Annex A
School Funding Consultation 2013/14 – Analysis of Results
Question 1
Do you agree that there should be separate Key Stage Funding rates for Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 1 / 1 / 8 / 100 / 0 / 0 / 9 / 8.4
No / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
No Opinion / 95 / 99 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 100 / 98 / 91.6
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments Raised
Costs of delivery at Key Stage 4, including Exams Fees, are considerably higher than at Key Stage 3
Reflects the additional costs of GCSE classes and examination fees
Key Stage 4 is intrinsically more expensive than KS3 because of the need to run smaller groups to maintain curriculum diversity, and the increase in the sophistication of practical and vocational work. This is essential if a broad curriculum that meets individual needs and facilitates a range of pathways at KS5 is to be maintained.
Question 2
Do you agree with the Authority’s proposal to set the Lump Sum at £150,000?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 81 / 84.4 / 4 / 50.0 / 3 / 100 / 88 / 82.2
No / 8 / 8.3 / 4 / 50.0 / 0 / 0 / 12 / 11.2
No Opinion / 7 / 7.3 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 7 / 6.6
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
Larger primary schools such as ours would be worse off with a higher lump sum.
We estimate the fixed costs of running our school, independent of pupil numbers, to be in the region of £160,000. Moreover, we have spoken to small schools across Essex, which report similar figures, with a mean in the region of £150k. Thus a lump sum of £150,000 is of the approximate value to required in order to ensure that a similar level of per pupil disposable income is available to children across Essex. Any significantly smaller figure would prejudice the education of children in small schools. Any significantly larger figure would prejudice the education of children in large schools.
Strongly disagree. The basic costs of operating a secondary school are much higher than for a primary school. The proposal would mean a considerable drop in income for secondary schools which is completely unreasonable.
I believe this will negatively impact on medium sized schools as pupil funding will be reduced – setting at £100,000 would seem more appropriate.
This is the only way to ensure the survival of small schools in a rural location.
Question 3a
The Authority proposes to use both free school meals and IDACI data to distribute deprivation funding. Would you prefer?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %FSM / 11 / 11.5 / 1 / 12.5 / 0 / 0 / 12 / 11.2
IDACI / 2 / 2.1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 1.8
Both / 82 / 85.4 / 7 / 87.5 / 3 / 100 / 92 / 86.0
No opinion / 1 / 1.0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1.0
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
We prefer a mixed measure. FSM has been shown to be a reasonable predictor for educational attainment (see, for example,
and-deprivation.html). Nevertheless, we are anecdotally aware of pockets of deprivation in Essex where FSM data is low due to lack of awareness or registration, or where FSM eligibility criteria interfere with the quality of the data as a proxy for deprivation.
A mix of measures should aid a fairer distribution of funds
I think we need to use both measures as FSM represents what is actually happening on the ground on a family to family basis rather than the broad brushstrokes of IDACI.
Both would be the best solution although the IDACI is not totally up to date and we have children who are entitled to FSM but do not live in a deprived area according to IDACI data, although these areas are not affluent.
Question 3b
If your answer to a) above was ‘Both’ do you agree that FSM and IDACI remains at the same proportion as in 2012/13?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 50 / 61.0 / 6 / 85.7 / 2 / 66.7 / 58 / 63.0
No / 17 / 20.7 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 33.3 / 18 / 19.6
No opinion / 15 / 18.3 / 1 / 14.3 / 0 / 0 / 16 / 17.4
Total / 82 / 100 / 7 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 92 / 100
Key Comments
Think it should be 50/50 as many schools in affluent areas still have families in financial difficulties, which may not be picked up via IDACI.
Given the far stronger correlation that appears to exist in national data between attainment and FSM, we propose a rebalancing of expenditure, putting the majority of deprivation funding into FSM with an IDACI top-up. We understand
that the current funding scheme puts more weight on IDACI, through the AEN formula, and we believe this is misplaced.
The remodelled figures seem to work reasonably well for our school using the existing criteria- there does not appear to be a case to alter what has been previously agreed
I understand there is a stronger correlation between attainment and FSM than attainment and IDACI. I would therefore propose FSM with an IDACI top-up.
I think that more weighting should be given to FSM
Question 3c
Do you agree to the proposed weightings of IDACI?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 47 / 48.9 / 5 / 62.5 / 3 / 100 / 55 / 51.4
No / 11 / 11.5 / 1 / 12.5 / 0 / 0 / 12 / 11.2
No opinion / 38 / 39.6 / 2 / 25.0 / 0 / 0 / 40 / 37.4
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
We believe that there is not enough evidence to justify the IDACI band weighting proposed. We would urge that the LA consider an evidence based approach, for example using the boundary discontinuities methodology of Gibbons, McNally,
and Viarengo, Does Additional Spending Help Urban Schools?, Centre for Economics of Education, 2011. We note that the move towards a unified IDACI banding scheme nationally this year should enable such a study to be
implemented for 2014/15.
A change to distribute funds too slightly less deprived areas will help some schools that may have been squeezed before
This proposal penalises schools like ours from a relatively ‘affluent’ area
Keeps things aligned with existing formula.
We haven’t seen /found evidence to validate the proposed IDACI band weighting
Question 4a
Do primary schools agree that the Authority does not use the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile assessment to fund Low Cost, High Incidence SEN but instead allocate the funding through the deprivation factor based on IDACI, with any changes on this basis limited to £5,000 per school (subject to final DfE regulations)?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 39 / 40.6 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 39 / 36.4
No / 51 / 53.1 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 100 / 54 / 50.5
No opinion / 6 / 6.3 / 8 / 100 / 0 / 0 / 14 / 13.1
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
There are many schools that get very little via IDACI but may have low achieving pupils – deprivation factor should not be based purely on IDACI.
We strongly disagree with this proposal. We understand that the concern is that there is a disincentive for schools to improve EYFSP results if doing so negatively affects their funding. However, we believe that this merely highlights the need for a robust moderation process in EYFS. We note that the existing Essex funding formula also uses EYFS results and KS1 results as prior attainment funding measures.Nevertheless, if the LA decides not to include a prior attainment factor for primary schools, then we strongly believe that the existing AEN prior attainment funding should be distributed to all schools via the per pupil entitlement, not simply shifted into schools in areas of high deprivation, as is the proposal. The DfE has been clear that low-cost high-incidence SEN funding is made up of 3 elements: a proportion of per pupil entitlement, a prior attainment element, and a proportion of deprivation funding. If the LA decides to remove the prior attainment factor, then the proportion of per pupil element should be increased accordingly. Without this change, the net result of this proposal would be a severe underfunding of genuine SEN in areas of low deprivation across Essex.
Continually using deprivation measures may lead to too much emphasis on these measures. Use of Early Years assessment at least introduces an alternative measure which may help schools within their own settings
Question 4b
Do secondary schools agree that the Authority has a funding factor for Low Cost, High Incidence SEN?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 0 / 0 / 7 / 87.5 / 0 / 0 / 7 / 6.5
No / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
No opinion / 96 / 100 / 1 / 12.5 / 3 / 100 / 100 / 93.5
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
Basing this allocation on prior attainment is much more pupil driven and is a distinct improvement on the previous formula. It is a fairer and more transparent option for students and schools
Question 4c
If the answer was ‘No’ in b above, do you agree that the funding is distributed as per the primary schools proposal in a)?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
No / 2 / 2.1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 1.9
No opinion / 94 / 97.9 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 105 / 98.1
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
This is likely to be a better allocation of funding to individual students than via the Key stage Value, attempting to target funding appropriately.
Question 5a
Do you agree that the funding currently retained for EAL is distributed through the formula to follow targeted pupils in all schools?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 83 / 86.5 / 5 / 62.5 / 1 / 33.3 / 89 / 83.2
No / 10 / 10.4 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 66.7 / 12 / 11.2
No opinion / 3 / 3.1 / 3 / 37.5 / 0 / 0 / 6 / 5.6
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
We believe this is necessary, in order to ensure that EAL funding for academies is targeted where it is needed. The alternative would be a retained contingency for EAL, but this would only be beneficial for maintained schools.
We agree with this, in part.The turbulence of our pupil numbers could mean that we accept EAL children without attracting their funding. This is due to the high number of EAL/MOD children and their regular postings.
If this is what the money is set aside for then it should follow the pupil regardless of school unless academies already receive additional funding via their funding allocation.
We think this is necessary to ensure the EAL funding is targeted where it is needed in each individual school.
We strongly believe this funding should be pupil led – could have low numbers one year and high the following!
Question 5b
Do you agree that funding is re-focused to funding only the first year?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 33 / 34.4 / 4 / 50.0 / 1 / 33.3 / 38 / 35.5
No / 47 / 48.9 / 1 / 12.5 / 1 / 33.3 / 49 / 45.8
No opinion / 16 / 16.7 / 3 / 37.5 / 1 / 33.3 / 20 / 18.7
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
We do not believe that sufficiently robust evidence has been presented to either support or refute the claim that refocusing EAL funding to Year 1 would be educationally beneficial.
It takes some children more than 1 year to pick up English. I believe that the DfE recommendation is up to 3 years and would suggest that 2 years. A significant change would not help the schools that have high numbers of EAL pupils.
Maximum need and impact is in the first year. However there should be an option to review student progress.
Funding should be provided to pupils when they need it. It should not be restricted to one year only and should be devolved to schools who provide evidence of a pupil’s need for EAL interventions.
Not much experience of EAL pupils – where they join in the reception much can be achieved in the first year however it would seem it should be needs driven dependent on the progress made by the child
There should be an annual or a termly review to decide whether or not the child continues to require additional EAL support.
Question 6a
Do you agree that additional funding for Waste Water Treatment Works be added to the rates allocation for relevant schools to fund the additional costs concerned?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 72 / 75.0 / 4 / 50.0 / 3 / 100 / 79 / 73.8
No / 3 / 3.1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 2.8
No opinion / 21 / 21.9 / 4 / 50.0 / 0 / 0 / 25 / 23.4
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
Sounds reasonable.
We all have to bear extra costs of one form or another. This should not be funded separately.
The amount concerned is immaterial in terms of the total funding formula.
Question 6b
Do you agree that additional funding for Joint Use should be added to the rates allocation for relevant schools to fund the additional costs incurred?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 58 / 60.4 / 3 / 37.5 / 3 / 100 / 64 / 59.8
No / 3 / 3.1 / 1 / 12.5 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 3.7
No opinion / 35 / 36.5 / 4 / 50.0 / 0 / 0 / 39 / 36.5
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
We all have to bear extra costs of one form or another. This should not be funded separately.
Question 7
Do you with the proposals to not to change the existing arrangements for split sites, London weighting (subject to DfE clarification) and PFI?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 60 / 62.5 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 71 / 66.3
No / 2 / 2.1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 1.9
No opinion / 34 / 35.4 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 34 / 31.8
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
This has always been a fudge and excludes many Primary Schools. Extra staff are frequently employed to manage children moving between sites in the Primary Sector. Amalgamated schools similarly need continued funding to deal with long term protracted problems. All of this is unrecognised by this factor.
As an amalgamated primary school having to heat and light two buildings, we disagree with the criteria for split sites. We are currently looking at significant staff redundancies and part of the reason for this is that our utility costs are significantly higher than similar schools as identified through benchmarking information.
Question 8
Do you agree that the Authority does not have a funding factor for Looked after Children?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 42 / 43.8 / 6 / 75.0 / 2 / 66.7 / 50 / 46.7
No / 33 / 34.4 / 1 / 12.5 / 1 / 33.3 / 35 / 32.7
No opinion / 21 / 21.8 / 1 / 12.5 / 0 / 0 / 22 / 20.6
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
We do not believe that sufficiently robust evidence has been presented to either support or refute the proposal to not include these formula elements.
LAC should have an entitlement that is not at the discretion of individual schools
LAC children have very unique needs that can require a lot of additional input from schools. Where a school has a large number of LAC children, this would represent a large proportion of the budget.
LAC and Pupil Mobility can have great financial implications on small schools as the children can have significant needs, which are both costly and time consuming and even more so if they join part way through the year.
Question 8
Do you agree that the Authority does not have a funding factor for Pupil Mobility?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 40 / 41.7 / 7 / 87.5 / 2 / 66.7 / 49 / 45.8
No / 31 / 32.3 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 33.3 / 32 / 29.9
No opinion / 25 / 26.0 / 1 / 12.5 / 0 / 0 / 26 / 24.3
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
“Some schools experience high levels of pupil mobility and greater costs as a result.. Local authorities will therefore be able to apply a factor for pupil mobility that is based on the number of pupils entering schools at non standard entry points” ( page 9 of Department of Education:School Funding Reform Arrangements 2013-2013.)
Our mobility statistics for 2011-2012 are: 46% mobility in KS1 and 14% mobility in Reception.
Withdrawal of MOD funding means that pupil mobility needs to be recognised in specific schools which have such a large percentage of MOD children, who, by the nature of parent’s employment are regularly moved.There is a marked increase in admin costs and support staff costs and the anticipated formula does not take this into account. We believe that pupil mobility funding needs to be directed to the school and is based on actual movement rather than other factors.
We strongly disagree with the removal of pupil mobility funding. Our school has high pupil mobility and received £17,765 this year. As the system currently stands children who do not appear in the census do not attract funding. As a school with 40% of children from Military families we have many children who start and leave between censuses so do not appear. These children would have attracted a further £12,540 if they had been at our school during a census. In effect, the very system which intends to support our high mobility actually punishes us because our mobility is so very high and many pupils are not with us long enough to be in attendance during a census. For this fund to be shared out amongst all schools including those with low mobility is a further backward step and highly unfair.
Question 8
Do you agree that the Authority does not have a funding factor for DSG funded Post 16 provision?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 24 / 25.0 / 5 / 62.5 / 1 / 33.3 / 30 / 28.0
No / 2 / 2.1 / 1 / 12.5 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 2.8
No opinion / 70 / 72.9 / 2 / 25.0 / 2 / 66.7 / 74 / 69.2
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
We do not believe that sufficiently robust evidence has been presented to either support or refute the proposal to not include these formula elements.
Question 9
Do you agree with the proposals on distributing the funding for the formula factors removed from the current formula for funding schools?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 48 / 50.0 / 7 / 87.5 / 2 / 66.7 / 57 / 53.3
No / 34 / 35.4 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 33.3 / 35 / 32.7
No opinion / 14 / 14.6 / 1 / 12.5 / 0 / 0 / 15 / 14.0
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
I agree to the proposals apart from Turbulence (as mentioned in last question) and in particular SEN Statements. This should not be part of the Formula because of the adverse impact it has on schools with more than an average number of high need statements. Funding should be directed at individual children’s needs to allow the school to meet these without impacting on other competing needs
We generally agree with the plans for these factors, but disagree with the proposal that KS1 class size funding is deemed subsumed within the lump sum. Spilling over the statutory maximum KS1 class size is a significant financial
burden for primary schools, especially smaller schools who may only have one or two classes covering both KS1 and EYFS. We welcome the plan to retain a contingency for KS1 class size, but would propose that the size of this contingency increases by the 2012/13 budget expenditure on KS1 class size formula element.
Removal of KS1 Class Size Adjustment would be very detrimental. We feel it should continue to be targeted at schools who need it.
All these factors cause extra costs to the schools they affect. Not all schools are affected equally. A blanket approach is totally inappropriate as all schools are not the same.
Question 10a
Do you agree that a contingency for Opening, Closing & Reorganising Schools be held by the Authority?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 92 / 95.8 / 5 / 62.5 / 3 / 100 / 100 / 93.5
No / 0 / 0 / 2 / 25.0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 1.9
No opinion / 4 / 4.2 / 1 / 12.5 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 4.6
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
We believe that it is important to retain all these contingencies. Each one is potentially very costly for a small number of schools each year, and we believe that maintained schools are better off pooling these costs via the LA.
Schools should view the centrally retained contingency as in insurance policy. If not de-delegated back to the LA, would individual schools earmark contingencies within their budget plans to cover such risks?
All can have a significant impact on budgets particularly on smaller schools.
Question 10a
Do you agree that a contingency for Salary Protection be held by the Authority?
Primary / % / Secondary / % / Other / % / Total / %Yes / 90 / 93.8 / 5 / 62.5 / 3 / 100 / 98 / 91.6
No / 3 / 3.1 / 2 / 25.0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 4.7
No opinion / 3 / 3.1 / 1 / 12.5 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 3.7
Total / 96 / 100 / 8 / 100 / 3 / 100 / 107 / 100
Key Comments
We believe that it is important to retain all these contingencies. Each one is potentially very costly for a small number of schools each year, and we believe that maintained schools are better off pooling these costs via the LA.