2018/19 School Funding Formula Consultation

Response form

Please return to by Wednesday 29th November

School name:
Completed by:
Please /  your preferred option
Yes / No
1 / Which option do you support for the FSM element of the formula?
Option 1: single census FSM only, based on the size of the NFF allocation with equal sector values?
Option 1a: single census FSM only, based on the size of the NFF allocation with a sector differential? If selecting this, please state below how this should be decided:
Method:
Option 2: Ever 6 FSM only, based on the size of the NFF allocation
Option 3:Combination of the two, based on NFF values
Comments:
2 / a) Do you agree with the LAC factor being removed from the local formula in 2018/19?
b) If the LAC factor is removed, do you support the 2017/18 amount being left in the baseline to provide protection for schools that continue to have eligible pupils in 2018/19?
Comments
Yes / No
3 / Do you agree with the removal of the reception uplift?
Comments
4 / Which mechanism do you support for pupil mobility?
Option 1: Share out the allocation received between qualifying schools in 2018/19
Option 2: Reflect actual eligibility at the current unit value
Comments
5 / Do you support in principle the inclusion of the minimum funding level test in the protection arrangements within the local formula?
Comments
6 / Progression towards NFF values – do you support in principle:
Option 1:Adoption of the NFF unit values in 2018/19
Option 2:A further half-way step in 2018/19, moving to full values in 2019/20
Comments
Yes / No
7 / Do you support in principle:
Option 1: The improvement of the Minimum Funding Guarantee to the maximum possible level, determined by affordability?
Option 2: Leaving the MFG at minus 1.5% and distributing the surplus to all schools?
Comments
8 / Question 8a) Which factors do you think we should use to distribute any surplus after delivering the chosen MFG protection level?
•AWPU only?
•Deprivation only?
•A combination of AWPU and deprivation?
•Any others (please state whether alone or
combined with others)?
Question 8b): Which of the following do you prefer if deprivation is used?
•FSM only?
•IDACI only?
•A combination of FSM and IDACI?
Question 8c): If you support the use of FSM indicators to distribute all or part of a surplus, would you prefer:
•Single census FSM?
•Ever 6 FSM?
•Both, in the same proportions as the pre-surplus
formula?
Comments
Yes / No
9 / Question 9a): Do you agree that if we can improve the MFG, capping should not be implemented?
Question 9b): Do you support the proposal to consult the Schools Forum/Chair and Vice Chair on whether to cap gains, if the revised data indicates it might be desirable?
Comments
10 / Do you have any further questions or comments on the contents of the consultation paper or the options for the 2018/19 funding formula?
Comments

Thank you for your participation in this important consultation. It will influence the funding outcomes for Newcastle’s schools for the future.

Please sign up via Services to Schools for the briefing on 23rd November for an opportunity to ask questions and discuss the proposals in more detail.

Lead officer:Julie Cordiner, Education Funding Specialist