a rural school would have had an element of deprivation funding in prior years we have seen that this has reduced in 2013-14. The DfE however are not making any changes to this measure in 2014-15. 16. There is an element of local flexibility in the bands used for IDACI and how much can be allocated. To mitigate some of the loss seen in some of our rural schools the forum agreed that funding could be redistributed and we will look at the 0.30 bands upwards to reallocate the FSM band. 17. These changes have resulted in some movement of funding between schools; these changes will be cost neutral within the deprivation factor.

Load more

  31

Copy Link