Schools Forum Meeting of Wednesday 3 December 2008 Agenda Item 4 - Annex

Local Authority Benchmarking Tables 2008-09

This paper presents benchmarking information for the Forum to note as part of their scrutiny role (Prior year reference: 5December 2007 Agenda Item 10).

1.0Introduction.

1.1The DCSF publishes tables of planned expenditure to allow Local Authorities and their Schools Forums to benchmark spending profiles. The tables compare data from the statutory Section 52 Budget Statement 2008-09 and report:

  • A line by line comparison on a per pupil basis across both the Schools and LA Budget;
  • Year on Year changes for a range of budget headings.

1.2A summary of some of the more significant information is set out below, which compares Essex with its “statistical neighbours” and national averages.

1.3All comparative data should be treated with some caution as differing accounting treatments will lead to like costs being allocated against different budget headings. Further, authorities, working with their Forums in recent years will have taken different decisions around delegating resources to schools. As an example, in response to its 2007 formula review, Essex:

  • delegated all Newly Qualified Teacher and KS1 Funding;
  • delegated the final1/3 of the Pay Performance Grant (some £7 million) whilst other authorities may have retained all of it centrally.

2.0Benchmarking Data.

2.1 Table One – Planned Expenditure per pupil upper tier authorities.

ISB/SSG & other devolved grants / Schools Budget SEN / PRUs Behaviour Support / Independent Special Schools / Contingencies / Nursery - P,V and I - NET / Other Grants / Capital CERA / Total Schools Budget
£ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £
Essex / 4,019 / 172 / 91 / 76 / 41 / 131 / 41 / 6 / 4,647
Average (median) / 3,865 / 174 / 71 / 68 / 27 / 117 / 35 / 20 / 4,491
Minimum / 3,694 / 95 / 27 / - / 6 / 36 / - / - / 4,256
Maximum / 4,378 / 323 / 118 / 163 / 249 / 165 / 356 / 197 / 4,743
Essex Rank
2008-09 / 6 / 19 / 7 / 15 / 14 / 9 / 16 / 28 / 5
2007-08 / 6 / 18 / 9 / 13 / 9 / 14 / 10 / 29 / 9

2.2 Key Points.

  • Essex remains in the upper quartile with regard to the delegation/devolvement of resources to schools.
  • Essex delegates/devolves 89.8% (net) of the Total Schools Budget which is in line with the national average and is ranked 5in this regard.
  • Schools budget SEN includes IndependentSpecialSchools (where Essex is ranked 15 of 34 authorities spending an average of £76 per pupil against a shire average of £68) and Inter-authority recoupment where spending is marginally below the national average of £17 per pupil.
  • Expenditure on PRU’s, Behaviour Support and Education Out of School exceeds the shire average where Essex is ranked 7 (2006-07 rank 9), but this includes some £2.5 million (or about £12 per pupil) which is devolved to secondary schools to support the inclusion agenda. The increase may result from the additional resources made available for Behaviour and Attendance (£660,000 in 2008-09); Hard to Place Pupils (£510,000) and ISS (£280,000) in the 2008-09 budget round.
  • Essex now spends above the shire average with regard to school improvement (where it ranks 2 of the 34 shire authorities), which represents the LAs response to the inspection outcome in 2007-08.

2.3Table 2 – Percentage Change from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Overall schools budget / ISB including government grants / Nursery Grants P,V and I / Overall LEA Budget / Total 3-19 pupil numbers
Shire range / -0.2% to 5.5% / -1.0% to 5.2% / -6.7% to 36.3% / -3.7% to 41.5% / -4.0% to 0.1%
Average / 3.6% / 3.0% / 3.8% / 20.5% / -0.8%
Essex / 4.4% / 3.6% / 3.1% / 27.7% / -0.5%

2.4The table reflects:

  • Year on year cash increases; no adjustment has been made for reducing pupil numbers.As can been seen, pupil numbers declined at a slower rate in Essex than the national picture.
  • An increase in P,V and I sessional fees below the national average, but in line with the general per pupil uplift implicit in the 2008-09 Dedicated Schools Grant. It remains the case that Essex pays a higher sessional rate than most authorities in the South East.
  • The LEA budget has increased to reflect upon the 2007 Ofsted Inspection.

2.5Additional information.

Funding per pupil - DSG / % increase per pupil - DSG / Planned expenditure in addition to DSG (£'000) in 2008-09 / Planned expenditure devolved to schools (%) / Primary/secondary ratio of planned expenditure per pupil (Total Schools budget) for 2008-09 / Primary schools on MFG / Secondary schools on MFG / Central expenditure limit
£ / £,000
Max / 3,997 / 5.1% / 3,810 / 94.1% / 93.7% / 89.8% / 89.7% / 130.8%
Min / 3,596 / 4.3% / - / 82.2% / 73.9% / 0% / 0% / 85.1%
Median / 3,812 / 4.6% / - / 89.5% / 80.6% / 21.2% / 7.9% / 102.2%
Essex / 3,924 / 4.6% / 3,117 / 89.8% / 79.0% / 38.1% / 7.5% / 110.7%
Rank
2008-09 / 6 / 17 / 2 / 15 / 21 / 7 / 18 / 14
2007-08 / 6 / 11 / 22 / 14 / 18 / 12

2.6The Table Reflects:

  • Essex continues to be in the upper quartile for funding per pupil and enjoyed an increase to its funding in 2006-07 in line with the national average for upper tier authorities;
  • Planned expenditure in addition to DSG reflects three Area Based Grants which have been included with the Schools Budget in Essex; it is entirely likely that other authorities have treated ABGs differently in this first year;
  • An Essex primary/secondary funding differential which is now slightly lower than the average for upper tier authorities. The Essex ratio continues to reflect on the “Question of Balance” study undertaken in around 2000 updated for additional resources as they have affected each sector;
  • Essex exceeded the Central Expenditure Limit as did 17 other upper tier authorities. As reported at the School Forum’s meeting of 6 February 2008, the reasons for exceeding the limit in Essex related to the additional allocations to PRUs/ISS and Independent Special schools etc (totalling some £3.8 million) offset by the delegation of some of the resources held in school specific contingencies (£2.0 million) which resulted from the Schools Formula Review.

2.7Statistical Neighbour Analysis

Some comparative data across statistical neighbours is attached.

Table 4 - Peer group comparisons
Per pupil / ISB / Schools budget - SEN / PRU/EOTAS / Total Schools Budget / LEA Spend / Total LEA Budget
£
National average (median) / 3,865 / 174 / 71 / 4,491 / 1,263 / 5,754
Essex / 4,019 / 172 / 91 / 4,647 / 1,214 / 5,861
Kent / 4,004 / 185 / 102 / 4,625 / 1,102 / 5,727
West Sussex / 3,789 / 215 / 66 / 4,337 / 871 / 5,208
Staffordshire / 3,884 / 114 / 53 / 4,370 / 1,058 / 5,428
Leicestershire / 3,744 / 159 / 48 / 4,334 / 919 / 5,253
Hertfordshire / 4,023 / 212 / 71 / 4,580 / 1,193 / 5,773
Worcestershire / 3,869 / 95 / 52 / 4,325 / 1,125 / 5,450
Nottinghamshire / 4,047 / 98 / 60 / 4,434 / 1,016 / 5,450
Cheshire / 3,893 / 215 / 67 / 4,463 / 1,074 / 5,537
Lancashire / 4,070 / 176 / 97 / 4,743 / 1,245 / 5,988
Warwickshire / 3,832 / 182 / 61 / 4,420 / 1,199 / 5,619
Rank / 4 / 7 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 2
  • Essex schools continue to receive above average per pupil funding of the statistical neighbours reported and total schools budget remains above the average.

Table 5 - Percentage change from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Overall schools budget / ISB including government grants / Nursery Grants P,V and I / Overall LEA Budget / Total 3-19 pupil numbers
National average (median) / 3.60% / -1.0% to 5.2% / -6.7% to 36.3% / -3.7% to 41.5% / -4.0% to 0.1%
Essex / 4.40% / 3.60% / 3.10% / 27.70% / -0.50%
Kent / 2.50% / 2.10% / -1.10% / 32.40% / -1.90%
West Sussex / 4.00% / 2.90% / 10.50% / 7.50% / -0.70%
Staffordshire / 3.80% / 2.60% / 11.00% / 15.30% / -1.40%
Leicestershire / 3.60% / 4.20% / 7.90% / 2.90% / -0.70%
Hertfordshire / 3.90% / 3.50% / 0.00% / 29.20% / -0.10%
Worcestershire / 3.60% / 3.60% / 2.20% / 37.40% / -0.70%
Nottinghamshire / 2.30% / 2.60% / 36.30% / 10.20% / -1.60%
Cheshire / 3.40% / 3.40% / 11.30% / -3.70% / -1.40%
Lancashire / 2.60% / 2.70% / 2.10% / 20.70% / -1.60%
Warwickshire / 3.60% / 3.00% / 2.60% / 7.80% / -0.70%
Rank / 1 / 2 / 6 / 4 / 2

Compared with our statistical neighbours Essex has seen a comparatively small reduction in pupil numbers year on year. This is reflected in the comparatively high % increase in the overall schools budget.

Table 6 - Additional Information
Funding per pupil - DSG / % increase per pupil - DSG / Planned expenditure in addition to DSG (£'000) in 2008-09 / Planned expenditure devolved to schools (%) / Primary/secondary ratio of planned expenditure per pupil (Total Schools budget) for 2008-09 / Primary schools on MFG / Secondary schools on MFG / Central expenditure limit
£ / £
National average (median) / 3,812 / 4.6% / - / 89.5% / 80.6% / 21.2% / 7.9% / 102.2%
Essex / 3,924 / 4.6% / 3,117 / 89.8% / 79.0% / 38.1% / 7.5% / 110.7%
Kent / 3,938 / 4.9% / 0 / 89.8% / 74.9% / 27.9% / 16.5% / 96.9%
West Sussex / 3,877 / 4.5% / 0 / 88.2% / 81.2% / 0.4% / 2.5% / 117.4%
Staffordshire / 3,776 / 5.0% / 3,810 / 90.6% / 77.8% / 28.9% / 10.3% / 128.6%
Leicestershire / 3,596 / 4.9% / 0 / 87.8% / 84.4% / 22.2% / 5.6% / 90.6%
Hertfordshire / 3,896 / 4.4% / 0 / 89.7% / 73.9% / 18.4% / 8.5% / 85.1%
Worcestershire / 3,729 / 5.0% / 0 / 90.7% / 80.9% / 48.1% / 26.1% / 96.3%
Nottinghamshire / 3,842 / 4.3% / 0 / 94.1% / 78.0% / 15.4% / 0.0% / 95.8%
Cheshire / 3,880 / 5.1% / 0 / 89.2% / 85.3% / 26.3% / 2.4% / 97.0%
Lancashire / 3,927 / 4.3% / 0 / 90.4% / 81.3% / 22.3% / 8.2% / 97.8%
Warwickshire / 3,789 / 4.6% / 0 / 90.0% / 81.3% / 41.3% / 18.9% / 107.1%
Rank / 3 / 7 / 2 / 7 / 7 / 3 / 7 / 3

The Essex ranking in per pupil funding remains 3 year on year, whereas per pupil funding increase has not been as generous as for others in the statistical group, whilst remaining in line with the national upper tier average.

It is clear that LAs have adopted quite different decisions as to how to record former Standards Funds and Local Area Agreement Grants converted to Area Based Grants in 2008-09. I understand that the DCSF are planning to issue advice as to how these grants should be recorded ahead of 2009-10.

The % of primary schools on MFG has increased from 30.9% in 2007-08 to 38.1% in 2008-09. this may have been, as a result of the application of revised formula arrangements which targeted social deprivation resources in a more focussed way.

The CEL was breached in 2008-09; this has been addressed elsewhere within the report.

3.0Conclusion.

The data offers much useful information and may be used to target specific areas for detailed investigation. However, the Children and Young People’s Plan will be identifying which areas of LA provision needs to improve and will identify (together with a range of Business Cases) different ways to deliver services in the future.