MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Thursday 17th October 2013 at 2.30pm Redditch Room, County Hall
A G E N D A 1. Apologies
2. Minutes of the Last Meeting 5th September 2013 (attached)
3. Matters Arising
4. Any Other Business
5. DfE School Funding Reform 2014-15 Outcomes of the Consultation on the Proposals for Changes to the Existing New Mainstream Formula from April 2014 a) Area Consultation Meetings Feedback (attached) b) Responses to Consultation Issues * c) Consideration of Recommended Actions *
* Given the consultation period does not close until 11th October 2012 these papers will be provided at the WSF meeting
6. f40 Group – Towards a National Funding Formula for Schools (attached)
7. Split Site Funding Issues (attached)
Stephanie Simcox 8. Final Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) 2013-14 (attached) Head of Finance and Resources 9. Funding for the Medical Education Team (MET) (attached)
Children's Services 10. Academy Update (attached) PO Box 73 County Hall Spetchley Road Worcester Date of Next Meeting: Proposed for Thursday 16th January 2014 WR5 2YA At 2pm Venue TBC 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]
AGENDA ITEM 4 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 17th OCTOBER 2013
DSG OUTTURN 2012-13
DETAIL Schools Other central Total £000's £000's £000's
SCHOOL'S ALLOCATIONS
Budget for initial allocations 306,864 36,670 343,534 School Specific Contingency 700 700 307,564 36,670 344,234
Adjustment on confirmation of Pupil Numbers 583 25 608
C/fwd from 2011/12 1,505 3,593 5,098
Total funding available 309,652 40,288 349,940
Initial allocations 305,826 0 305,826
Additional allocations 2,088 2,088
In year allocations * 1,632 0 1,632
Central spend 34,572 34,572
Total spend 309,546 34,572 344,118
C/fwd balance 106 5,716 5,822
Note: - * Analysis of in-year allocations shown in APPENDIX A APPENDIX A
ALLOCATIONS FROM THE SCHOOLS SPECIFIC CONTINGENCY 2012/13
TOTAL £
SSA High Cost Statemented hours (in excess of 15) 112,533 Lunchtime Supervision Statemented hours 46,577 PAN increase 28,660 Floor Area 109,964 Additional Resource provision (LRC, Able Autistic & Early years) 55,200 Academy Admissions and salary safeguarding (20,413) MFG (23,949) Other formula factors (5,334) Special Schools 7,287 Allocations from SSC (including Intervention funding) 438,764 Rates (211,755) ESAP allocations 71,365
Deficits on converting academies 1,153,917 Exclusions (127,130) Transactions for Closed Schools (3,638)
TOTAL ALLOCATIONS 2012/13 1,632,048 AGENDA ITEM 5a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOL FORUM 17th OCTOBER 2013
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) OUTCOMES OF THE CONSULTATION ON PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO THE EXISTING MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS FUNDING FORMULA FROM APRIL 2014
AREA CONSULTATION MEETINGS 10, 11 AND 12 SEPTEMBER 2013
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
SPARSITY
Q. Why does the new sparsity factor not apply to more schools?
A. The DfE has introduced a new optional formula factor for sparsity. It is based upon a national model and data sets and is a pupil based not a school based model. For each school, the DfE have identified the pupils that live nearest to it (not necessarily the school they attend) and have then calculated the distance they live from their second nearest school. The DfE then calculate the mean distance for these pupils as the crow flies and this is the 'school’s sparsity distance'. Schools are then classed as 'sparse' if they meet specific distance and size criteria. So, on this basis there are only a small number of schools that qualify. The LA has no ability to vary the data or schools that can qualify
Q. Why does the list of the 20 qualifying schools provided contain some schools that may not be considered as sparse and omits some that are?
A. This is a consequence of the national model prescribing the criteria and data sets and so the schools that qualify. As mentioned above some schools do not qualify for sparsity as the DfE methodology is based on average distance pupils are from the nearest and second nearest schools and not the distance between the schools themselves even though this can be more than the prescribed mileage criteria.
Q. Is the new DfE formula all about 'sparseness' and not 'smallness'?
A. Yes that is the case and the parameters set by the DfE support this. Although designed to support sparsity, it appears the factor has been derived to support much more rural county LAs such as Cornwall, Northumberland, Cumbria, etc.
Q. Should there be some protection for schools if after applying the sparsity factor some schools are no longer viable?
A. The LA can only put protection in place through the formula factors prescribed e.g. through sparsity, lump sum or the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) and cannot have its own stand alone protection arrangements
VARIABLE LUMP SUM
Q. Why cannot this be based upon size of school within the sector as well as by sector?
A. The current lump sum arrangements in 2013-14 have to provide for the same lump sum amount for all schools. Worcestershire's current model is based upon the fixed and variable lump sum funding quantum under the previous local formula. The new variable lump sum arrangements for 2014-15 are prescribed by the DfE and can only vary between sectors and not within them. This is because the DfE contend that such variability is not in line with a move to a national funding formula. The maximum that can be set is £175,000 per school but has to be funded from the fixed DSG School Block funding. The DfE will enable LA's to set a lump sum value for middle schools based on a weighted average between the primary and secondary value.
SCHOOL ORGANISATION
Q. What support will be available for a potentially unviable small school to consider options such as collaboration, federation, closure, etc?
A. The LA will continue to support and work with such schools as required to consider the options. This will require work around place planning, new housing developments impacts, curriculum models, staffing structures, working in partnership with other schools as well as leadership and management arrangements.
Q. Why are there mandatory criteria for any fund to support falling rolls to apply only to good or outstanding schools?
A. This initial qualifying criteria is prescribed by the DfE and cannot be changed. The DfE are clear that they do not intend that this funding is provided to support schools which have falling rolls because they are unpopular or of low quality hence this mandatory requirement. Also, the DfE want to ensure that good schools with short term falling rolls receive sufficient funding to deliver an appropriate curriculum and to avoid the need to take costly steps to reduce their capacity, when the demographic data shows that their capacity will need to expand again in the near future. It will be up to LAs to set out their criteria and be approved by the Worcestershire Schools Forum (WSF) and also the WSF will need to approve the applications.
Q. If the DfE approve free schools to open in areas where additional places are not required will this affect maintained and academy school admissions and pupil numbers?
A. This could happen but the approval arrangements for Free Schools are managed and agreed by the DfE and not the LA.
MODELS FOR CONSIDERATION
Q. Why do the models still result in turbulence with schools gaining and losing?
A. Remember DfE policy is to continue to move towards a national funding formula for schools on the basis of a pupil led model. So the continuing constraint on the number of allowable factors continues to severely constrain the scope for the LAs to reflect specific local circumstances in its local school funding formula. The continued use of nationally prescribed data sets, particularly for deprivation (IDACI), low cost/high incidence SEN (prior attainment) and EAL (pupil numbers) in the local school funding formula, will continue to impact.
Concessions like an optional sparsity factor and a variable lump sum will help but will not mitigate substantial turbulence. The MFG of a -1.5% per pupil floor will continue to protect losing schools but remember this is a per pupil and not a cash protection. So schools in a falling roll situation between the October census dates will experience a reduction in their budget allocation.
The LA still has the ability to cap gaining schools. However the main cause of the continued turbulence is a national change to the capping arrangements in 2014-15. This will be restricted in 2014-15 and the impact is detailed further in the Technical Aspects section below.
Also, all data sets will have to be updated for the October 2013 census, the latest attainment data and any prior year rates adjustments. So as a consequence all final models will have to use the new DfE data sets from the October 2013 census and other data changes from 2013. This will impact significantly on all the models and all schools. The final DSG for 2014-15 with have the Schools Block element based upon the October 2013 pupil numbers so the overall DSG quantum will change as overall pupil numbers change.
CONSULTATION PROCESS AND DECISION MAKING
Q. Who is required to respond to the consultation?
A. There will be one response permitted per school and it will be the responsibility of the Head Teacher, recommended to be in conjunction with the Governing Body, to respond.
Q. How will votes be counted per school of will it take account of phase or size?
A. Given the provision of formula options and schools being requested to rank 1st 2nd and 3rd preferences there will be consideration of these preferences and the size of schools in the analysis. This will be based upon a system to take account of preference votes and pupil numbers.
Q. How will the political consideration and approval process work?
A. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families and the WSF will be provided with a full analysis of the consultation outcomes when the consultation period ends. Following this the proposed formula for 2014-15 will be recommended for decision by Cabinet by the Cabinet Member for Children and Families.
Q. What happens if an agreement cannot be reached?
A. The process for decision making above will be supported by detailed and relevant discussions with Cabinet Members. This will formulate the policy and be reflected in the final report to be presented to Cabinet.
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
Q. What aspect of the national funding arrangements does this consultation relate to?
A. This consultation relates to the Schools Block mainstream formula only and is in respect of one year 2014-15 only. It will apply equally to all mainstream schools both LA maintained and academies.
Q. What information has been circulated on the formula models and how will the actual 2014-15 position be different?
A. For each of the 5 options financial information has been provided on: - Data per school and per district. 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 allocations. 2014/15 with and without MFG/Capping.
The formula models are based upon 2013-14 and the October 2012 data sets so the final allocations for 2014-15 will be different due to the need to use data changes from October 2013 and prior year rates adjustments. These issues will impact on the final allocations 2014-15 for all schools.
The LA has to submit its initial funding model via the national Authority Proforma Tool (APT) to the DfE by 31 October 2013. The DfE will issue the final APT in late December pre- populated with the October 2013 and other data changes. LAs then have until 21 January 2014 to submit their final APT funding model taking account of the impact of the revised data changes. By 28 February 2014 LAs are required to issue 2014-15 formula allocations for maintained schools and the EFA will do likewise for academies.
Q. What are the new restrictions on the capping arrangements and what are the implications for schools?
A. The DfE are looking to restrict the cap so that it can only be set at a level which is sufficient to fund the cash requirement of the MFG. This will impact significantly and is the major cause of further turbulence. The impact will require the existing low cap of +0.75% per pupil to be increased accordingly with a subsequent substantial reduction in the existing AWPU's. This is in line with DfE policy for the new simplified formula to impact more and for a pupil driven model. The final capping % level for 2014-15 will be affected by the impact of the October 2013 census, other data changes together with the final DSG for 2014-15. This will be a significant impact for schools.
Q. Is there going to be more change in 2015-16?
A. As far as the 2015-16 position is concerned the DfE have indicated the MFG is likely to continue but the level has not been confirmed as it will depend on the 2015 spending review. However, it is likely 2015-16 will be different as the DfE have indicated they will be consulting on a new national DSG framework for then.
Q. Are there any implications for non Schools Block Funding e.g. Early Years, High Needs, etc?
A. Funding for Early Years, Post 16, High Needs and the Pupil Premium grant will continue to be allocated as now separately and in addition to the mainstream Schools Block funding. Development work on High Needs funding is still ongoing and will be subject to further consultation.
Q. Is there to be any further consideration being given for supporting mainstream schools with top up funding who are experiencing high numbers of pupil with statements?
A. This relates to funding allocated from the High Needs Block and so will be considered as part of that development. Remember funding to support low-cost, high-incidence SEN is already allocated through the Schools Block local school formula in the Notional SEN budget. This is mainly through the AWPU and the low prior attainment factor and the consultation is requesting comments on this aspect. AGENDA ITEM 5b) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 17th OCTOBER 2013
FAIR FUNDING CONSULTATION AUTUMN TERM 2013 PROPOSED CHANGES NEW WORCESTERSHIRE LOCAL SIMPLIFIED FORMULA FOR MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS FROM APRIL 2014
Maintained Academy Maintained Nursery/ Nursery/ Maintained Academy Academy Category of Provider/Responder Secondary/ Other Total First/ First/ Middle Middle Secondary/High High Primary Primary Number of All Providers 168 9 16 5 10 19 N/A 227 Number of Responses 63 4 5 2 7 9 N/A 90 % of Responses to Number of All Providers 38 44 31 40 70 47 N/A 40 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 2014-15 (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 support the proposed definition for Notional SEN as detailed in the consultation document? 28 15 1 3 1 5 1 9 1 1 48 17 Q3 Do you support the arrangements for delegation and de- delegation as detailed in the consultation document for 2013- 14 to continue in 2014-15? 49 1 3 5 1 1 58 2 Q4 Do you support the arrangements for centrally retained services as detailed in the consultation document for 2013-14 to continue in 2014-15? 53 1 2 3 2 6 7 2 1 74 3 Q5 Do you support the creation of a growth fund from the DSG, subject to budget availability, in advance of allocating budget shares to schools to support falling rolls? 31 15 1 3 4 2 5 4 1 41 25
Note - Some schools did not respond to all the questions.
OVERALL OPTIONS ANALYSIS APPENDIX A SCHOOL FUNDING FORMULA 2014-15
The Area consultation meetings and subsequent FAQ's confirmed that given the provision of formula options and schools being requested to rank 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences there will be consideration of these preferences linked to the size of schools in the analysis.
This is based upon a system to take account of the preference votes and pupil numbers.
|---- OPTION ------| |---- OPTION ------| |---- OPTION ------| |---- OPTION ------| |---- OPTION ------| 1 2 4 5 6
1st PREFERENCES
No. of Schools 28 4 30 19 5 No. of Pupils 14750 2161 5522 3025 1964 Weighting 3 3 3 3 3 Total Score 44250 6483 16566 9075 5892
2nd PREFERENCES
No. of Schools 1 5 17 24 22 No. of Pupils 327 2336 6185 5934 6492 Weighting 2 2 2 2 2 Total Score 654 4672 12370 11868 12984
3rd PREFERENCES
No. of Schools 4 9 16 12 20 No. of Pupils 813 3914 4030 5293 3799 Weighting 1 1 1 1 1 Total Score 813 3914 4030 5293 3799
Grand Total 45717 15069 32966 26236 22675 APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF THE MAIN ISSUES INCLUDED ON THE FURTHER CONSULTATION RESPONSE FORMS
CONSULTATION QUESTION 1
An analysis of the options (please rank as 1st 2nd and 3rd) supported as the mainstream schools local funding formula for 2014-15 is provided separately.
Comments received as part of this are as follows: -
General
The option which leads to the fewest losers is supported given the school is in the unusual position of gaining with all the options under consideration. There needs to be clarification to why has around £300k spare has not been allocated in each model.
The size of our school is such that the differences are minimal but are more reliant on growth in NoR. The confusion arising from the sparsity factor (of which we are a beneficiary) suggests that the fairer solution is variable sector lump sum. The school is content with encouraging you to seek the fairest solution overall as part of an attitude towards partnership within the county as a whole – good luck!
As a relatively large First School that benefits from higher AWPUs have selfishly had to choose the 'No Change' option. From a district point of view, there are many schools with fewer pupils than who might prefer the higher lump sum. This trade-off will always exist in the new formula. However, at £75k lump sum the school loses too much. It is possible that slightly higher value than £42K would help the district in general.
If the formula were working properly, then special factors like Deprivation and Sparsity would be funded nationally and would therefore not affect the local allocation. In this instance Option 2 would be the first choice as not to damage rural schools in the county.
Once the special needs (rural challenge, deprivation etc) have been met, a lower AWPU will cause more competition for pupils. Given that collaboration between schools for higher attainment is a worthy goal, do not want to set the AWPU so low that it worries our competitors and consequently shut down collaboration. It is not clear what the right balance should be at the moment – everybody is worried about 'turbulence'. These loftier goals can only be considered once the fair national funding is addressed.
The ability to be broad minded on collaboration vs. competition is also limited since the current SEN provision is so dysfunctional. Schools need as much money as possible to meet the high HNP burden.
Some of the AWPU changes need explanation given that the factor changes being made affect particular phases and only the affected phases should fund the change. In particular, option 1 seems to have lowered the Primary AWPU further than necessary to remove the AWPU recycling from last year. Also, the KS3 AWPU seems to have been hit particularly hard which may contribute to the fact that most of our district middle schools lose out badly under the formula.
It is challenging for many governors to understand the full implications of the alternative option, with limited time and often a lack of background in the history of the construction of the formula. Given that it is hard to connect the funding models to the amounts allocated to each school it is difficult to make an informed judgment. However, it appears that the effect of the MFG/Capping adjustment largely outweighs that of any formula changes, and not having any clear understanding of how this may play out in future years makes it even harder.
In reality there is no wish to vote for any of them. The schools believes that Worcestershire is poorly treated by the Government and given an unfair allocation; a situation which is exacerbated by Worcestershire County Council‘s unfair distribution of this funding to its schools. A poorly funded school in a poorly funded authority and the funding distribution now suggested under any of the options makes this situation considerably worse for the scool to the point of unsustainability. The school receives under any of these models, funding well below national average and well below that of comparable schools in other LA areas.
It is understood that the LA has to select a preferred option and thank you for the work that this consultation process has, and will, entail. However given the level of uncertainty surrounding the size of the final budgets that will actually be distributed to individual schools and clusters it feels somewhat ‘hollow’ to be making choices given that the actual financial impact of these choices cannot be known in full at this stage. Based on the information and modelling offered the choice made is based upon these options that appear to afford our school the greatest level of protection and viability going into the future.
Small Schools
Only options 5 and 6 provide significant support to small schools. Although budgets will be protected against major reductions for 2014/15 the decision of the Council for 2014/15 will be a strong indicator of what can be expected in the future, when such protection is likely to be reduced or disappear entirely.
Small schools stand to lose a great deal due to the ‘fixed lump sum’ requirement as the previous ‘small school protection’ sum for schools with <200 on roll is no longer available. Giving a larger lump sum to primary schools does alleviate some of this issue.
Larger primary schools and secondary schools would no doubt prefer other options rather than 5 or 6 as understandably they would not want to lose funding. However, with their larger budgets they will be in a far better position to stand any loss. A reduction in budget would have devastating consequences for smaller schools. No doubt the secondary schools and larger primaries have loud voices but we urge the Council to consider the plight of small schools and think about what is offered to the pupils and the community.
As a small school there would be benefit from the higher lump sum.
There needs to be models with larger lump sums for Secondary Schools. Both of our local Secondary Schools are relatively small and would benefit on a lump sum based on a proportion of running costs of a typical school.
Small schools would greatly benefit from a lump sum based on the realistic costs of running a site, rather than having to support site costs from the 'low pupil number based' curriculum budget.
Sparsity
The sparsity factor is not relevant for WCC schools; therefore, there is no real 3rd choice, as options 2, 5 and 6 all include the sparsity factor. The reason is that sparsity is not a cost driver for a school (nothing increases in the schools cost base) and it not is a variable factor in school selection by parents and the sparsity factor formula is judgemental (i.e. both pupil number and sparsity distance threshold).
Any options which include a new additional sparsity factor are not supported. The sparsity factor does not necessarily benefit small schools. While there might be an argument for additional funding to preserve the viability of some small schools, there is no compelling argument that ‘sparse’ schools should attract additional funding.
The sparsity factor does not help many schools as originally intended. Most village schools are less than 2 miles apart from each other. Therefore, the inclusion of the sparsity factor in 3 out 5 of the models limited the choice of options.
The sparsity factor for this school will yield only £16k, much less than the small school protection which was a feature of former funding formulae. This clearly indicates that LA support for small secondary schools, in the proposed formula, is nonexistent.
As the sparsity factor does not make a difference to many schools and the benefits are not great for them so do not think it is worth adding into the factor.
The DfE Sparsity factor does not work, causing upward pressure on the Primary Lump Sum to help small schools still. A higher lump sum means a lower AWPU which hurts larger schools. Logically, if the Sparsity Factor helped the many rural schools in Worcs then might even be able to reduce the lump sum below £42K.
The school feels that the sparsity factor does not appear to have the desired effect and whilst it may suit some LAs, it is clearly not effective in Worcestershire.
The DfE sparsity factor does not support schools where pupil numbers are an issue nor benefit schools who have a wide catchment in rural areas.
It is a step forward to have a Sparsity factor but it is still far from correctly geared: - The DfE upper limit for Primary at 150 is arbitrary. A single-form entry school full to capacity is a more logical upper limit. The Secondary limit should be based on logic too. Surely if a school is located in a sparsely provided for area, no matter what size, steps should be taken to ensure that it has the funds needed to operate effectively. For a school to receive the full £50k it would need 0 Pupils. The intention is surely that the smallest schools receive £50k. To enable this, the factor should have a locally determined lower limit – for Worcs suggest 40 pupils. Sparse schools would then receive funds based on the number of pupils on roll below the upper limit as a percentage of the difference between upper and lower limits.
The DfE should be able to calculate the distance of travel by road and not ‘as the crow flies’. This is particularly important in a rural area where a river or railway line may divide the catchment area. Sparsity (and other special factors like deprivation, EAL etc) should be national factors funded from the national pot before basic entitlement is divided up per pupil. The factor should have a locally determined lower limit which provides the maximum funding limit. Sparse schools would then be funded on the percentage of pupils on roll between the upper and lower limits. This applies to both Primary and Secondary Phases. The rurality/sparsity of a school will hardly change from year to the next unless schools open/shut or there is significant housing development. The pupil based switch using unrealistic 'as the crow flies' measurements is expensive and disconnected with reality. It ignores geographical barriers such as the River Severn. A school factor based on proximity to up to three local schools and population density should be possible and need only slight adjustment tied to local events – certainly not an annual occurrence in most areas. Middle Schools should be judged hybrids rather than as small secondary schools There should be some assistance for the higher costs per pupil in smaller classes in much the same way as the AWPU increases for KS3 and KS4. The current factor allows for a different maximum local level for Secondary and Primary. Our local High school was always the only school to get small school subsidies but the £50k limit and the lack of a lower limit on pupils' numbers combine to yield a paltry amount compared to the previous factor.
Including a sparsity factor would be of benefit to schools in remote areas. These schools are a vital part of the community and are valued for their ‘family atmosphere’ and proximity to all stake holders. Does the LA want small schools to thrive, with their unique ethos and ability to bring life to small communities and villages or does the LA just want homogeneous larger schools with fewer children who live locally?
LAC
Any options which provide additional funding for LACs are not supported. This is already funded through the Pupil Premium, and often through funding for low attainers. An additional LAC factor would result in the potential of triple funding for LACs, further diluting funding for other pupils.
Also schools will receive extra funding for LAC children and again they are usually a small proportion of the number on roll for a school, so do not feel this needs to be separate in the option
Do not see the need to consider Option 6 given the increased pupil premium aimed at LAC pupils this option would appear to lead to double funding.
A further option to have a LAC factor without the additional sparsity factor needs to be considered.
Model 6 which includes the Sparsity factor and LAC provision would offer the best financial outcome for our school, due to the significant number of LAC’s on roll.
Prior Attainment
Since there is no new money to fund the DfE required changes in Low Attainment for Secondary Schools, would it not better to fund the changes by lowering the factor value rather than taking it from the AWPUs which affect all schools?
Pupil Led Funding
Pupil led funding will always create a huge disadvantage for a rural school with low pupil numbers and a large site. Such schools endeavour to maintain as broad a curriculum as much larger schools (i.e. same number of curriculum departments with department heads), a comparatively large site and an SEN provision with no access to external specialist units.
The school is required to admit the full spectrum of local educational ability and need, with no funding for the diversity of provision required in an isolated situation. The lack of site specific factor within the formula again proves to make the upkeep of a large rural site difficult/impossible. It is essential to have a factor for funding exceptional premises costs for a school with low pupil numbers (low funding) and a large site. All schools have Health and Safety requirements and service contracts which are charged for, based on the size of the site, and NOT on the number of pupils. So a small school is required to pay the same costs for these services as schools with twice or three times as many pupils.
The models achieve the effect of redirecting funding towards urban schools and away from rural schools. This would appear to be an oversight for a largely rural county like Worcestershire and so request that the development team reformulate the proposals to correct this.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 2
Do you support the proposed definition for notional SEN as detailed?
Yes – the methodology does not appear unreasonable. It appears fair that the school should contribute to the first £6k (most schools will have some) but also that some funding is available (up to £10k) for those pupils with high needs, thus reducing the adverse impact of SEN on all pupils.
Yes – would benefit from fuller explanation with cost examples.
Yes – with an emphasis on prior attainment and deprivation.
Yes – given the new place-plus approach to high needs funding, and the expectation that schools will be required to meet the needs of pupils with low cost, high incidence SEN and contribute towards the costs of provision for pupils with high needs it seems sensible to change the definition of notional SEN. However, while Worcestershire schools remain funded at such a low level relative to the national mean, this would seems to be, at best, academic and at worst, merely re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Yes – how effectively will this actually track the children….they move, their needs can change dramatically between census points. Using EYFS as a part of the criteria is a little unfair; it should be end of Y1. This is when the gaps really start appearing in an inclusive and SEN friendly school.
Yes – would like to see the changed formula funding model in the light of a change to the notional SEN allowance.
Yes - it is very important that schools have this money identified in the budget for these children.
Yes – but do not agree with the maximum amount of £10,000 the school is required to contribute.
No – the Governing Body felt that more clarity was needed regarding the definitions and the impact on budgets, especially with regard to contributions for High Needs Pupils. It was felt that further consideration needed to be made when schools had a high number of statements (especially equal to 35 hours) with specific consideration to the ratio of statements to number on roll.
No – budgets are too tight to reserve funds for the possibility of children joining with such high level needs.
No – SEN children should not draw on the AWPU finance of any other child. The idea of 'notional SEN' inevitably forces all schools to utilize money that would have been used for regular education.
No – within our budget historically £44k was received towards SEN. Under Notional SEN this will only be as lot less and is to support all SEN in our school which is currently at 32%. There is 1 statemented child and enhance school action plus. This makes a huge strain on a small school with limited resources to support all pupil needs.
No – do not have the finance and staff to be able to pay the first £6,000 of additional support costs with high needs SEN.
No – Basic entitlement (Lump Sum + AWPU) covers the facilities, QTS teacher, SLT, and admin support. Schools have to provide this for all pupils regardless of SEN status; costs don’t decrease just because schools have one or more statemented pupils. So the 5% AWPU contribution makes no sense. It’s too small per pupil.
No – if funds are to be top sliced/ring fenced for HNP provision (in the HNP block) then that would reduce the AWPU ultimately, but for all schools. These proposals mean that for schools with statemented children (or pupils with special needs that are not part of low cost, high incidence {LCHI} need) the burden is too great, and schools with no special needs can use the notional budget for other purposes. The use of the word 'Notional' is far too broad. Even if we accept that LCHI needs can be transposed to HNP (which is debatable given that different strategies/resources are required to service these needs), not all HNP children will trigger the deprivation funds. The 50% deprivation allowance suggested in the proposals partially recognises this but that just makes the position worse.
No – the only place where 'notional' seems appropriate is referring to the LCHI funding where the funds that a schools receives only notionally represent the actual pupils receiving the support because many will have joined or left since the census. It is too onerous to track individual pupils and the support is too broad based to be turned on/off, up/down with every pupil movement. Even here exceptional influx of LCHI need should trigger additional support. HNP is by definition 'Special' need and it should follow the
pupils precisely. It can and should be turned on/off with pupil movements and should be sufficient to fund necessary specialists and in some cases the specialist may follow the child. It should be funded completely from scratch either by a formula factor or a separate block and should not draw on LCHI or basic entitlement funds. If LCHI has some notional element of HNP funding then this should be diverted to HNP factors/ funding blocks.
No – would suggest that the Notional SEN factor should be the LCHI and up to a maximum of 10% of deprivation. AWPU should not include in this figure as schools like ourselves who have a high level of deprivation and low prior attainment coming into the school need additional support. The school also makes as much effort to not have any pupils statemented. This would be helped if the school had funding for additional support on the need of the child with and without statements.
No – despite attending meetings, forums, seminars on SEN funding, it is still unbelievably difficult to understand and infinitely more difficult to manage i.e. where will the new notional £6000 for LCHI SEN appear in the budget – it is not clear in any of the models. The schools has never been able to match the budget allocation for SEN with the level of TA/SEN provision required to cover statements and have always found it necessary to support TA provision from the curriculum funding for non SEN pupils.
No – the proposed formula seems even more complicated. The school has no funding for specialist provision for Able Autistic, Language Development, Nurture Group or EAL and yet are geographically unable to access external support so have to maintain this specialist provision 'in house' with no support funding. More clarity/transparency and fairness on SEN funding is urgently needed!
No – this whole area needs re-examining.
No – whilst would like to see an obvious portion of funding for SEN in the budget, the amounts involved i.e. up to £10,000 per child paid for by the school is unrealistic in primary and first schools where there are more than one child with high needs. This again will penalise the schools in areas of high deprivations where more high needs occur.
No – support the conclusion of the Worcestershire Association of Governors that specific needs like HNP and LAC must follow the pupil in real time. That would mean that some contingency would have to be held, nationally or locally, to cater for new needs between census points.
No – need to ensure that it is made clear to schools that their contribution to the additional support of a student is £6k and it is on this amount that a school would base their application to apply for additional funding support from the LA. £10k seems to be the figure that most people mention so to be clear that the £10k figure originates from the £6k as noted plus the AWPU funding which is for provision of the standard offer of teaching and learning for every student and so should not need to be demonstrated in any application for additional support.
No – LCHI need and HNP need are very different. HNP need must be funded separately either as a formula factor or as a fully funded block within the DSG (reducing funds for the Schools block). Specific needs like HNP and LAC must follow the pupil in real time.
That would mean that some contingency would have to be held, nationally or locally, to cater for new needs between census points.
Unsure – unable to reach a decision as the factors defining Notional SEN are unclear at this point. If school census data is used (taking account of the actual % of high needs in the school) then in principle the answer would be yes, but if the notional SEN figure is determined without consideration of individual school circumstances, then in principle the answer would be no.
Unsure – how many pupils is this expected to fund? Is there an upper limit as to how many SEN children this amount of money should be expected to support as only so much money goes so far.
Unsure – greater detail on definitions and effect on budgets is required to inform this decision.
Unsure – the school has a high level of SEN pupils which are a considerable cost. The way the formula has been calculated in the past, when factors such as deprivation, SATs results and Free School Meals have been used in this formula does not reflect this high level of these needs, and therefore funding does not cover the essential costs involved.
Unsure – would like a formula that is based on the SEN pupil needs within the school rather than other factors such as Free School Meals and deprivation which are not always in direct correlation with the severity of the specific individual needs.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 3
Do you support the arrangements for delegation and de-delegation as detailed for 2013-14 to continue in 2014-15?
Yes – feel it is important for detailed information to be provided to all schools on the exact amount that is delegated/de-delegated by the LA.
Yes – appreciate the support from HR, payroll, etc as a small school very happy with the service we get – where else would schools go?
Yes – the ability to both delegate and de-delegate gives schools more choice and has to ultimately increase value obtained from services.
Yes – in principle but not if services are withdrawn whilst schools continue to pay the same.
Yes – would like schools' insurance to be de-delegated.
Yes – as long as schools are aware of what they are getting for what they pay and end up paying what we expect to pay unlike some costs this year.
Yes – it very important that schools will falling rolls should be supported. Rural schools are a great asset to the community.
Yes – there needs to be clarity over the individual costs of each service, both income and expenditure would allow schools to more clearly identify value for money rather than all
the costs being disguised in a bigger figure. This was not clear this year e.g. insurance. Hopefully all services charging will be in line with the financial year to which it relates to make the budgeting process as simple as possible.
Yes – but with huge reservations. A funding allocation total which includes de-delegated funds gives a rather distorted view of the total budget a school has available to use for its local management. Schools were asked this question last year and approved the proposal that funding for corporate services should be de-delegated to schools. However, more information should be made available, BEFORE the start of the financial year on the COSTS of the de-delegated services. The de-delegated funding allocation was clearly shown in the budget, but no idea of the clawed back costs was indicated by the LA. If this concept is to continue, then, again, the costs need to be notified to schools in good time (i.e. before the start of the financial year).
Yes - one major area of concern is that of the funding and costs of supporting NQTs. Previously, the LA would include approx £4000 in the budget to cover the costs of the training and development of NQTs. Currently the school, not only has to bear the full cost of NQT support without any additional funding from the LA, but also has to pay for a Service Level Agreement with the LA to monitor the progress of the NQT. This situation results in, not only a huge financial burden on the school, but a distinct lack of support from the LA for the appointment of new teachers to the profession.
Yes – strongly feel that these services are best retained by the LA to support schools.
Yes – schools need to keep centrally maintained emergency funds.
No – believe that insurance should have also been included and would also like further information to be supplied on what each service provides so that the school can be sure that it is making most use of the services to support the school.
CONSULTATION QUESTION 4
Do you support the arrangements for centrally retained services as detailed for 2013-14 to continue in 2014-15?
Yes – the Early Intervention and Family Support (EIFS) Workers Service needs to be retained whatever mechanism is required.
Yes – very much support the continuation of the EIFS Workers they do an incredibly valuable job.
Yes – the working relationship formed with our EIFS worker is vital to the support of our families.
Yes – extremely pleased with our partnership with EIFS worker who has been instrumental in making a positive difference and contribution to our families in need.
Yes – as a small school that relies on central services to support the administrative function in the school.
Yes – would continue to use the services of the providers within WCC as in the past. This is most relevant where the County hold either the detailed history (particularly relevant for HR and Pensions) or specialist information (as in Property Services).
Yes – as the school do not currently have the staff hours or expertise (without a training investment) to absorb these currently.
Yes - it is felt that more information on each centrally retained service should be given and then these should all be looked at separately with what they are supplying. This would give us the chance to debate if these services are giving value for money or if as schools we no longer need them.
Yes – keen to see services continue on same basis as present.
Yes – however, does ‘Schools budget centrally funded termination of employment’ mean that funding is available for academies if this affects the overall formula?
Yes – believe that schools with falling roles should be supported as long as it is a temporary measure and that these places will be needed in the near future.
No – do not agree that funds should be retained centrally for places in independent schools for non-SEN pupils and for the remission of boarding fees at maintained schools and academies.
No – termination of employment/redundancy costs would apply to LA maintained schools only. Should these not be separated from other centrally retained services from which everyone benefits?
CONSULTATION QUESTION 5
Do you support the creation of a growth fund from the DSG, subject to budget availability, in advance of allocating budget shares to schools to support falling rolls?
Yes – in previous years have been allocated money for the difference with our PAN to actual numbers.
Yes – schools would be expected to demonstrate that the situation was being managed in the long term and the funding would only be a short term solution and not a year on year expectation.
Yes – short term fall in rolls proving it was temporary.
Yes – schools in a good or outstanding OFSTED judgement.
Yes – the DfE features are supported and an additional feature could be that subsidies should only be provided when the loss of funding is significant, as schools should be encouraged to cover smaller funding shortfalls by making efficiencies. Subsidies should only be provided after the school has evidenced that it has made every effort to make cash-releasing efficiency.
Yes – as a small school with a falling roll in unprecedented circumstances the criteria should be based upon OFSTED rating linked to results, events/publicity, ability of the school to produce forward plans/efforts to promote the school/respond to change and efforts to reduce deficit/increase income streams.
Yes – almost exclusively the use of local statistics where it can be easily demonstrated that falling rolls will lead to redundancies in the short term, but where re-employment would be the solution to the longer term recovery of the pupil roll. Any unused part of a fund created from top-slicing DSG should be returned to the schools at the end of the same year in which it was created.
Yes – in cases of exceptional circumstances.
Yes – but only in respect of naturally falling rolls due to demographic changes.
Yes – as long as it was for a limited time frame and for specific reasons.
Yes – large loss schools need support from LA in terms of planning for the future. LA needs to make Governors more aware of the significance of appointing a head when the future looks less certain financially.
Yes – falling rolls should broadly match provision in previous years and the total should not exceed the 2012-13 provision (about £300k) until the national allocation is reviewed. If there is some formula to identify need per school, should the total exceed £300k then all eligible schools have their entitlement reduced pro rata.
Yes – falling rolls must be a temporary measure (not longer than 3 years) and if long term then a different strategy needs to be looked at as to long term viability of schools with falling rolls. If only a 1 year issue then funding should be as near to 100% as previous years as possible going down in proportion for years 2 and 3.
Yes – support a fund for schools with falling rolls with a very open procedure with strict criteria which should be consulted upon with all schools when a proposal is put together and that any funding not used is distribute to all schools as soon as possible. There must be a sustainable growth in the area long term (three to four years), and not one school gaining at the detriment of another. It would be expected that other local school empty places are used first before this would be considered. The funding should be worked out on the lower of pro rata AWPU or cost of appropriate staffing until the funding would kick in. This should be a 7/12 bases until the April of the following year. This would also work for academies with their lagged funding as this would catch up long term.
Yes – falling rolls do not necessarily mean that the school is unpopular or indeed failing. The DfE criteria for additional support for schools with falling rolls states that support will only be considered for Good or Outstanding Ofsted rated schools. However, although this school currently has a Satisfactory rating, it recruits 175% of our catchment area and could in no way be described as 'unpopular'.
Yes – the collegiate nature of maintained schools in Worcestershire, should really influence pro rata reductions if such protection identifies a need in excess of £300k?
Yes – historic fluctuations in roll number due to demographic of local area and the ability to manage the situation successfully should be considered.
Yes – the fund should be small and criteria should be beyond the school's control e.g. demolition of a large group of houses near to the school prior to rebuilding.
Yes – the criteria should include proof that it is temporary, proof that staff are being retained and that the funding is not simply being used to support/prop up certain budgets and that it is a good financial plan for a minimum of three years.
Yes – schools ranked at least ‘good’ by 1st Jan preceding the start of the financial year should be supported in this way.
Yes – a lump sum payment with clear parameters for calculation (e.g. the estimated cost of providing an appropriate curriculum or estimated salary costs equivalent to the number of staff who would otherwise be made redundant).
Yes – funding availability for the summer term important for maintaining a teacher to keep a stable class structure until the end of an academic year, then funding for TA support for larger class size as falling roll is accommodated in fewer classes.
Yes – agree with the suggested methodology in the consultation document.
Yes – the school has lobbied the local MP on the issue of funding for falling rolls making the case that apart from the current category of ‘requires improvement’ the school qualifies. A reply to the Headteacher confirmed that this will be raised with the Secretary of State.
Yes – Falling rolls may represent a trend of households with fewer children in an area in which case the numbers may not return to the norms of previous years. In such cases, it would be helpful to have some time limited support to give extra planning time. In sparse areas, a small cohort in a given year is quite common and the effect lasts for several years. The factor should support schools in this situation over the medium term as the numbers will increase again eventually.
Yes – only if the dip in numbers is a temporary one and evidence backs that up. Any support should be limited to a percentage of the dip.
No – it is difficult to ensure that only funding goes to ‘good’ schools with falling rolls as OFSTED ratings are only indicative.
No – unable to support this principle without further indication of what impact this will have on school budgets. The size of the fund is not specified and so it is impossible, yet, to be supportive of a generally good principle since it may impact adversely on our own budget – especially since the school is already taking a reduction on each of the 6 options listed.
No – would perhaps support this if it was available to all schools, but the fact that a school may be in a particular OFSTED category should not lead to the withdrawal of financial support, leading to greater difficulties in securing progress. It is understood that this is a mandatory requirement, but if it is not a level playing field, it should not included.
No – even with set criteria, do not feel that funds should be retained to support such an initiative.
No – it seems unfair to give advantageous funding to schools where rolls are falling (even if temporarily) based on OFSTED criteria. Funding should always follow need – and other criteria should not be considered. No top slice should be allowed and all schools should benefit from their fair share of this part of the DSG.
No – there would have to be a 'within reason' clause of some kind for us to say yes.
Unsure – would support this if the Ofsted requirement that you have to be good or outstanding is waived, as schools who are working hard to improve and raise standards, need the additional support of protection from falling numbers to support improvement. There should be a clause that acknowledges a school’s capacity to improve.
Unsure – there will need to be an understanding of the term ‘short term’ but would envisage this to be no more than 2 years. Also there must be an expectation that the receiving school has made some provision to carry money forward from predictions made of the falling rolls and not solely rely on a fund from the LA.
Please detail any further comments you wish to make on any of the consultation issues: -
General
Have opted for the option that suits the school – as will every other school.
Have considered the highest AWPU whilst retaining the highest lump sum. In future years without the lump sum the school would be unviable but has just been graded as 'outstanding' in all areas by OFSTED – how ironic.
Useful detailed analysis provided by the LA.
Large loss schools need support from LA in terms of planning for the future. LA needs to make Governors more aware of the significance of appointing a head when the future looks less certain financially.
Thank you for the opportunity to put forward our thoughts re. the budget for 2014.
It is extremely important to recognise that the Evesham area will see a further cut in their budget despite which model is used.
It is extremely important that Worcestershire continue to lobby for a National Funding Formula as quickly as possible and that there is recognition that we are still a very poorly funded shire authority.
Thank you for the presentations and taking the time to consult. Concerned about falling rolls and so have indicated the options felt to reduce the turbulence for the school.
There is still a great need to continue to campaign for equality of funding between LAs across the country rather than only focus on how the proportion of the cake given to each LA is to be divided up!
Would have liked more time to consider the impact and to have come back with further suggestion and then had these modelled. The school is aware that there is no perfect option which would give us what we want as a school.
Further discussion with schools is required around the delegation and de-delegation; the school would have liked to have had the choice on all services and a chance to agree or not on the individual centrally retained services.
Low pupil numbers mean that, even though the school has a statutory requirement to provide a full curriculum, the pupil based funding is too low to maintain the necessary number of curriculum heads. Therefore, lump sums, based on a minimum staffing profile, should be made available to rural schools where the sparsity factor provides inadequate to fund a full curriculum.
Site specific factors should be re-introduced to support schools with low pupil numbers.
MFG should be retained at least at the current negative level of -1.5% or, in future, as a positive.
The time for reducing turbulence to the allocations may be past its sell by date. It is now time to apply the formula more empirically.
A major issue for the school is the notion of transitional relief/support for our school as it goes through a temporary period of falling rolls. The response to this consultation has been made with the best future for schools in the Pershore pyramid at heart. Appreciate the opportunity to express our views and feel we are influencing decision making through consultation.
Under the formula changes for 2013/14 the school, in theory, (but knew the school would not receive) were set to gain by c £400k. This was welcomed as a clear indication that a long overdue ‘levelling of the playing field’ was taking place within Worcestershire. Analysis of per pupil funding appeared to back this up. It also seemed that the LA were working to get a fairer deal across the County for the schools that would be very badly affected in the process and that protection diminishing with time was therefore justified and necessary.
Under any of the new proposals we are set to lose between £102k to £152k. A swing in excess of £0.5m! Our forward planning is once more thrown into turmoil and is in effect a pointless waste of time and effort. The school appreciates that the LA are doing their best to try to smooth out winners and losers but feel that the LA are focusing only on this. The LA are not considering fair distribution (Fair Funding) and have lost sight of what effect this will have on the poorest funded schools in Worcestershire. Pupils do have higher needs but schools all have to fund a teacher in front of a class; a text book in front of a pupil; heat and light a room etc. The school's ability to do even these basics at the lower end of funding in Worcestershire is being challenged by a widening of the Worcestershire per pupil funding gap.
The main concern within all of this is the fact that the LA still does not have a level playing field – there is still a huge inequity in national funding between LAs. Surely fairer funding for Worcestershire our schools must be a main priority; otherwise our children are always going to be disadvantaged.
It is now vital that LAs see an example of how the formula is intended to work at national level, given that every county is making its own arrangements.
Sparsity
The sparsity factor is so complex and complicated that it is difficult to see the logic. Being a small primary school with 105 pupils there are no other schools within 2 miles yet the criteria for inclusion on the sparsity factor list are based on residence!
The use of the ‘sparsity factor’ does not produce any consistent or coherent patterns. As a rural secondary school the population is sparse, but the school is too big to benefit. It is not clear if this factor is intended to really support sparseness (and if so in what way) or if it is to support small schools, which seems to be the case given the cap of 600 for secondary.
Four of the feeder primaries are sparse (by DfE definition), including one opposite our front gate. Accepting the school exceeds the number for qualification, but by using the ‘sparseness’ factor in each model, except 1, the school is significantly worse off. Thus – as a sparse school (by normal definitions and by looking at primary feeders) it seems contradictory that in utilising the factor we end up with significantly less grant.
Sparsity, this seems to be a factor that has been introduced to address concerns about protecting small rural schools, that is almost impossible criteria to apply to those schools that need it and therefore a waste of time! The mandatory requirements that factors such as Sparsity or Falling numbers that schools should be Good or Outstanding, makes it even harder for schools who need to improve to work towards this. I feel that LAs should lobby the DfE to build in a factor that also uses a school’s capacity to improve in order to support these additional factors.
There is still a need for a working party to establish some common sense on Sparsity and when will we see even an example of how the formula is intended to work at national level?
There is no clarity on how the mean distance for how pupils qualifying for sparsity is worked out. How many children are included to provide the data to produce the mean distance? When the distance of a number of children living closest to the school was worked out the distance was greater than the 2 miles suggested but the school doesn’t appear on the list qualifying for a sparsity factor. The school calculated the distance as the crow flies between the postcodes of children living close to and attending our school and alternative schools in Worcestershire and neighbouring authorities.
LAC
Option 6 should be discounted. There is no justification in loading £200 per pupil for LAC given the Pupil Premium enhancement already received in schools for these pupils. This has also grown over the last year. Whilst it is acknowledged these pupils have additional needs, it is for the Pupil Premium grant to address this. There will also be a correlation between these pupils and those who receive a Y7 catch up grant in secondary. This money should instead be recycled back via the AWPU for the benefit of all pupils.
AGENDA ITEM 5c) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 17th OCTOBER 2013
FAIR FUNDING CONSULTATION OUTCOMES 2014-15
CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
QUESTION SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Q1 Indication of which options are supported as the See Analysis in Agenda mainstream schools local funding formula for Item 5b) 2014-15 (ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd).
Q2 Do you support the proposed definition for Supported overall and in Notional SEN as detailed in the consultation each sector. document?
Q3 Do you support the arrangements for delegation Supported overall and in and de-delegation as detailed in the consultation each sector (maintained document for 2013-14 to continue in 2014-15? schools only).
Q4 Do you support the arrangements for centrally Supported overall and retained services as detailed in the consultation supported in each sectors. document for 2013-14 to continue in 2014-15?
Q5 Do you support the creation of a growth fund from Supported overall and the DSG, subject to budget availability, in advance supported in each sector of allocating budget shares to schools to support except maintained middle. falling rolls?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EXISTING WORCESTERSHIRE LOCAL FUNDING FORMULA FOR FROM APRIL 2014 FOR 2014-15
Approve the following changes to the existing factors for inclusion in the local funding formula for Worcestershire mainstream schools from April 2014 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 1 circulated for consultation with the final units of resource for both years being subject to final confirmation when the impact of the October 2013 census, other data changes (both in year and for prior years) and the final DSG for 2014-15 is confirmed.
[Note - The details of the current estimated units of resource are detailed below].
Approve the new model to contain, from April 2014, the following formula factors and estimated units of resource using the prescribed DfE data sets from October 2013: - AWPU – 3 rates: primary £2,897.50, KS3 £3,461.67 and KS4 £4,122.05. Deprivation – FSM: primary £857.75; secondary £725.68 and IDACI 3 top bands only: primary £894.00, £1,118.00 and £1,229.00; secondary £1,250.65, £1,531.00 and £1,671.65. Low Cost/High Incidence SEN – Prior attainment: primary £1,236.57 and secondary £2,875.47. EAL – maximum of 3 years: primary £928.95; secondary £2,273.47. Lump Sum for Every School – Primary £42,000; Middle £42,000; Secondary £42,000. Split Site – an individual school cash sum allocated via the approved 2013-14 formula with schools having to meet the qualifying criteria. Rates – Actual Costs individual to each school. PFI – 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 +1.20% at the scaling factor of 100%.
Approve the current estimated formula units of resource as detailed above are adjusted in January 2014, if required, to take account of: Any changes required to the cap for 2014-15 as a consequence of the impact of the MFG requirements of the School and Early Years Finance Regulations. October 2013 census data impact and requirements. Other DfE prescribed data changes including those from prior years. Any top slice required to create a fund to support falling rolls subject to DfE and local criteria. The impact of the final DSG for 2014-15.
Approve the definition of Notional SEN within the Schools Block (as per consultation question 2): Part of AWPU funding – 5%. Part of deprivation funding – 50%. All of the low prior attainment funding – 100%.
Approve the continued initial delegation and transfer of the following centrally retained services for 2014-15 as in 2013-14 as follows:
FORMULA SERVICE FACTOR 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 Support for Underachieving Groups Incidence SEN Behaviour Support Services Prior Attainment
Approve the decision of the WSF to continue in 2014-15 to the following delegation and de-delegation of the following centrally retained services for maintained schools only by phase as determined through the WSF as follows (as per consultation question 3):
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 Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils No Yes or Underachieving Groups – EMAG Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils No Yes or Underachieving Groups – Travellers Children Free School Meal Eligibility No Yes Schools Insurance Yes No Licenses and Subscriptions No Yes 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 Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils No Yes or Underachieving Groups – EMAG
Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils No Yes or Underachieving Groups – Travellers Children Free School Meal Eligibility No Yes Schools Insurance Yes No Licenses and Subscriptions No Yes 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 2014-15 for maintained schools only on the basis detailed above.
Approve the decision of the WSF to the continued central retention in 2014-15 of the centrally retained services as in 2013-14 limited to the 2013-14 budget level or further DfE prescription (indicative budgets are shown) for (as per consultation question 4): 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. Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) and Music Publishers Association (MPA) licences – £0.134m. 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 – £0.385m.
Approve the creation of a central DSG fund in advance of allocation budget shares to maintained schools and academies for schools in falling rolls subject to meeting the DfE mandatory and LA local criterion, if there is sufficient DSG available (as per consultation question 5).
[Note – If introduced, any criteria will need to be determined and agreed by the WSF]. As approved, this is based upon the Option 1 as the best supported model from the formal consultation with the above estimated units of resource. The final units of resource and cap for 2014-15 are subject to final confirmation with the EFA and change when the impact of the October 2013 census and other data changes and the final DSG for 2014-15 are confirmed.
AGENDA ITEM 6 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 17th OCTOBER 2013
Towards a National Funding Formula for Schools - the f40 Perspective
September 2013
1 Introduction
This paper represents an outline proposal from the f40 group of low-funded education authorities. It suggests how a national funding framework for schools might work in practice, drawing from the experience of a range of f40 authorities.
The paper addresses the funding of mainstream schools. F40 also has significant concerns about High Needs funding and would welcome an opportunity to discuss these with government.
2 A National Funding Formula
There is strong support from f40 for a national funding formula on the grounds that:
The existing funding model has no rationale and is clearly unfair. School funding has become more and more of a ‘mess’ with a tangle of funding caught up in the Minimum Funding Guarantee and capping. A new start is needed. The inconsistencies in funding for individual schools with similar characteristics across the country are too great. A national funding formula would resolve the problem of a child attracting very different levels of funding if they attend a school on one side of a local authority boundary rather than another. With the purchasing power of school budgets reducing there is no room for any school to be ‘over-funded’. The academy programme is a national programme and requires a national funding model to support it. The changes in the national school funding framework introduced in 2013-14 have not resulted in convergence yet – in a number of instances local authorities have used the allowable formula factors to replicate, as far as possible, the existing distribution between schools. But convergence will be a sensible approach once the shape of a national formula has been determined.
1
3 Key Principles
We believe a national funding formula should be based on the following principles:
Any funding system should contribute to improving educational standards across the country A national funding formula should have, as its main building block, a ‘core entitlement’ at pupil level i.e. the formula should enable a school to have access to similar resource levels for a child’s basic classroom costs i.e. the share of a teacher and teaching assistant. The core entitlement should reflect different needs and costs at the various Key Stages. The formula should contain factors to reflect pupil level needs beyond the core entitlement (e.g. deprivation and high incidence SEN) and factors to reflect the needs of small schools that are necessary in a local authority’s structure. There will need to be clarity about what needs and outcomes each factor is seeking to address. A revised definition of the DSG Schools Block should be 100% delegated to schools through a combination of national and local factors. Local authority responsibilities (e.g. co-ordination of admissions) and historic commitments should be funded through a Central DSG Block. This block should not be ring-fenced and the ability to move funding between high needs, schools and early years block should be retained. Schools Forums should be free to agree de-delegation from maintained schools without restriction, subject to consultation. The school funding system should be cost-effective to administer. Costly and bureaucratic formula replication should not be a feature. The formula should apply to all maintained mainstream schools and academies in exactly the same way and on the same funding year. A case can be made for either the financial year or academic year. Overall, our preference is for the academic year. All school funding through a single stream i.e. no specific grants and incorporating the pupil premium. We acknowledge however that there may be overriding political reasons for maintaining the pupil premium in its current form. A future school funding model should be sufficiently predictable for schools to be able to plan their spending over the medium term, with local authorities issuing rolling three year budgets to individual schools and academies
4 The National Funding Formula
4.1 Viable options
Our view is that the there are two viable options for a national funding formula:
Option 1 - a core formula to allocate funding to every school and academy with local discretion on other formula factors
Option 2 - a core formula to produce a local authority level total with each local authority then having discretion on how the total is allocated within the area.
2
In either case the core formula should cover (in priority order):
An amount for each pupil with separate weightings for Key Stage 1/2, 3 and 4 A lump sum to reflect fixed costs Sparsity Deprivation, based on free school meal entitlements on the ‘ever 6’ model Low Cost High Incidence Special Educational Needs English as an Additional Language (EAL) plus Area costs, with London Weighting or Fringe being applied to around 80% of each relevant school’s allocation to reflect the increased costs of staffing.
4.2 Lump sum and sparsity
We believe that a sparsity factor will be helpful in targeting funding to small rural schools and are very supportive of the Department for Education’s attempts to develop a workable measure. Further development is needed and we would be very willing to work with the department on devising a model that targets funding effectively. Once a workable sparsity factor is available, our view is that the national funding formula should include:
a lump sum to reflect 50% of fixed costs (some leadership time, premises costs and fixed support staff costs) and, for schools that meet the criteria for necessary small schools: o the remaining 50% of fixed costs and o an allowance for the additional classroom/curriculum organisation problems such schools face e.g. for primary schools, teaching a number of year groups together and, for secondary schools, covering the full range of national curriculum subjects at Key Stage 3 and 4 without mixing Key Stage Groups
As a starting point, i.e. until a viable sparsity measure is available and can be evaluated, we suggest the national funding formula should include a lump sum of:
£115,000 for a primary school which should be reduced towards £75,000 when the sparsity model is fully operational. £150,000 for secondary schools
We do not believe that the funding model should, as a general rule, subsidise small urban schools: they would not generally meet the definition of ‘necessary’. However, we recognise that in some cases such schools exist because there are insufficient places in other schools without additional capital build. The requirement for capital to alter the school estate is a significant factor in the way that the estate is structured. At present most capital funding is being used strategically to support basic need priorities and cannot be diverted to rationalisation of schools where historically schools are small but there is not a basic need to make change.
3
4.3 Local discretion
We recommend that, under Option 1, local authorities have discretion over any other formula factors but the aggregate value of these should be limited to between 2 and 5% of the Schools Block total.
Local discretion would cover some of the current Department for Education’s ‘allowable factors’ i.e.:
Pupil mobility Looked After Children Split sites Post 16 together with any other factors a local authority and local Schools Forum deem appropriate e.g. prudential borrowing. In the interest of minimising administrative costs we suggest light-touch only regulation by the Department for Education. Any local factors would be subject to three requirements:
The funding is wholly delegated to schools i.e. it may not be used for e.g. local authority activities. The criteria apply equally to maintained schools and academies. Allocations are agreed by the Schools Forum.
Local discretion should also cover growth in pupil numbers but funding for new schools should be top-sliced from the schools’ budget at national level.
Any of the amount retained for local discretion, not deemed to be needed for specific local factors, would be distributed as a local supplement to the national funding formula (through the per pupil element).
Under Option 2, local authorities and Schools Forums will be sharply accountable for any variations from the national funding formula. We therefore see no need for regulation on formula factors beyond the three requirements listed above for Option 1.
4.4 Other funding issues
We recommend that the allocations for EAL, deprivation and SEN are ‘smoothed’ by averaging data over three years.
We propose that Rates be removed from school funding. We understand that the implications would need to be worked through but the inclusion of Rates currently adds nothing but complexity. An alternative would be for Rates to be funded at Local Authority/Education Funding Agency level or for all schools to be entitled to charitable Rates relief. We similarly propose that PFI is funded from the schools’ budget at national level on a school by school basis.
4
5 Local Authority Responsibilities
We recommend the introduction of a fourth DSG Block, for Central Services, to cover local authority statutory activities that apply to both maintained schools and academies – co- ordination of admissions and the cost of the Schools Forum, together with any historic commitments (Note: It is understood the Department for Education has the data to enable these calculations to be made). We suggest the funding be allocated through a standard amount per pupil with all planned spending being approved by the local Schools Forum. The Central Block would not be ring-fenced.
We also feel that further work is needed to ensure that there is equivalence of funding for local authorities and the Education Funding Agency where their responsibilities coincide e.g. redundancy and intervention costs. This is beyond the remit of this paper.
We also draw attention to the link between school organisation and transport costs. There is a financial disincentive for local authorities to move towards a more efficient school system if a consequence is increased home to school transport costs falling to be met from the local authority’s own budget. One obvious option would be to bring transport within the scope of the Dedicated Schools Grant.
6 Transition
Given the scale of the inequities in current school funding we recommend a 3 year phasing in period for the new arrangements.
For Option 1 we propose the following basis:
Year 1 – a Minimum Funding Guarantee at - 3% per pupil. Year 2 - reductions limited to 30% (this is important if we are to get the new formula introduced within three years, without letting MFG get in the way). Year 3 – full implementation of the national funding formula.
For Option 2 we propose that the changes in total funding at local authority level are phased in over 3 years but with a maximum loss of funding for any authority of 5% per year. In practice it is likely therefore that there would be a ‘tail end’ of transition extending beyond year 3.
We urge the Secretary of State to take a flexible approach to MFG to enable excessive and inequitable MFG for some schools to be addressed locally.
7 Summary and Recommendations
We strongly support the introduction of a national funding formula for schools. It should enable historic unfairness and inconsistency in school funding to be addressed. We believe a workable model can be developed for 2015/16.
5
We recommend that:
1. The national funding formula is based on the factors set out in paragraph 4.1, with overt assumptions about teaching group sizes for each Key Stage 2. The national funding formula be used either: to make allocations to individual schools and academies with any other factors to be at local discretion of between 2 and 5% of the Schools Block. 100% of the Schools Block would be delegated to schools/academies (Option 1) or to distribute the national total to local authority areas. Local Authorities and Schools Forums would then have discretion on allocating the total locally (Option 2) 3. The current Dedicated Schools Grant structure be retained but with an additional Central block to cover local authority responsibilities affecting both maintained schools and academies 4. The funding year should be the same for maintained schools and academies 5. Rates to be removed from school funding 6. PFI allocations to schools are made as a national top-slice 7. The national formula should be phased in over 3 years i.e. 2015-16 to 2017-18
F40 September 2013
6
AGENDA ITEM 7 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 17th OCTOBER 2013
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) SPLIT SITE FUNDING REQUEST
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To share with the WSF a request on Split Site Funding raised by a member of the WSF.
2. REQUEST RECEIVED
2.1 Further formal representation on the issues to do with the tapered protection funding has been received by the LA from by a member of the WSF as follows: -
'When the Government revised the School Funding Formula from 38 factors to 12 a new formula for Split Site Funding was introduced. Despite my protests at the time that there was no provision in the National Formula for this funding, once the additional costs incurred by a school in these circumstances had been demonstrated, Worcestershire implemented the scheme with a taper, reducing the funding over three years to zero.
I have now had the opportunity to consult with colleagues in other counties and find that, as far as I can ascertain, Worcestershire is unique in its stance that the funding is “transitional”. All other counties, having verified the specific additional costs being incurred by schools with split sites, are implementing the scheme with no reductions over a “transitional” period.
I believe that the way in which Worcestershire is implementing the National Scheme is incorrect and ask that Schools Forum requests the County to implement the scheme in a like manner to other County Councils, i.e. without any transitional taper.
David McIntosh. 7.10.13'
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The WSF had discussed in the past issues relating to the split site factor contained within the new simplified local schools' funding formula.
3.2 LAs are permitted to have such a factor and the previous DfE guidance stated that allocations must be based on objective qualifying criteria, both for the definition of a split site and for how much is allocated. They also stated that where existing factors have been used for some years and the rationale is unclear, these should be reviewed. This approach does not allow funding to be allocated on the basis of actual costs but has to be on a formulaic approach that can be applied to all schools in the LA as part of the new national simplified formula arrangements.
3.3 As part of the required formula review for 2013-14 the LA consulted in the Autumn Term 2012 upon introducing a new split site formula for its local schools formula as the previous one allocating a per pupil amount for schools operating on more than one site a specified distance apart was viewed as not being robust enough. 3.4 Given the above direction and issues together with research on other LAs the consultation provided for a proposed split site formula. This is detailed in Appendix A attached.
3.5 Also schools subject to the previous Wyre Forest review in 2007 were allocated amounts to support reorganisation/split site issues. So, as part of the above consultation process there was representation made by two schools subject to this review in arguing the case for the continued reorganisation/split site funding on the basis of the historic allocations received. These were of up to £480,000 per school. However, given the new national parameters it was not possible to continue with that arrangement and the new proposals were consulted upon.
3.6 The consultation process supported in all school sectors the introduction of the new split site formula as detailed and this was approved by the Cabinet in October 2012 and formed part of the new simplified formula from April 2013. For secondary schools this allocates approximately £200,000 for split site implications and compares favourably with models used by other LAs.
4. DETAILS AND ISSUES
4.1 Following the introduction from 2013-14 of the new formulaic approach the LA continued to receive representations regarding the reduction in funding. As the two schools concerned are academies the EFA lagged funding arrangements meant that technically the new formula did not take effect until September 2013.
4.2 The schools did make representation directly to the EFA for them to support the reduction financially but this was rejected by the EFA. So, in order to support this, the LA agreed to allocate some significant transitional funding from its own resources to the two schools to cushion the effect of the reduction.
4.3 As part of this both schools have received full historic funding either in full from the EFA as part of the GAG due to the lagged funding system or as the new formula in the GAG plus transitional protection from the LA until the end of the academic year 2012/13. Then from the academic year 2013/14 protection of 2/3rd of the difference between the historic non formulaic and new approved formula will be paid. This reduces to 1/3rd from the academic year 2014/15. All the protection amounts have been financed from LA central reserves and will be paid by the LA not the EFA.
4.4. As far as the new local schools formula is concerned the split site factor is operating at the required approved level on the formulaic basis and is applicable to any school operating on a split site. There is no taper on the factor in the funding formula i.e. the protection taper is being allocated from LA central resources outside of the funding formula. So WCC does not operate differently to other LAs.
4.5 In allocating protection, albeit on a reducing basis, the LA is supporting the transition to the new formula over a 3 year period even though there is no obligation or requirement to do so.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 The WSF considers the issues and request made on the transitional protection as detailed above.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development
October 2013 APPENDIX A
The proposed qualifying criteria definition of a split site school is: - Two or more distinctly separate sites/campuses. These being some considerable distance of at least more than ½ km apart. This being measured by either the shortest available walking route or by the use of a busy main road whatever is required.
The following formula model is proposed with an allocation made to a mainstream school that the LA assesses as satisfying the qualifying criteria for split funding: -
Phase of Additional Additional Additional School Teachers Non Resources FTE * Teachers £ # FTE * First/Primary 1.0 1.0 20,000 Middle 2.0 1.0 20,000 Secondary/ 4.0 1.0 20,000 High
* These are calculated at average cost. # To fund cost such as car allowances, photocopiers, etc.
The rationale for the allocations is as follows: - Teaching costs – to enable both protection of the curriculum (particularly at KS3 and 4), as well as potential additional management costs. Non Teaching Costs – to allow for duplicated administrative costs such as reception duties. Additional Resources – to allow for additional other costs such as car allowances, duplicated contracts e.g. equipment, telephones, etc.
AGENDA ITEM 8 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 17th OCTOBER 2013
DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) 2013-14
Block Schools High Needs Early Years Additions Total £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Original Notified Allocation 290,832 40,581 15,547 Two year old Funding 3,818 NQT Funding 105 Share on Non Maintained Special Schools Grant 9 290,832 40,581 15,547 3,932 350,892
Addition on confirmation of Early years pupil numbers 197 197
Final Notified DSG 290,832 40,581 15,744 3,932 351,089
Notes
This is the gross DSG after confirmation of early years numbers. The amount is before recoupment of academy places and ISS placements.
The Budget 2013-14 DSG CFO Statement for Completion is attached at Appendix A. APPENDIX A
Education Funding Agency
BUDGET 2013-14 DSG CFO STATEMENT
Stephanie Simcox 885 Worcestershire
Chief Finance Officer’s Statement confirming the budgeted allocation of the Dedicated Schools Grant 2013-14 in support of the Schools Budget (grant condition B)
I Stephanie Simcox confirm that Worcestershire local authority's 2013-14 DSG allocation published by the Education Funding Agency in July 2013, and modified by any positive or negative DSG balance brought forward from 2012-13, will be fully allocated in support of the Schools Budget.
The budgeted allocation of the DSG was discussed with the Schools Forum on 17 October 2013*
*This date refers to the Schools Forum discussion following the publication of your LA's DSG allocation and should be after July 2013.
Signed……………………………………………... Stephanie Simcox Head of Finance and Resources, Children's Services
Date………………………….
The signed statement should be returned by Thursday, 31st October 2013 to email address below: [email protected]
AGENDA ITEM 9 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 17TH OCTOBER 2013
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) FUNDING FOR THE MEDICAL EDUCATION TEAM
1. PURPOSE
1.1 For the WSF to consider a proposal to move allocated, centrally held DSG funding from the Learning Support Team (LST) to the Medical Education Team (MET), as a result of revised statutory guidance.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The MET discharges section 19 (Education Act 1996) duty for the LA in relation to sick children. The duty applies to resident children in Worcestershire and requires that education should be provided where children and young people are unable to attend school for reasons of ill health or medical issues, but who are able to continue their education in spite of their ill health.
3. DETAILS AND ISSUES
3.1 In January 2013, revised guidance was issued by the DfE, which introduced changes and has implications for current practice in Worcestershire.
3.2 The following table illustrates key differences between current practice and that outlined in new statutory guidance.
Current Practice New Guidance states
Tuition is provided for pupils of All pupils who attend maintained schools compulsory age who attend a as well as those who attend academies, maintained school (including independent, free and special schools or academies and special). are not on the roll of a school are eligible.
The service should be available for The service should be available for pupils pupils who are absent in excess of 15 who cannot attend school at all or those consecutive days who can only attend intermittently
Pupils with a recurrent condition (i.e. 15 days cumulative absence now counts). (from day 1).
Referrals are accepted from LAs should consider liaising with other Consultant Paediatricians, identified professionals, such as GPs, to provide CAMHS professionals and Educational evidence in support of provision – in order Psychologists to prevent the delay that can be occurred Where a chronic condition (such as in seeking evidence at consultant level. ME/CFS) is managed by a GP, his/her medical evidence is accepted.
Pupils in home tuition receive up to 5 Pupils should be offered up to full time hours per week. provision (as long as their health allows), with access to part time education where Pupils attending group tuition receive this is in a child's best interests. up to 10 hours per week (Key Stage 4) in one of 3 teaching bases (Wyre Forest, Redditch and Worcester).
4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1 MET provision is currently part funded from an allocation of £358,000 from DSG central delegated budget and part funded via a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with state funded schools, based on 'recoupment' of a weekly proportion (80%) of the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) applied to the duration of tuition. It is proposed that the SLA remains in place and that the recoupment remains at 80%.
4.2 MET is a demand led service and the changes have implications for the capacity of the current service to meet the requirements of the new guidance. In order to increase the offer to pupils and to meet the requirements of the new guidance, the MET requires an additional £228,000.
4.3 The Learning Support Team (LST) is a traded service which currently receives an additional £472,972 of High Needs Funding, some of which has been used to make provision for pupils with a statement of SEN. However, the demand for provision from LST for pupils with a statement of SEN has reduced significantly over recent years. It is proposed that £228,000 moves from the LST budget to the MET budget to support this statutory function.
4.4 Both the LST and MET service areas are currently undergoing a commissioning review and this will include consultation with staff, service users and key stakeholders to determine the most appropriate model of service delivery in the future.
4.5 The proposal to change the funding arrangements as outlined in this paper is requested with effect from April 2014.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 The WSF is asked to approve the decision to move High Needs Funding currently allocated to the Learning Support Team (LST) as detailed above to the Medical Education Team, (MET) to support the LA's statutory duty in relation to pupils too ill to attend school, in line with revised guidance.
Liz Holt Interim Manager Learning and Achievement October 2013 AGENDA ITEM 10 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 17th OCTOBER 2013
DFE Number URN Academy Name Academy Phase Open Parliamentary Local Authority Government Predecessor Predecessor School Name(s) Academy Route Sponsor(s) Constituency Office Region School URN(s) 8856905 135913 Tudor Grange Academy Worcester Secondary Sep-09 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 116977 Elgar Technology College Sponsored Tudor Grange Academy Solihull 8855403 136469 Prince Henry's High School Secondary Mar-11 Mid Worcestershire West Midlands 117000 Prince Henry's High School Converter N/A Worcestershire 8854432 136890 Christopher Whitehead Language Secondary Jul-11 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 116978 Christopher Whitehead Language College Converter N/A College 8854005 136927 Droitwich Spa High School and Sixth Secondary Jul-11 Mid Worcestershire West Midlands 116931 Droitwich Spa High School Converter N/A Form Centre Worcestershire 8854010 136898 Haybridge High School and Sixth Secondary Jul-11 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 116933 Haybridge High School and Sixth Form Converter N/A Form 8854030 136925 Pershore High School Secondary Jul-11 West Worcestershire West Midlands 116943 Pershore High School Converter N/A Worcestershire 8854435 136897 The Chantry School Secondary Jul-11 West Worcestershire West Midlands 116980 Martley, The Chantry High School Converter N/A Worcestershire 8854017 136924 Woodrush Community High School Secondary Jul-11 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 116937 Woodrush Community High School Converter N/A 8854801 137186 Dyson Perrins CofE Sports College Secondary Aug-11 West Worcestershire West Midlands 116995 Dyson Perrins CofE Sports College Converter N/A Worcestershire 8852105 136984 Great Malvern Primary School Primary Aug-11 West Worcestershire West Midlands 116709 Great Malvern Primary School Converter N/A Worcestershire 8854500 137101 Hanley Castle High School Secondary Aug-11 West Worcestershire West Midlands 116981 Hanley Castle High School Converter N/A Worcestershire 8854434 137051 Nunnery Wood High School Secondary Aug-11 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 116979 Nunnery Wood High School Converter N/A 8853354 137185 St Matthias Church of England Primary Aug-11 West Worcestershire West Midlands 116899 St Matthias Church of England Primary School Converter N/A Primary School Worcestershire 8852153 136983 Suckley Primary School Primary Aug-11 West Worcestershire West Midlands 116741 Suckley Primary School Converter N/A Worcestershire 8854004 137162 The Stourport High School and Sixth Secondary Aug-11 Wyre Forest Worcestershire West Midlands 135039 The Stourport High School and Sixth Form Converter N/A Form Centre Centre 8854437 137167 Trinity High School and Sixth Form Secondary Aug-11 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 132819 Trinity High School and Sixth Form Centre Converter N/A Centre 8852204 137292 Somers Park Primary School Primary Aug-11 West Worcestershire West Midlands 116772 Somers Park Primary School Converter N/A Worcestershire 8854028 137625 The Chase Secondary Nov-11 West Worcestershire West Midlands 116942 The Chase Converter N/A Worcestershire 8852915 137697 Coppice Primary School Primary Dec-11 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 116777 Hollywood, the Coppice Primary School Converter N/A 8852904 137825 Lickhill Primary School Primary Feb-12 Wyre Forest Worcestershire West Midlands 135044 Lickhill Primary School Converter N/A 8854501 138032 King Charles I Secondary School Secondary Apr-12 Wyre Forest Worcestershire West Midlands 135060 King Charles I Secondary School Converter N/A 8852134 137960 The Vaynor First School Primary Apr-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116727 The Vaynor First School Converter N/A 8852135 138026 Webheath First School Academy Primary Apr-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116728 Webheath First School Converter N/A 8854754 138107 Bishop Perowne CofE College Secondary May-12 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 116993 Bishop Perowne CofE College Converter N/A 8854436 138208 Woodfield Academy Middle Deemed Jun-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 132818 Woodfield Middle School Converter N/A Secondary 8854008 138505 Arrow Vale RSA Academy Secondary Sep-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116946 Arrow Vale Community High School - A Sponsored Royal Society of Arts (RSA) Specialist Sports College 8854007 138660 Baxter College Secondary Sep-12 Wyre Forest Worcestershire West Midlands 135062 Baxter College Converter N/A 8854044 138664 Waseley Hills High School and Sixth Secondary Sep-12 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 116951 Waseley Hills High School and Sixth Form Converter N/A Form Centre Centre 8852000 139001 Perry Wood Primary and Nursery Primary Dec-12 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 134922 Perry Wood Primary and Nursery School Sponsored Griffin Trust School 8854422 139029 Ridgeway Middle School Middle Deemed Dec-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116971 Ridgeway Middle School Converter N/A Secondary 8854009 139020 Ipsley CE RSA Academy Middle Deemed Jan-13 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 132822 Ipsley CofE Middle School Sponsored Royal Society of Arts (RSA) Secondary 8854579 139185 Walkwood CofE Middle School Middle Deemed Jan-13 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116987 Walkwood CofE Middle School Converter N/A Secondary 8855404 139286 St John's Church of England Middle Middle Deemed Feb-13 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 117001 St John's CofE Foundation Middle School Converter N/A School Academy Secondary 8857011 139444 Vale of Evesham School Special Apr-13 Mid Worcestershire West Midlands 117058 Vale of Evesham School Converter N/A Worcestershire 8852078 139749 Honeybourne First School Primary Jun-13 Mid Worcestershire West Midlands 116688 Honeybourne First School Converter N/A Worcestershire 8852001 139825 Crabbs' Cross Academy Primary Sep-13 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116723 The Harry Taylor First School Sponsored The Vaynor First School 8852005 140041 Warndon Primary School Primary Oct-13 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 131375 Warndon Primary School Sponsored Oasis Community Learning Trust 8852127 140258 Astwood Bank First School Primary Oct-13 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116720 Astwood Bank First School Converter N/A 8857024 140261 Regency High School Special Oct-13 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 131532 Regency High School Converter N/A
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Thursday 17th October 2013 In the Redditch Room, County Hall, Worcester
The meeting started at 2.30 pm
IN ATTENDANCE:
WSF Members
Marian Barton (Chair) - Trinity High School Elizabeth Spencer - St. Richards CE First School Lawrence Gittins - St. John's CE Primary School Paul Kilgallon - St. Barnabas First and Middle School Julie Reilly - The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre Clive Corbett - Pershore High School Jane Long - Fort Royal Community Primary School David Hargreaves (Vice Chair) - Governor, Redditch Malcolm Richards - Governor, Bromsgrove Peter Ingham - Governor, Wyre Forest Alison Gleave - Governor, Wychavon David McIntosh - Governor, Wyre Forest Jeff Robinson - Governor, Malvern Hills Richard Taylor - Governor, Bromsgrove June Longmuir - Governor, Bromsgrove Steve Baker - Union Representative Val Houghton - Church of England Board of Education Sean Devlin - Archdiocese of Birmingham Tricia Wellings - PVI Sector Deborah Andrews - 14-19 Partnership
Local Authority (LA) Officers
Stephanie Simcox - Children's Services Andy McHale - Children’s Services Trish Mallinson - Children's Services Caroline Brand - Children's Services
Local Authority Members
Councillor Liz Eyre - Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families (from 2.50pm)
Observer
Alistair Thomas - School Business Manager Oak Hill First (from 2.45pm)
1 1. APOLOGIES AND WELCOME
Marian Gager - Evesham Nursery School Sean Williams - The Forge Pupil Referral Unit Richard Barrett - PVI Sector
The Chair welcomed Clive Corbett (Secondary Headteacher Academy Sector), Richard Taylor (Secondary Governor Maintained Sector) and Alison Gleave (Primary Governor Maintained Sector) to their first WSF meeting.
2. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (17th OCTOBER 2013)
Agreed.
3. MATTERS ARISING
3.1 Commissioning of Business Support Services to Schools Update
(a) Steph updated the WSF on the current position. The Cabinet decision on 4 October to agree to consult on this area has been called in by the Leader of the Labour Group on the issue of the length of the consultation period. On this basis the decision has had to be suspended and discussions are taking place on the required stages to address the call in. It is hoped this would allow a report back to the 7th November Cabinet meeting on the proposed consultation process.
(b) Steph advised that it was intended to have both an electronic and face to face consultation with schools. The District Meetings programmed for November would still go ahead as this is only one item on that agenda. The WSF were assured that it was the County Council's intention to listen to schools but schools must respond to the issues.
(c) Members of the WSF commented as follows: - That this would delay both the timing of the consultation, the final Cabinet decision programmed for December 2013 and the implementation date for any changes to the current provision. Governors are being encouraged to consider collaboration on service buy back. The existing SLAs detail costs which guides schools in their purchasing decisions. However, in some circumstances there are other significant considerations e.g. HR advice taken meaning that any potential ET costs are provided centrally.
4. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
4.1 DSG Outturn 2012-13
(a) Andy tabled the final DSG outturn and carry forward position from 2012-13.
(b) The analysis was on the usual basis of schools and central DSG. The final position had been subject to the external audit scrutiny as part of the County Council's year end final accounts process. The WSF noted the £5.8m DSG carry forward position and the analysis of the in-year allocations provided.
2 4.2 High Needs Funding
(a) Some members of the WSF raised concerns on the lack of recent progress on the new funding arrangements for High Needs. It was stressed this was affecting the ability of such providers to forward plan and was applicable to all high needs providers. There was disappointment that the work of the High Needs Group had been delayed.
(b) Andy advised that progress had been slower than anticipated but a new Group Manager had been appointed to pick up the policy direction in this area. This will include the requirement for the LA to discuss the commissioning of places with providers for 2014/15 with a return due back to the EFA by the end of the Autumn Term 2013.
5. DfE SCHOOL FUNDING REFORM 2014-15 – OUTCOMES ON THE PRPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO THE EXISTING MAINSTREAM FORMULA FROM APRIL 2014
5.1 Area Consultation Meetings Feedback
(a) The WSF noted the issues arising from the Area Consultation meetings and the FAQ document previously circulated to schools.
(b) Steph advised, given that schools had been asked to detail their 1st 2nd and 3rd preferences on the formula options, the FAQ's explicitly confirmed how the votes were to be counted based on these and pupil numbers.
5.2 Responses to Consultation Issues
(a) Andy introduced the item and given the consultation had only finished on 11th October the following information was tabled: - The outcomes of the consultation detailing the number of responses. The overall options analysis based upon the preference votes linked to size of school based on pupil numbers. Summary of the main issues included on the consultation response forms.
(b) There were 90 returned questionnaires, which represents about 40% of schools. This is a high response rate but the turnout was much higher in the secondary sector compared to the primary sector.
(c) In terms of the outcomes for the local school formula the most popular option after taking account of the preference votes linked to pupil numbers was Option 1 i.e. no change to the existing 2013-14 formula apart from required prior year, 2013 data changes and changes required by the DfE regulations e.g. MFG and capping. So there was insufficient support for changes to include a sparsity factor, variable lump sum or a LAC factor.
(d) Andy advised that as indicated in the consultation the impact of the change in data for the secondary prior attainment factor now picking up pupils with less than Level 4 at KS2 in English or Maths from English and Maths is substantial as significantly more pupils will qualify. As agreed, the 2014-15 consultation models included the 2013-14 unit of resource with the increase in qualifying pupils. As a consequence significantly more secondary DSG is being allocated in this factor funded from the secondary AWPU. This will impact on some schools with others being protected by the MFG and capping. The WSF noted the issue, supported the modelling and agreed that this was in keeping with the national policy to support low prior attainment and raising standards.
3 (e) Members of the WSF commented as follows: - The voting could be viewed as being an advantage to larger schools but it was noted there are more pupil numbers in the primary sector 55% compared to the secondary sector 45% which provides the counter position. On the opposite side voting purely on number of schools would disadvantage larger schools particularly in the middle and secondary sectors. The LA has long argued for a sparsity factor in its local schools funding formula. However support for this is not reflected in the consultation outcomes. The WSF recognised the national DfE formula for this area was not targeting support to such schools in Worcestershire. There was disappointment that more primary schools had not responded. However, it was noted that there had been extensive, full and open consultation processes including Area Meetings, Head Teacher Groups as well as the electronic communication.
(f) In response Steph re-iterated that the methodology for considering the preferences linked to school size had been communicate to all schools. Also it was confirmed that 1st preferences for Option 1 were nearly equally split between the primary and secondary sectors whereas these for Option 4 were in the main from the primary sector.
(g) In terms of the outcomes for the other consultation question 2, 3, 4 and 5 there was support overall for the issues raised apart from maintained middle schools not supporting consultation question 5 on the introduction of a fund for falling rolls.
5.3 Consideration of Recommended Actions
(a) Andy tabled a summary of the consultation outcomes and recommended actions. The WSF were requested as required to consider their response to these. It was agreed to consider consultation question 1 on the formula model for 2014-15 last.
(b) Consultation Question 2 – Definition of Notional SEN
The WSF concurred with the consultation outcomes. On a show of hands the mainstream school representatives unanimously (Primary 6 votes to 0; secondary 7 votes to 0) agreed to the definition of Notional SEN as detailed in the consultation.
RESOLVED –
The WSF agreed the recommendation for the definition of Notional SEN within the Schools Block as detailed in the consultation.
(c) Consultation Question 3 – Delegation and De-delegation of Centrally Retained DSG Services for Maintained Mainstream Schools
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 these WSF members unanimously by phase (Primary 6 votes to 0; secondary 2 votes to 0) to agree to and approve to either delegate or de-delegate these areas by reducing the formula amounts for maintained mainstream schools as follows: -
4 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.
(d) Consultation Question 4 – 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 unanimously (Primary 6 votes to 0; secondary 7 votes to 0; special 2 votes to 0; non school 3 votes to 0) agreed to the continued central retention of the following services to be the same as those retained in 2013-14, 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 – £0.2m. Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) and Music Publishers Association (MPA) licences – £0.135m. 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 – £0.385m.
5 The WSF noted the support received in the consultation for the continued central retention of the combined services budget relating to the Early Intervention Family Support (EIFS) service.
RESOLVED –
The WSF unanimously agreed the continued central retention of the centrally retained services in 2014-15 as detailed.
(e) Consultation Question 5 – Fund to Support Falling Rolls
The WSF discussed the consultation outcomes. Some members of the WSF commented that criteria needs to be drafted for consideration and would welcome working with the LA on these. On a show of hands the WSF members (Primary 6 votes to 0; secondary 6 votes to 1; special 2 votes to 0; non school 4 votes to 0) agreed to in principle for the creation of a fund to support falling rolls.
RESOLVED –
The WSF agreed to support, in principle, the recommendation for the creation of a fund to support falling rolls, subject to DSG budget availability, on the basis that the qualifying criteria have still to be determined and agreed by the WSF.
(f) Consultation Question 1 – Formula Option for 2014-15
The Chair requested that the WSF consider a decision on the formula to be recommended for 2014-15. It was felt the high turnout gave credence to the recommended option 1. 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 mainstream school WSF representatives unanimously (Primary 6 votes to 0; secondary 7 votes to 0) agreed to approve the recommendation that Option 1 be the agreed local schools funding formula from April 2014 for 2014-15.
RESOLVED –
The WSF agreed the recommendation that Option 1 be the agreed local schools funding formula from April 2014 for 2014-15.
(g) The WSF discussed the need to exercise its responsibilities to inform the County Council Cabinet and its representative groups of the issues discussed, recommendations for the introduction of the new model and in particular the WSF decisions on delegation/de-delegation.
RESOLVED –
The WSF agreed that these decisions be communicated to the County Council Cabinet as required.
In terms of communication of these decisions to schools, the WSF agreed the need to exercise its responsibilities to inform its representative groups of the issues discussed and the above resolutions.
6 6. F40 GROUP – TOWARDS A NATIONAL FUNDING FORMULA FOR SCHOOLS
6.1 Steph introduced the report which detailed the deliberations of a technical group of the f40 executive.
6.2 The key recommendations are: -
(a) The national funding formula is based on the factors set out, core formula should cover (in priority order): - An amount for each pupil with separate weightings for Key Stage 1/2, 3 and 4 with overt assumptions about teaching group sizes for each Key Stage. A lump sum to reflect fixed costs. Sparsity. Deprivation, based on free school meal entitlements on the ‘ever 6’ model. Low Cost High Incidence Special Educational Needs. English as an Additional Language (EAL). Area costs, with London Weighting or Fringe being applied to around 80% of each relevant school’s allocation to reflect the increased costs of staffing.
(b) The national funding formula be used either to: - Make allocations to individual schools and academies with any other factors to be, at local discretion, between 2 and 5% of the Schools Block. 100% of the Schools Block would be delegated to schools/academies; or Distribute the national total to LA areas. LAs and Schools Forums would then have discretion on allocating the total locally.
(c) The current DSG structure be retained but with an additional central block to cover LA responsibilities affecting both maintained schools and academies.
(d) The funding year should be the same for maintained schools and academies.
(e) Rates to be removed from school funding.
(f) PFI allocations to schools to be made as a national top-slice.
(g) The national formula should be phased in over 3 years i.e. 2015-16 to 2017-18.
6.3 The WSF noted the report and commented that there needed to be more consideration of the potential for local discretion. There were concerns on the effect on the ESG of academy recoupment. The WSF also noted that WAG had presented at the last F40 executive meeting.
6.4 The unofficial timescales of the DfE issuing a consultation on 2015-16 during December 2013 were noted and welcomed.
7. SPLIT SITE FUNDING ISSUES
7.1 A member of the WSF had made representation to the WSF on the tapered protection funding for split site schools.
7.2 Trish advised that currently 4 schools qualify for split site funding – 1 primary, 2 secondary academies and 1 special – on the approved formula. The approved formula, as agreed in the funding consultation in the Autumn Term 2012 has to apply to any
7 school qualifying as a split site, is operating correctly and there is no transitional taper in place. However, the two secondary schools have been afforded some protection tapered over a two year period commencing from September 2013 to avoid a significant drop in funding. The EFA have confirmed they will not finance this and so the protection is being funded from LA DSG reserves, even though the LA is under no obligation to do so. Some members of the WSF concurred that the LA had not acted incorrectly and were in fact being generous in funding the protection.
7.3 It was confirmed that the funding arrangements in place by the EFA for the new split site factor were included in the individual school's GAG statement in February 2013 from the EFA (Table A 2013-14 School Budget Share Statement).
8. FINAL DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) 2013-14
8.1 The WSF noted the final DSG of £351.1m, which is gross prior to academy recoupment and ISS places.
8.2 Andy requested the WSF agree the Chief Finance Officer's (CFO) statement confirming the allocation of the DSG in support of the Schools Budget.
RESOLVED –
The WSF confirmed the discussion of the final DSG for 2013-14 to the CFO to enable sign off of the EFA CFO statement for 2013-14.
9. FUNDING FOR THE MEDICAL EDUCATION (MET) TEAM
9.1 Andy introduced the report which detailed additional responsibilities for the MET as a consequence of DfE revised guidance for pupils with medical needs.
9.2 The report requested a transfer of funding of £228,000 within the High Needs Block of the DSG to the MET from the Learning Support Team (LST) to support the new statutory functions.
RESOLVED –
The WSF agreed to the transfer of £228,000 to the MET from the LST as requested.
10. ACADEMY UPDATE
10.1 The WSF noted the current list of academy conversions as at 1st October 2013.
11. FURTHER COMMENT
11.1 Given the previous useful update and debate on the Commissioning of Business Support Services, Liz reiterated that commissioning did not necessarily mean outsourcing and the consultation is planned to be a 'conversation' with schools. This is so the County Council can hear schools' views, encourage them to respond and put forward their views.
The meeting closed at 4.10pm
Date of next meeting: - Thursday 16th January 2014 at 2.00pm Venue to be advised
8