FAIR FUNDING
STAGE TWO
CONSULTATION PAPER

2008-09 to 2010-11

PROPOSALS OF THE NORTH SOMERSET STRATEGIC SCHOOLS FORUM

Autumn 2007

1

Z:\Finance\Fair Funding\Fair Funding Consultation\08-09 Multi yr period\Stage Two\Cons Doc-Stage Two.doc

INDEX
REF / DESCRIPTION
Introduction
Executive Summary and Recommendations
A / Social Deprivation
B / Early Years
C / Specific Grants
D / Safety Net
Response Document (North Somerset website)

1

Z:\Finance\Fair Funding\Fair Funding Consultation\08-09 Multi yr period\Stage Two\Cons Doc-Stage Two.doc

INTRODUCTION

1All Local Authorities review their Fair Funding Formula on an annual basis to take into account any proposed DCSF funding changes and reviews requested by the Local Schools Forum.

2In addition, the DCSF are making changes to funding arrangements for the forthcoming multi year period starting in April 2008.

3The role of reviewing the Authority’s Fair Funding Formula is under the auspices of the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) (Schools Forum (England) Regulations 2002 paragraph 7) in North Somerset. A Local Authority only needs to consult its local schools forum on any proposed changes (Schools Finance Regulations (England) 2006). However, the SSF consider it is good practice to continue to consult schools individually in order to inform SSF and enable it to make decisions.

4The Formula Review Working Group (FRWG) was tasked by SSF to carry out the review for 2008-09 to 2010-11 and present its findings to the SSF.

5The review has been carried out in two stages. The first of these relating to locally identified issues was issued in May and the outcomes presented to the SSF meeting in October 2007.

6The second stage has been to consider the implications of the results of the DCSF consultation (Early years, schools and 14-16) for the forthcoming multi year period. A draft consultation paper was presented to the SSF meeting in October 2007. This document contains the agreed consultation questions for the second stage.

7The issues covered in each of the stages are detailed below:

Stage One – Local Formula Review

  • SmallSchool Support
  • Social Deprivation (continued into stage two)
  • Resource bases
  • Redgra
  • School Meals
  • Floor and Grounds in Special Schools
  • Management and Leadership
  • Further delegation

Stage Two – National changes

  • Social Deprivation (continued from stage one)
  • Funding for early years provision
  • Funding mechanism for specialist diplomas (14-16)
  • Specific grants
  • Operation of the safety net
  • Non teaching staff – grades for single status (postponed from stage one)

8Specialist diplomas will be funded as a specific grant in the next multi-year period and will not, therefore, form part of the formula. Consequently, the funding of specialist diplomas is not included in this document. Further information will be provided under separate cover, as it becomes available.

10Single status continues to progress across North Somerset. The group felt that it is still too early to adjust the formula further to reflect the outcome of single status especially due to the ongoing development of the non teaching workforce in schools. The group propose to delay this issue until the multi year period commencing in April 2011.

11The draft School Finance (England) Regulations 2008 proposed that any factors which uses actual salaries should be removed from LA formulae with effect from April 2008 and as a result a paper on the impact of this change was due to be included in this consultation document. The DCSF have informed us that this change will not be enforced in the forthcoming multi year period and therefore this paper has been withdrawn.

METHODOLOGY

12The FRWG has met to undertake the review as set out in paragraph 3. The group has produced written minutes of each meeting and circulated Newsletters to all schools and budget updates. The newsletters are also available on the Authority’s website.

13The membership of the group is set out below and where members cannot attend substitutions are allowed to ensure the group can carry out the work.

Alison RusseHeadteacher - BurringtonPrimary School

Pauline CookHeadteacher - BournvilleInfantsSchool

Arthur GrannanHeadteacher - HighdownJuniorSchool

Lara FurmidgeHeadteacher - CrockernePrimary School

Mike ScrivenHeadteacher - PortisheadPrimary School

Barry WrattenHeadteacher - ChurchillCommunitySchool

Ron Richards/Andy RussellHeadteacher - Priory/Wyvern Community School

Philippa ClarkeHeadteacher - RavenswoodSpecialSchool

Maggie EdwardsGovernor - BackwellCommunitySchool

Helen CaineGovernor - HillsideFirstSchool

Graham FoundGovernor - WesthavenSpecialSchool

Neil FosterRPTAs

Roger EggletonHead of Resources (C & YPS)

Louise MalikFair Funding Manager

Anne ClubbSchool Funding Team Leader

Sarah Johnson(Minutes)

14The group’s work plan for stage two is shown in the table below:

Date / Sub Groups / FRWG Topic / SSF Topic
April
2007 / Early year working group – identify current funding in maintained and PVI. Identify pupil count methods in maintained and PVI. Consider strategic provision issues. Agree workplan. / 24/04/07. Consider formula factor consultation process and review consultation document. Agree workplan for DCSF consultation. Consider September or January pupil numbers for funding.
May
2007 / Early year working group – consider factors for costs in all settings including SEN and deprivation. Consider options for pupil counting methods. / 16/05/07. Operation of the MFG. Specific grants. / 08/05/07. Agree formula factors consultation document for 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Agree workplan for DCSF consultation.
Social deprivation working group – analyse needs led funding for schools serving areas of social deprivation.
Consultation with schools of changes to formula factors for 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11.
Date / Sub Groups / FRWG Topic / SSF Topic
June
2007 / Early year working group – consider activity led funding levels for all settings. Review financial impact of pupil counting options. / 14/06/07. 14-19 Update from early years working group.
Social deprivation working group – outcome of needs led analysis and methodology.
July
2007 / Early year working group. Produce recommendations for FRWG and SSF. / 19/07/07. Operation of the safety net, 14-19, and non-teaching staff grades for single status. / 03/07/07.
August
2007
September
2007 / 11/09/07. Consider the outcome of the formula factor consultation and make recommendations to SSF. Consider headroom and formula implications for 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 based on information available. Consider social deprivation and funding consultation process and review consultation document.
October
2007 / 03/10/07. Review outcomes of formula factor consultation. Consider indications of budget implications for 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Agree budget funding consultation document with schools.
December
2007 / Consultation with schools on changes to funding system and budget for 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11.
January
2008 / 22/1/08. Finalise formula changes and agree draft Budgets for 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11.
February
2008 / 15/02/08. Update recommendations for 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 in light of January 2008 pupil numbers.

15The FRWG debate the implications of each change using the options presented by the officers. From this, recommendations are reported to SSF and included in this consultation. For those areas where there is no clear recommendation, options are provided in the consultation.

SCHOOL FUNDING 2008-09 to 2010-11

16As already mentioned the DCSF have reviewed the future mechanism of funding to Local Authorities and Schools.

17A funding bulletin was issued to schools in July 2007 containing a summary of the outcomes of the DCSF consultation.

18The Government has carried out their comprehensive spending review (CSR07) for the forthcoming multi year period and announced the results on
12November and details are included in the 2008-11 Budget Information Sheet No.3, although some further guidance is yet to be issued. This will determine the level of funding for the next three years.

19By 31 March 2008 schools will receive their formula budget share for 2008-09, and indicative allocations for 2009-10 and 2010-11. The funding for 2009-10 and 2010-11 will be updated by March preceding the financial year to reflect January pupil numbers. Annex 1 details the formula factors and whether the data will be updated within the multi year if the proposals in this document are agreed.

20The formula and the unit of resource can only be changed within the multi-year period for exceptional circumstances with the agreement of SSF.

21This will mean that, apart from in exceptional circumstances, AWPUs and other financial values will be set for 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.

22Funding for named pupils with Special Educational Needs (Audit Funding) will continue to follow the pupil.

1

Z:\Finance\Fair Funding\Fair Funding Consultation\08-09 Multi yr period\Stage Two\Cons Doc-Stage Two.doc

Annex 1

Formula Factor

/ Primary / Secondary / Special / Notes
Factor to be maintained / Data to be reviewed during multi year period / Factor to be maintained / Data to be reviewed during multi year period / Factor to be maintained / Data to be reviewed during multi year period
AWPU / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
Places in special schools / - / - / - / - / Y / N
SmallSchool Support / Y / Y / - / - / - / -
SmallSchool Supp – Average/Actual / Y / Y / - / - / Y / Y
SEN / Y / Y / Y / Y / - / -
Gifted and Talented / Y / Y / Y / Y / - / -
Social deprivation / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y / Please see Paper A
Nursery Classes / Y / Y / - / - / - / - / Please see Paper B
Resource bases / Y / N / Y / N / - / -
Floor & Grounds / - / - / - / - / N / N/A
Rent & Rates / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
Lump sums / Y / N / Y / N / Y / N
KS2 swimming / Y / N / N/A / N/A / N / N
Redgra / N / N/A / N / N/A / N / N/A
Redeployment / Y / N / Y / N / Y / N
Non delegated resources bases / Y / N / Y / N / - / -
Kitchen Utility costs / Y / N / Y / N / Y / N
School Meals / Y / N / Y / Y / Y / N
Kitchen heavy equipment / Y / N / Y / N / Y / N
Staff meals / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A / Y / N
NQT’s / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
Turnover / Y / Y / - / - / - / -
VA, Trust, Foundation / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
Safety Net / Y / Y / Y / Y / - / - / Please see Paper D

* Bold & Grey shaded type denotes a change

1

Z:\Finance\Fair Funding\Fair Funding Consultation\08-09 Multi yr period\Stage Two\Cons Doc-Stage Two.doc

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

23All the proposals put forward by the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) are on the basis of a consensus.

24The proposals from SSF are shown below with the estimated cost at 2007-08 prices (unless otherwise specified):

25The costs below are the estimated overall impact. The estimated effects on individual schools can be found in the annexes.

Paper / Estimated cost as at 2007-08
£
A / Social Deprivation / 917,171
B / Early Years / 314,187
C / Specific Grants / 0
D / Safety net / 0
Total / 1,231,358

26Across the phases this breaks down as follows:

Paper / Primary £’000 / Secondary £’000 / Special £’000 / PVI Settings / Total £’000
A / Social Deprivation / 846,693 / 54,069 / 16,409 / 0 / 917,171
B / Early Years / (23,683) / 0 / 0 / 337,870 / 314,187
Total / 823,010 / 54,069 / 16,409 / 337,870 / 1,231,358

27SSF will consider the priority for allocating available funds at its meeting in

January 2008 once the financial position is known and finalise its decision on 27 February 2008.

28The Minimum Funding Guarantee will provide some degree of protection to schools whose funding reduces as a result of the changes in this and the stage one documents. The level of this protection cannot be determined until the formula has been calculated in its entirety for each school. If the changes increase the Minimum Funding Guarantee allocations to a level that cannot be funded, the implementation of the review will need to be reconsidered.

Recommendations

29As detailed below:

Paper / Description / Recommendation
A / Social Deprivation /
  1. Agree the principal of supporting deprivation from one funding source distributed on a formulaic basis.
  2. Agree the needs led funding levels detailed in Annex A (i) for each phase.
  3. Agree the weighting used to reflect the degree of deprivation as detailed in Annex A (ii).
  4. Agree to protect the funding of schools with the highest levels of deprivation if implemented within the existing resources as detailed in Annex A (iv).
  5. Agree to provide short term financial protection to those schools facing significant reductions if implemented within existing resources.
  6. Update pupil tracking data and therefore, funding on an annual basis for the forthcoming multi-year period.
  7. Continue to refine and review social deprivation funding for April 2011 as detailed in Paper A.

B / Early Years / a.Agree three levels of funding to cover maintained/independent, private/voluntary settings and childminders based on the adult child ratio in table 1.
b.Agree the funding for staff as detailed in Annex B (i).
c.Agree the proposed non staffing levels as detailed in Annex B (ii).
d.Agree that all funding should be pupil based without any lumps sums.
e.Agree that no small setting protection should be applied but that this should be monitored and reviewed along with the pattern of provision.
f.Agree the preferred pupil count data to be as detailed in table 4 and in examples in Annex B (iv).
g.Gather views on options in table 4 or table 5 if the DCSF rule that table 4 can not be implemented for all types of settings.
h.Gather views on potentially using different data for funding purposes for PVI and maintained settings if the DCSF rule that table 4 can not be implemented for all types of settings.
i.Agree that funding for individual pupils with high levels of SEN in early years settings be brought under the auspices of Audit Funding and consistent methodologies introduced where appropriate.
j.Agree that lower level/high incidence SEN be funded through the social deprivation factor in the early years formula.
k.Agree the proposed needs led funding for social deprivation.
l.Agree the method of calculating a social deprivation score for all.
m.Agree that if sufficient funds are not available to support full implementation that all settings will be ‘scaled down’ proportionately.
n.Implement proposals from April 2009 for PVI’s and Sept 2009 in maintained settings.
C / Specific Grants /
  1. Agree the new formula for distribution of the SDG

D / Safety Net /
  1. Agree the new formula for safety net distribution.
  2. Redistribute the savings within the ISB as part of 2008-09 budget.
  3. Alter the significant pupil growth factor to include a SSS and SEN factor.

PAPER A – SOCIAL DEPRIVATION
  1. Why Review?
  • On 3rd August 2005 the DCSF published a technical review of deprivation indicators based on the statements submitted by Local Authorities along with authority by authority attainment data comparing the outcomes of pupils from deprived backgrounds with those of their peers as at 2005.
  • All Local Authorities have been asked by the DCSF to undertake a full and systematic review of existing local arrangements, in conjunction with the Strategic Schools Forum with the aim of closing the attainment gap between pupils from deprived backgrounds and others.
  • The attainment gaps in North Somerset have been analysed and are provided in table 1 below:

Table 1 - Percentage difference in pupils achieving the expected level between those entitled and those not entitled to FSM / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / 2007
KS1 – Reading / 32% / 16% / 19% / 24% / 16%
KS1 – Writing / 29% / 18% / 22% / 24% / 20%
KS1 – Maths / 20% / 8% / 12% / 17% / 7%
KS1 – Science / NA / NA / 12% / 16% / 7%
KS2 – English / 25% / 26% / 22% / 29% / 23%
KS2 – Maths / 27% / 29% / 19% / 24% / 21%
KS2 – Science / 18% / 20% / 15% / 17% / 12%
KS3 – English / 26% / 26% / 22% / 29% / 33%
KS3 – Maths / 31% / 22% / 22% / 21% / 27%
KS3 – Science / 33% / 25% / 25% / 24% / 30%
KS4 – 5A* to C GCSE / 36% / 38% / 27% / 34% / NYA
KS4 – 5A* to C GCSE (incl. English & Maths) / NA / NA / 23% / 29% / NYA
KS4 – Any passes / 12% / 6% / 5% / 3% / NYA
NYA = Information not yet available
  • The attainment gap for Looked After Children is generally higher than that for pupils entitled to free school meals.
  • SSF tasked the FRWG to complete this review and to make recommendations for consultation with Schools during 2007.
  1. Current Funding Methodology:
  • Since 2004-05 the data used to fund social deprivation has been based on seven indicators taken from the 2001 census.
  • Wards have been broken down into output areas (approximately 125 households) and each of these areas is analysed to see if it is worse than the English national average in each of the seven indicators.
  • Each year the post codes of pupils attending every school are analysed against the output areas to give an indication of the level of social deprivation at each school.
  • A pupil living in an output area which is worse than the English national average in all seven statistics is allocated 7 points. A pupil living in an output area which is worse than the English national average in one statistic is allocated 1 point etc.
  • Pupils living in both North Somerset and Bristol are recorded for social deprivation purposes.
  • The total points for each school are divided by the total pupil numbers to give an average deprivation score. The closer to seven this score is, the higher the level of deprivation.
  • Schools are then allocated funding in banded lump sums dependent on the level of deprivation. Banded lump sums are allocated to schools with an average deprivation score of above 2.5 in Primary, 1.5 in Secondary and 1 in Special schools. This range in points was designed to reflect the diversity of the population in schools of each phase. The banded lump sum allocationsrange from £4,000 to £251,270 per school. The total funding allocated through banded lump sums was £910,515 in 2007-08.
  • In addition, schools are allocated funding based on a three year average of free school meal entitlements over a threshold of 10% in Primary and Special schools and 6% in Secondary schools. The amount allocated is £48 per authorised free school meal above the threshold and amounted to £47,233 in 2007-08.
  • Secondary schools also receive funding of £12.53 per authorised free school meal for social inclusion which was previously allocated as a standards fund grant. This amounted to £13,320 in 2007-08.
  • Funding for social deprivation has purposefully been targeted at those schools with the highest levels of deprivation.

3.Formula Review Outcome:

  • A subgroup of the FRWG was established and met seven times to consider this issue.
  • It consisted of senior school managers and governors representing areas with both significant and average levels of deprivation as well as areas of specific need such as a high traveller’s population.
  • The results of the first four meetings were included in the stage one consultation document, which was sent to schools and are available on the North Somerset website:
  • The policy drive by the DCSF for this review is to close the attainment gap. The group, however, set their remit for review wider than this to encompass the five outcomes of the Every Child Matters agenda.
  • The group carried out a detailed needs led review of the cost of providing support to reduce the attainment gap for pupils from deprived backgrounds. This work was carried out separately for each phase and then examined jointly to consider whether each model was justifiable on educational grounds.
  • The needs led review included all support to pupils from deprived backgrounds and also identified the areas currently supported by the Behaviour Improvement Plan, Excellence Cluster and Parent Support Advisors Grants.
  • Extended services is a relatively new area and the group have not yet fully examined the impact that such services could have on closing the attainment gap. Further work is required in this area, which could result in additions to the proposals set out below.

  • The group considered which elements of need increase/decrease depending on pupil numbers or levels of deprivation and which could be considered a fixed cost for any school with moderate/high levels of deprivation. As a result of this, some of the needs led review is considered as pupil led and some as a lump sum.
  • Annex A (i) identifies an example of the outcome of this work for a primary, secondary and special school serving an area of deprivation.

1