Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Schools’ Funding
Consultation Proposals for Changes in 2020- 21
For the attention of:
The Headteacher & Chair of Governors
Please respond by 12 November 2019 to ensure your views can be taken into account
Schools’ formula funding
including SEND
Early Years funding
2
`
3
Contents HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS CONSULTATION
A INTRODUCTION
7
B BACKGROUND TO THE CONSULTATION Changes to Government funding for 2020/21 9 C PROPOSED CHANGES TO SCHOOLS’ FUNDING 11
1. Request to transfer 0.5% of schools funding to High Needs Block to support the SEND strategy 11 2. Notional SEN budget and additional SEN funding 15 3 Transition to the National Funding Formula: variations 19 to the funding of mainstream schools 3.1. Adoption of the Minimum Per Pupil Level for schools 20 3.2 The level of the Minimum Funding Guarantee 22 3.3 How far to move towards the NFF and the level of the ceiling on gains 23 3.4 The level of the lump sum 25 3.5 Growing Schools Funding 26 3.6 Funding for pupil mobility 28 3.7 Funding for looked after children 29
3.8 Former combined services funding (confederations and delegated school improvement funding) 29
4. Redistribution of surplus primary schools’ contingency 31 5 Proposed changes to the basis of distribution of Element 2 SEN place funding for mainstream school sixth forms 33 6. Maintained schools’ De-Delegation Proposals 35
D EARLY YEARS FUNDING 39
ANNEXES
Annex 1 SEND: high needs block allocations, movements
between DSG blocks and LA contributions 43
Annex 2 SEND: Changes in High Needs budgets 45
Annex 3 SEND: High Needs budget pressures 47
Annex 4 SEND: Involvement of Partners 49
Annex 5 Schools: Notional SEN Budgets 53
Annex 6 Schools: Surrey Formula Factors 2019/20 55
4
Annex 7 Schools: impact of high needs block transfer 57
Annex 8 Schools: The Minimum Funding Guarantee and Ceiling 59
Annex 9 Impact of the MPPL on Surrey schools 61
Annex 10 Schools: “De-delegated” Services: Proposed Rates 63
Annex 11 Early Years: Breakdown of current funding for
3-4 year olds and use of “centrally retained” funding 65
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 67
5
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS CONSULTATION
Schools and early years providers are asked to respond to this
consultation by 8pm on Tuesday 12 November 2019 to ensure inclusion in
the summary report to Schools Forum on 14 November 2019. Earlier
responses would be helpful.
Schools are asked to respond by email to
or by post to.
Schools Funding Team Surrey County Council Room G37, County Hall Penrhyn Road, Kingston-upon-Thames KT1 2DN
Schools should feel free to comment on some or all proposals, as they feel appropriate.
Please note that we will not be able to consider new options proposed by schools during the consultation, for implementation during 2020/21, because this would require re-consulting all schools prior to setting the budget and there is insufficient time to do so. However, any such proposals will be considered when looking at schools’ funding for future years. Early years providers are likely to want to respond only to section D and may do this online.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO BE PROVIDED TO SCHOOLS
To aid understanding of the changes proposed in this paper, individual
primary and secondary maintained schools, academies and free schools
will be provided with illustrations showing the impact of the principal
options proposed.
These will show the estimated funding which they would receive in 2020/21 on
the basis of the formula funding proposals in this report, if pupil numbers and
other data were unchanged from 2019/20. These will be based on DfE data
taken from the October 2018 census. Schools are warned that actual funding
for 2020/21 must be based on the October 2019 pupil census and year on
year changes in data may have a significant impact, and may also necessitate
6
changes in the balance between NFF and old Surrey factors and in the level of
the ceiling. Therefore, in responding to this consultation, schools are advised
to concentrate on the principles rather than simply on the illustrative cash
changes.
We expect to provide these illustrations by secure email during October.
Further Details & Any Questions
This Consultation Paper is intended to communicate the main principles of the proposed changes. Additional details and examples and Frequently Asked Questions will be available on the Surrey webpage entitled “Schools Funding Consultation for 2020/21”. (Access to this web site is via: www.surreycc.gov.uk/schools and learning then tab to ‘Teachers & Education staff’, followed by ‘School finance and funding’). This paper and the consultation pro forma will also be available on the web pages.
Questions can be directed to the local authority’s Schools’ Funding team as follows:
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 020 8541 8010
7
A INTRODUCTION
This consultation paper seeks views on funding proposals impacting on
schools, support for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities
(SEND) and early years providers. These services are all funded by the
Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) provided by central government.
DSG comprises four blocks:
1. Schools
All mainstream schools (academies and maintained schools) are funded from
the DSG Schools block. Funding for all mainstream maintained schools and
mainstream academies is allocated to schools based on a local formula
determined by each local authority, within a set of rules specified by the DfE.
In Surrey this is reviewed annually. The Department for Education (DfE) is
introducing a National Funding Formula (NFF) on a gradual basis and this
consultation seeks schools’ views on the continued phasing of the transition of
our local funding formula towards the NFF.
2. High Needs
The High Needs block (HNB) funds provision and support for pupils in special
schools and centres and Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). It also provides funding
for pupils with Education, Health & Care Plans (EHCPs) in mainstream
schools and post 16 providers. The HNB has been under considerable
pressure for many years as funding has failed to keep pace with rapidly rising
pupil numbers. This has necessitated transfers of funding from the Schools
and Early Years blocks to support SEND provision.
3. Early Years
The free entitlement for education and childcare for two, three and four year
olds is funded from the Early Years Block of the DSG using a local formula
which must comply with the early years national funding criteria. Up to 5% of
the current funding for three and four year olds may be used to meet statutory
duties including ensuring sufficient places and administering funding to
providers.
4. Central Schools Services Block (CSSB)
This block funds a range of local authority responsibilities which apply to all
categories of schools such as overall management, policy and budget setting,
and admissions. It also includes the former “combined services” funding for
local confederations/partnerships and for school improvement, which was
8
delegated to all schools from 2018/19 (£1.1m). The DfE is reducing the former
combined services funding by 20% in 2020/21.
9
B BACKGROUND TO THE CONSULTATION
Changes to government funding for 2020/21. On 3 September 2019, the Secretary of State for Education announced the main principles of the school funding settlement for 2020/21-2022/23. The schools budget (including high needs) will increase nationally by
£2.6bn from 2019/20 to 2020/21 (of which £1.82bn is for the NFF for mainstream schools and £0.78bn for high needs);
A further £2.2bn from 2020/21 to 2021/22;
A further £2.3bn from 2021/22 to 2022/23.
These amounts exclude funding for the full year impact of the 2019/20 teachers’ pension changes (which will be funded separately), but schools will be expected to cover the cost of teachers’ pay increases in September 2020 and later years, including the proposed increase in minimum salaries for main scale teachers to £30,000 by 2022/23.
The government funds local authorities for schools on the basis of a school level national funding formula (NFF). In 2020/21, the value of most pupil led factors in the NFF (and also the lump sum) will increase by around 4%, and average per pupil funding for all schools in the NFF will increase by at least 1.84%.
The minimum per pupil level (MPPL) is being increased to £3.750 for primary schools and £5,000 for secondary schools in 2020/21, and is further being increased to £4,000 for primary schools in 2021/22. Local authorities will require the approval of the Secretary of State to set the MPPL at a lower level. The MPPL provides additional funding to schools whose average NFF formula funding per pupil (including lump sum) is below the specified level.
Apart from the MPPL, local authorities retain flexibility over the values of individual formula factors, subject to using only those factors permitted by the school funding legislation. Annex 6 shows the values of the formula factors used by Surrey in 2019/20. The minimum funding guarantee, the minimum average per pupil increase in funding between 2019/20 and 2020/21 for mainstream schools, must be between +0.5% and +1.84%, subject to the usual range of technical exceptions.
Local authorities will still be able to impose a “ceiling”, a maximum percentage increase in average funding per pupil. The “ceiling” percentage must exceed the MFG percentage. Annex 8 shows the working of the minimum funding guarantee and the ceiling.
10
11
C PROPOSED CHANGES TO SCHOOLS’ FUNDING
Support to pupils with SEND in mainstream schools and in specialist provision is funded from the High Needs block within the Dedicated Schools Grant.
The council is seeking schools’ views on the proposals below, which relate to transfers between blocks and/or revisions to the formula allocation mechanisms within the schools and high needs blocks.
C1 Request to Transfer 0.5% of Schools’ Funding to high
needs block to support the SEND strategy
Background: Surrey’s SEND Strategy
In last year’s Schools Funding Consultation we shared with schools the proposed SEND Transformation programme. This was met with widespread support and early this year was also approved by Cabinet following a full public consultation. Since then the SEND System Partnership Board (including representatives from Schools Forum and the Phase Councils) finalised the detail of the strategy and associated transformation programme.
The council and wider area partnership is committed to seeking long term solutions to the challenges raised by increasing numbers of EHCPs and funding challenges. Tangible and significant progress has been made in implementation of the programme, including:
Council approval (September 2019) of a long term capital strategy with the direct ambition of educating children closer to home, providing 883 additional specialist places for children in county over the next four years and reducing the reliance on the specialist independent market. The new specialist provision includes the two new free schools previously announced - Surrey Downs Court and Linden Hill. In addition, preliminary work is being undertaken for a further special school in the Woking area for which council funding of £25m has been approved in principle.
Strengthening the approach to early identification and support through the introduction of a profile of need and graduated response model for SEND
Implementation of a local learning fund to strengthen school support arrangements and develop capacity and skills further across schools and settings.
Using funds from the council’s Apprenticeship levy to provide support for training in early years settings
A review of the EHCP decision making process to align with the profile of need.
12
In the next phase of the programme there is a clear focus on post 16 pathways development, development of a 0-4 SEN Strategy, and the development of an Autism Strategy. Funding To date grant funding at a national level has not increased in line with changes
in SEND demand and complexity. This has resulted in the Council continuing
to use general fund resources to provide a matching reserve equal to the high
needs block DSG overspend, estimated at £29m in 2019/20; this is set to
reduce over the next three years in line with the SEND strategy. The ambition
is to develop and maintain sustainable services over this period. The Council
does not plan to use the reserve and efforts at lobbying the DfE to provide
increased funding will continue. If unsuccessful, the overspend will need to be
recovered from DSG over an extended period.
The DfE has recently published a consultation proposing that councils will no longer be allowed to use general fund resources to fund overspends on the schools budget (including high needs) without Secretary of State’s approval. This does not appear to place any new restrictions on using any underspends on other DSG blocks to fund overspends on high needs. The DfE also expects any LA with a DSG overspend exceeding 1% of total DSG to submit a recovery plan demonstrating how it would achieve sustainability. The SEND strategy will require a significant shift in culture and practice, underpinned by our shared vision for children. It will also require considerable additional support at the early identification and support stage to enable children’s need to be met earlier and to ensure that they are able to join a pathway more closely aligned with their peers wherever possible. The recent announcements from government in respect of high needs are likely to yield additional funding of £12m in the financial year 2020/21, this is not guaranteed in future years and is part of the one year financial settlement pending full spending review. While welcome, this is small in relation to the current projected overspend.
There are 23,326 (Jan 2019 Census) children and young people aged 0-18 requiring SEN support (but without Education Health Care Plans) and 8,732 (0-25 year olds Jan 2019 Census) in receipt of an education health and care plan (EHCP) in Surrey. From January 2018 to January 2019, the number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) Surrey maintained increased by 13.3% (55% since Jan 2015)1. By 2023 this is projected to be 15,000 if we do not achieve the goals set out in our strategy and transformation plan.
Uppermost remains the need to improve outcomes for children and young
people with SEND and to address areas where performance is lower when
1 NB includes post 16s, some of which previously had alternative funding arrangements
13
compared to national peers and to address the attainment gap between children
with and without SEND.
Feedback from children, young people and families continues to tell us that the
service requires significant improvement. Whilst the Ofsted and CQC Area re-
visit of Surrey’s SEND system high-lighted improvements, our own self-
evaluation indicates that there is much more to do and includes leading and
managing cultural and systemic changes.
The majority of high needs block funding continues to be directed into providing statutory provision given the high number of requests for EHCPs, and this is not sustainable in the short term. The SEND strategy is designed to rebalance these resources towards early identification and support in order to meet needs at an early stage and improve the outcomes for children and young people.
To this end the Local Learning Fund will inject £1m into the early identification and support within schools over the next two terms. This is funded through past years underspend on the Schools Block and Early Years block It will be reviewed at the end of the spring term. In respect of Early Years this represented a structural underspend and the proposals contained within this consultation aim to eliminate that for future years.
Budget Pressures
Annexes 1-4 provide background information, highlighting the ongoing demographic and funding pressures in High Needs budgets over recent years, In particular Annex 1 includes details of additional funding from the council and funding moved from other DSG blocks over the last few years.
The high needs block overspend has now been rolled forward for three years whilst cost containment plans have been implemented. There has, however, been a further growth in requests for services.
£m
Forecast high needs block deficit in 2020/21 21
Cumulative deficit of the High Needs Block forecast as at 31 March 2020
47
In conclusion, the SEND partnership are confident that we have an ambitious plan for SEND that will transform the journey that children and young people with SEND and their families experience in Surrey. This is based upon us working differently together and placing the emphasis on early identification, support and early help. The strategy will take time to embed and is being supported by £6m transformation funding set aside by SCC. This is in addition to £50m capital approved pending feasibility studies. This is on the basis of an invest to save approach over three years and there is broad recognition that
14
we need to pump prime much of the early intervention and support in this programme.
Funding Contribution from Schools
In addition to the above plans, we are requesting that schools support a transfer of 0.5% of the total schools budget from the Schools Block across to the High Needs block in 2020/21. This is the same proportion of budget as was transferred in 2019/20. This will equate to approximately £3.3m and will support rapid change and contribute to achieving medium-term sustainability, whilst we establish additional provision and improve the SEND offer.
Any schools on the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) will see no impact from any transfer to High Needs SEND as their funding is protected at that minimum level. The transfer would be funded by a combination of slower progress towards the NFF and a lower ceiling (and possibly a lower minimum per pupil level (see proposal C3.1)) than if no transfer was made. Therefore the impact on individual schools of a transfer to high needs block will vary widely depending on their individual circumstances and on the extent to which they gain under the transition to the NFF. Schools on the MPPL will lose if the MPPL is varied. Further illustrations are available in Annex 7.
Question 1
Given the proposals above, do you support the continued transfer of 0.5% of
the total Schools block (approx. £3.3m) to the High Needs block?
15
C2 Notional SEN budgets and additional SEN funding
Key issue
The LA proposes changes in 2020/21 to the eligibility criteria and threshold for
additional SEN funding for schools with a high proportion of Education Health
Care Plans (EHCPs). Additionally, changes are proposed to the definition of
the level 2 notional SEN budget, reflecting changes in the additional needs
funding factors within the main formula and NFF. This will affect the amount of
funding for SEN which some mainstream schools will have to find from their
core budgets.
Additional SEN funding
Schools are normally expected to fund the first £6,000 of additional support
per EHCP pupil from their main budgets. However, additional SEN funding is
made available to schools with particularly high numbers of EHCPs. Currently
this means that the total cost to a school of paying the first £6,000 per EHCP
cannot exceed the value of the school’s level 2 notional SEN budget. The
current calculation of the additional funding is as follows:
Termly average number of EHCPs outside SEN centres x £6000
LESS
(100% of level 2 notional SEN budget x (1+MFG/MFG baseline) x (1-ceiling
deduction/MFG baseline)2.
The funding threshold for this funding was increased in 2019/20, with the
intention of reducing total cost to £900,000, but the cost of this budget has
remained well above this level due to increased demand. Therefore we are
proposing that in 2020/21 the funding arrangements are changed as follows
Distribution will be based on the number of pupils in receipt of top up
on the previous October census (ie not updated during the year)
The threshold will be set at 110% of level 2 notional SEN budget
(adjusted for minimum funding guarantee (MFG) and ceiling) and not
100%.
2 Note: the adjustments for MFG and ceiling (if any) already exist. These reflect the fact that the total
budget for a school on MFG or ceiling is more or less (respectively) than the total of the individual
formula funding factor values
16
Additionally, where a school is in receipt of additional funding to meet the
minimum per pupil level (“MPPL funding”), that funding will be taken into
account in calculating the threshold. This is fair because the MPPL funding
would be reduced if the school’s incidence of additional need –and thus its
additional needs funding - increased.
Proposed changes to the definition of the “level 2” notional SEN budget
The notional SEN budget is a guide to the minimum amount of provision for
SEN funding which schools are expected to make from their core budgets (ie it
is a “labelled” sum within the main budget, not additional funding). Local
authorities are required to define a notional SEN budget, but are allowed to
decide how to define it. Annex 5 shows how the level 2 notional SEN budget is
currently defined in Surrey.
Most authorities’ notional SEN budgets are made up of a sum per pupil (the
“level 1” notional SEN budget in Surrey) and a share of additional needs
funding factors (“level 2” notional SEN funding in Surrey). This duality
recognises that there is a need for some “core SEN funding”, but also that
there is a strong link between incidence of deprivation/low prior attainment and
the incidence of certain categories of SEN.
Over the last few years the average level of level 2 SEN funding per pupil has
been held constant in Surrey as formula factor values have changed.
However, in 2018/19 and 2019/20 the average level of deprivation and low
prior attainment funding per pupil (taken together) has increased, in moving
towards the NFF, and this is expected to continue into 2020/21, both because
of further movement towards the NFF and because of general increases in
funding levels. Additionally the equivalent of level 2 SEN funding per pupil is
much lower in Surrey than in other south east counties.
Therefore we are proposing that the proportion of deprivation funding (other
than funding for the cost of free school meals provision) and (separately) the
proportion of low prior attainment funding, deemed notional SEN funding
should remain the same if the total of additional needs funding in the formula
increases. Thus the total amount of a school’s budget deemed to be level 2
notional SEN funding will increase if the total additional needs funding in the
formula increases.
17
Questions
2 Do you agree that the eligibility criteria for additional SEN funding should
be changed to be based only on October 2019 EHCP numbers, and the
eligibility threshold raised to 110%?
3 Do you agree that MPPL funding should be taken into account in
distributing additional SEN funding?
4 Do you agree that the per pupil rates for level 2 notional SEN funding
should be increased, so that the proportion of deprivation/low prior
attainment funding which counts as notional SEN funding, remains the
same?
18
19
C3 Transition to the National Funding Formula
In introducing the National Funding Formula, the Government originally
intended that each LA would transition to the NFF by 2020/21. This would be
managed by LAs amending the value of individual funding factors within their
local schools formula to NFF levels over a defined period. However, the
original deadline has been deferred and, while the government has recently
reaffirmed its commitment to implementing the full NFF, it has not committed
to a new deadline.
In 2019/20, Surrey’s local formula used 85.1% of the NFF formula factors and
14.9% of “old” Surrey formula factors. It is estimated that NFF Schools block
funding available to Surrey will increase by £26m from 2019/20 to 2020/21,
before allowing for changes in pupil numbers. As the government has
reaffirmed its commitment to full implementation of the NFF in due course,
there is unlikely to be any long term benefit to schools in allocating the
additional funding in a way which does not converge on the NFF. However,
there are local concerns that small Surrey schools (in both primary and
secondary sectors), and those in areas of relative deprivation, are struggling.
When compared to Surrey’s former local formula, the NFF disadvantages
small schools and those with high levels of deprivation. For example, the pre
NFF lump sum provided to secondary schools in the Surrey formula was
£175,000. The lump sum under the NFF is currently £116,061 and will be
increased by 4% to £120,821. Surrey’s lump sum for primary schools is
currently £118,883 and its lump sum for secondary schools is currently
£124,843. Although small schools will be protected by the minimum funding
guarantee (MFG), schools in receipt of MFG funding are at risk as increases in
pupils’ needs do not then attract additional funding. Many such schools also
face lower pupil numbers. Therefore Surrey is considering inflating the lump
sum by 4% (in line with the national increase), in order to provide short term
assistance to the smallest schools.
In Surrey, schools with high levels of deprivation largely do not benefit from
the NFF, because historically Surrey distributed an above average proportion
of funding through deprivation factors. However, analysis of funding of the
most deprived schools suggests that most of them are on such high levels of
minimum funding guarantee protection that no small change in the local
formula would help them and thus no such changes are proposed.
For 2020/21 the LA is consulting on five specific, but interrelated, proposals,
for distributing the additional funding allocated to mainstream schools:
The value of the minimum per pupil level;
The level of the minimum funding guarantee;
How far to move towards the NFF and the level of the ceiling;
The level of the lump sum;
20
Whether to move funding from NFF to growing schools funding.
The LA is also consulting on whether to implement the DfE’s new pupil
mobility factor, on the continuation of funding for looked after children, and on
the impact of reductions in former combined services funding.
Proposed variations in the funding of mainstream schools
C3.1 Adoption of the Minimum Per Pupil Level for Schools
In 2018/19 the government introduced the concept of a Minimum Per Pupil
Level (MPPL), This provides a minimum average level of funding per pupil for
schools, irrespective of the funding delivered by individual formula factors,
although we are not aware of any evidence supporting the specific values
chosen. In 2019/20 LAs were funded for MPPL at £3,500 for each primary
pupil and £4,800 for each secondary pupil, although local authorities could set
lower MPPLs, or none at all. The majority of LAs used MPPL at some level,
with 91 LAs setting it at the highest level. Annex 9 summarises the number of
Surrey schools receiving MPPL funding in 2019/20.
In 2020/21 the government has set the MPPL at £3,750 per primary pupil and
£5,000 per secondary pupil. The government intends that local authorities
must now pass this on in full to individual schools, unless the Secretary of
State approves a variation. DfE is currently consulting on the technical
arrangements for implementing the mandatory MPPL, but current guidance is
that variations are only likely to be approved where delivering the MPPL would
have a significant adverse impact on those schools which were not on the
MPPL and where:
* the LA was transferring funding out of the NFF block, eg to high needs,
or
* changes in pupil characteristics between Oct 2018 and Oct 2019 meant a
significant increase in costs (remember that the LA is funded for 2020/21
on Oct 2018 pupil characteristics, but must fund schools on Oct 2019
characteristics).
We estimate that the available schools block funding would be sufficient to
deliver the MPPL and a relatively high ceiling, if no funding was transferred
from the schools block to the high needs block.
If funding is transferred out of the NFF (in practice to high needs block), and
the MPPL is funded in full, the cost of the block transfer is borne by those
schools which are not on MPPL (and which in general are smaller, or have
higher pupil needs, than those which are on MPPL). There is therefore a
21
fairness case for considering a variation to the MPPL alongside a block
transfer, even though (on current estimates) it would be possible to deliver full
MPPL in Surrey while still facilitating further movement towards the NFF and a
ceiling above 4% (Ie above the increase in DfE’s formula factor values).
The table below shows the illustrative impact on typical schools of reducing
MPPL rates by approximately 0.5%, compared to the impact of passing on full
MPPL rates. This transfers funding from MPPL schools to others, and would
mean that the cost of the proposed transfer to high needs block is more
equitably shared.
Impact of reducing MPPL on typical schools receiving (middle ranges of)
MPPL (gains/losses for typical schools). Shown for two MFG options.
MFG option 1.34% 1.84%
Primary gain (loss) £ £
V large school -10,500 -10,500
Large school -7,400 -7,400
Secondary gain (loss) V large school -36,600 -36,600
Large school -27,700 -27,700
Average amount which schools not receiving MPPL and not on MFG or ceiling
would gain if MPPL is not implemented in full, thus making more funding
available for other schools).
Again this is shown for two MFG options
Level of minimum funding guarantee Gain/loss 1.34% 1.84% Primary £ £ V small schools (<80) -100 -100 Small schools (80-200) 1,200 1,300 Medium (200-370) 1,300 1,300 Large (370+) 5,200 5,500
Secondary Gain./loss V small under 700 7,500 7,800 Small 700-900 11,400 12,000 Med 900-1200 15,900 16,600 Large 1200+ 22,700 23,700
This is the amount which these schools would gain if the MPPL were reduced,
compared to the amount which they would receive if the MPPL were not
reduced, but the transfer to high needs block was still made So, for example,
if the MPPL were varied, an average 200-370 pupil primary school not on
22
MPPL or MFG or ceiling might be £1,300 better off than if the MPPL were not
varied.
Note: the smallest schools will gain less than others from moving towards the
NFF because of the impact on the lump sum. So a reduction in MPPL,
allowing faster progress towards the NFF, will not benefit the very smallest
schools.
C3.2 The level of the Minimum Funding Guarantee
Schools funding regulations permit local authorities to set a minimum funding
guarantee (MFG) to minimise losses to schools from formula variations, or
from changes in pupil need, each year. For 2020/21, the MFG can be set
within the range +0.5% to +1.84% (2019/20:-1.5% to +0.5%). This means that
all schools will receive some level of increase in funding per pupil. Schools
are asked to consider which of two options might be the most suitable level of
minimum funding guarantee for 2020/21.
Annex 8 shows a diagram that describes the workings of the MFG. and also of
the “ceiling” on gains. Therefore the higher the MFG, the more costly it is
and this means EITHER slower progress towards the NFF OR a lower ceiling
on schools which gain funding. This can mean that very few schools are
actually funded according to current need. In 2019/20, Surrey set the MFG at
0% and, of Surrey’s 356 schools, 91 were on MFG and this necessitated a
ceiling of 3.1%, which impacted on 93 schools. Annex 8 also shows the
number of Surrey schools on MFG, ceiling and MPPL in the last few years and
also the levels of MFG set by other LAs in 2019/20.
Schools are asked to consider two possible levels for the MFG. 1.34% or
1.84%.
Schools should note the government’s intention to increase the minimum
salary point for main scale teachers to £30,000 by September 2022. This may
mean a significant cost pressure for all schools, including those on the
minimum funding guarantee. Schools which have consistently been on MFG
have not seen any increase in average funding per pupil either in 2018/19 or in
2019/20 and the only increase they will see in 2020/21 is due to MFG.
Nationally in 2019/20 46 LAs (30%) set the MFG at 0.5% (the maximum
allowable) and a further 21 (14%) set the MFG above 0%, thereby
guaranteeing all schools some increase in per pupil funding.
The table below shows the impact of the MFG changes on schools of various
sizes which are on MFG (generally 0.5% of pupil of funding).
23
Impact of increasing MFG from 1.34% to 1.84% Number of Primary schools gaining
£0-1000 3
£1,000-2,000 7
£2,000-3,000 1
£3,000-4,000 6
£4,000-5,000 8
£5,000-10,000 18
over £10000 2
Number of Secondary schools gaining
£0-10,000 1
£ 10,000-20,000 3
£ 20,000-30,000 2
£ 30,000 plus 0
C3.3 How far to move towards the NFF and where to set the ceiling on
gains
In 2019/20 the Surrey mainstream schools funding formula was set on the basis of 85.1% NFF factors (as published by DfE) +14.9% “old” Surrey factors (2018/19:72.5% NFF). In 2020/21 we propose an increase in the proportion of the formula based on NFF factors (and to use the amended inflated NFF factors, including the new mobility factor). The faster we move towards the NFF, the more change there will be in individual schools’ funding. This means more schools lose (and are protected by MFG, thus increasing the cost of the MFG) and hence a lower ceiling on gainers, more schools on ceiling-and fewer schools actually funded according to current need. Therefore we need to balance moving towards the NFF against maintaining a reasonable level of ceiling for gainers, allowing more schools to be funded on current need, and also against the choices already made on minimum funding guarantee levels in section C3.2. We suggest that,
The proportion of NFF factors used in Surrey’s local formula should be at least 85.1% (as in 2019/20) ie we should not move away from the NFF;
Subject to the above, as DfE is increasing formula factor values in the NFF by 4%, the ceiling (maximum per pupil gain) should be set at least a little above the 4% increase in per pupil rates provided by the DfE. We suggest a ceiling of 5.5%;
24
all other funding not required to deliver the MFG, the MPPL(at whatever level is agreed above) and the high needs block transfer (C1), if agreed, is used to move closer to the NFF.
The table below illustrates the combined impact of some choices of MPPL. Minimum funding guarantee, ceiling on gains and movement towards the NFF, ie under sections C1, C2 and C3 (based on historic data and assuming that the transfer of 0.5% of schools block funding to the high needs block continues).
Impact of various choices for MPPL, minimum funding guarantee, ceiling and
movement towards the NFF
MPPL Full Full full Full 99.50% 99.50%
MFG 1.34% 1.84% 1.34% 1.84% 1.34% 1.84%
% NFF 100% 100% 94.15% 92.58% 98.20% 96.62%
%old Surrey factors 0 0 5.85% 7.42% 1.80% 3.38%
% ceiling on gains 4.55% 4.42% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50%
No of Schools on MFG 49 51 50 54 49 54
No of Schools on ceiling 204 210 70 67 87 80
No of Schools on MPPL 53 53 64 67 49 50
of which no of primary schs On MFG 43 45 44 48 43 48
On ceiling 180 185 70 67 87 80
On MPPL 38 38 47 49 37 37
No of secondary schools On MFG 6 6 6 6 6 6
On ceiling 24 25 0 0 0 0
On MPPL 15 15 17 18 12 13
So, for example, if we wished to go to full NFF with a minimum funding guarantee of 1.84% and a transfer to high needs block, there might be 210 schools on the ceiling (ie not receiving all of their gains under the formula).
25
Questions on proposals C3.1, C3.2 and C3.3
5 Do you support a reduction in the minimum per pupil level (MPPL) rates
provided to Surrey schools of up to 0.5% in the circumstances described
in section C3.1 above to fund any approved transfer to the High Needs
SEND block?
OR Do you think the MPPL should be delivered in full to eligible schools,
irrespective of the impact on other schools?
6 Which level of minimum funding guarantee do you think would most
effectively meet the needs of Surrey schools in 2020/21?
a) 1.34% OR
b) 1.84%
7 Do you support a target minimum ceiling of 5.5% on gains?
8 Do you agree that the ceiling should be lower if that is the only way of not
reducing the proportion of NFF factors below the current 85.1% (which
would mean moving back from the NFF)?
9 Do you agree that we should use any remaining resources to move
closer to the NFF?
C3.4 The level of the lump sum
In 2019/20 the NFF lump sum (£116,061) is lower than Surrey’s (£118,883
primary and £124,843 secondary). The lump sum provides a significant share
of small schools’ budgets (there are 35 primary schools for which the lump
sum makes up more than 25% of budget and four for which it makes up 40%
or more). Therefore, in order to support small schools, we are considering
increasing the lump sums used by Surrey for both sectors in 2020/21 by 4%
(in line with the increase in the NFF lump sum) rather than converging towards
the NFF lump sum (which would mean a smaller increase).
This would give a little assistance to the smallest schools, without significantly
distorting movement towards the NFF. The cost of increasing the lump sum for
each sector would be contained within each sector, by making a slightly
smaller increase in basic entitlement rates for each sector.
The impact on individual schools will depend on what choices are made under
other proposals, but some possible scenarios are illustrated below. In practice
schools on MPPL (or on minimum funding guarantee) will not contribute to the
cost of increasing the lump sum.
26
Preserving the lump sum will have a small impact on the rate of movement to
the NFF.
The table below shows the impact on typical schools of protecting the lump
sum in the way suggested, for two minimum funding guarantee options
Impact of preserving and inflating lump sums by 4% (assuming full MPPL and
5.50% ceiling)
Shown for two levels of minimum funding guarantee
Minimum funding guarantee (MFG) 1.34% 1.84%
Gain (loss) £ £
Small primary (90) 1,400 1,300
Med primary (270) 200 200
Large primary (500) -1,200 -1,000
V small secondary (600) 1,800 1,500
Small secondary (900) 100 100
Med secondary (1100) -1,200 -1,000
Large secondary(1500) -3,600 -3,100
Question 10
Do you support increasing the current lump sums by 4%, in order to assist
small schools?
C3.5 Growing Schools Funding
Growing schools funding provides additional funding to schools which are
Wholly new schools;
Increasing their Published Admissions Number (PAN);
Expanding their age range;
Admitting bulge classes.
Historically the DfE did not identify a specific amount for growing schools funding within the Schools Block of the DSG. Instead the LA and the Schools Forum agreed how much to spend from the Schools Block on additional
27
funding for growing schools. However, under the NFF the DfE has identified specific funding to LAs for growing schools, and is moving these allocations onto a formula basis. Surrey lost £3m in 2019/20 from this change. We expect to lose at least another £1m in 2020/21, as transitional protection is withdrawn. DfE allocations for growing schools costs are expected to fall short of the cost of Surrey’s current growing schools funding policies.
LAs are currently allowed to supplement this funding from the main NFF schools block, subject to the agreement of the Schools Forum (although this may not be possible in the longer term under a hard NFF).
In 2019/20 Surrey avoided any significant cuts in growing schools funding by using unspent funding brought forward from 2018/19, but this may not be possible in 2020/21.
In practice the scope for making savings on growing schools funding is limited. Schools which are adding year groups must be funded for those extra pupils through the formula using estimated pupil numbers (and thus are necessarily funded at full per pupil rates for these additional pupils). Currently where schools are subject to permanent expansion, or add a bulge class, with no change in age range, we fund the extra pupils through the growing schools fund, but at the same per pupil rates as in the main formula. The amount of funding which is received by schools is thus the same whichever funding route is used.
We cannot recommend reducing funding rates from the growing schools fund for actual pupils, because it would create inequity between the two groups of schools described above.
The Growing Schools fund also funds:
vacancy funding for primary schools - mainly for schools adding extra infant classes. This recognises that they may have vacancies which they would not have had if they had not expanded, that inevitably there is some margin of error in planning expansions and that to some extent they are bearing a risk on behalf of the schools community in general. However, the cost of vacancy funding is falling as pupil growth moves from primary sector into secondary (where no vacancy funding is paid).
“Missing year group" funding for schools which are adding year groups, to reflect the fact that while they are expanding they may need a management structure larger than the funding for the present size of the school can support. This is consistent with the way in which the DfE funds centrally determined free schools. The overall cost is not significant (around £70,000 estimated in 2020/21)
For the reasons above we recommend that no reductions are made in growth funding rates or criteria, even if that means using some of the growth funding in the NFF (perhaps £0.6m or so) to support growing schools fund. This would mean slower movement to the NFF. However, schools’ views are sought.
28
A summary of growing schools funding for recent years and initial proposals
for 2020/21 is provided below
Growing schools outturns 2016/17-2019/20 and initial estimate for 2020/21
Outturns Projection Initial
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Bulge classes/permanent PAN increases 2,446 1,709 1,250 985 1,040
Resources new primary classes 598 488 312 288 300
Other expansion costs 10 12 50 100
Protected vacancies existing bulge classes 1,947 2,020 1,910 1,412 832
Missing year groups 277 259 188 88 70
Secondary school expansions 658 947 1,317 2,068 2,080
Other 134 18 109 300 208
Total expenditure 6,070 5,453 5,086 5,191 4,630
Budget excluding underspends bf 6,753 6,522 6,522 4,953 4,036
Questions
11 Do you agree that growing schools funding rates should continue to match
the per pupil funding rates in the main formula, even if that means a
subsidy from the main formula?
12 If you do not agree that growing schools funding should continue to match
the main formula funding rates, please suggest which growing schools
funding factors should be reduced and why.
C3.6 Funding for pupil mobility
In 2020/21 the DfE is introducing a new pupil mobility factor. The LA has the
choice of whether or not to use it, but is not allowed to use any other mobility
factor. The LA proposes to continue to fund mobility, moving to the new factor.
29
The main difference from the old mobility factor is that pupils will now count as
mobile if:
They joined the school in the last three years and
the first census on which they were recorded at the school was a spring or
summer term census (not an autumn census, and not a January census in
a reception class).
Previously, pupils counted as mobile if they joined within the last three years
and not in September (and not in January in a reception class). The new
method will identify fewer pupils as mobile (as pupils admitted in late May, or
in June and July, will no longer count as mobile) and thus mobile pupils above
the first 6% of roll will be funded as such (compared to pupils above 10% on
the old basis). It appears that this will increase the number of schools in
Surrey qualifying for mobility funding.
We propose to continue to fund mobility, and to move to the new DfE method.
The funding rate for 2020/21 would be a combination of former Surrey rates
and NFF unit rates, as for any other factor
Question 13
Do you agree that we should continue to fund pupil mobility, moving to the
new DfE method?
.
C3.7 Funding for looked after children
Funding for looked after children is an optional formula factor and is not
intended to be part of the hard NFF. Surrey proposes to continue formula
funding for looked after children in 2020/21, even though it is not part of the
NFF. This will allow funding for this group to be protected for as long as
possible.
Question 14
Do you agree that we should continue to provide formula funding for looked
after children?
C3.8 Former combined services funding (school confederations and
delegated school improvement funding)
In 2019/20 Surrey’s funding formula distributes £1.087m to schools, which was
formerly used to directly fund school confederations and additional school
improvement activity, under the former “combined services” power. This
funding was delegated to schools in 2018/19, because the activities no longer
30
met the DfE’s combined services criteria. The funding was sourced from the
“historic commitments” part of the central services block of the DSG, ie outside
the schools NFF. It is included within the formula factors for basic entitlement,
Ever 6 free school meals and IDACI.
In 2020/21 the DfE is reducing historic commitments funding to all LA’s by
20% and accordingly it is proposed that the former combined services
amounts within the basic entitlement and deprivation factors are reduced by
20%. The funding falls within the scope of minimum funding guarantee and
ceiling (and MPPL), so for many schools the losses will be protected by
minimum funding guarantee or MPPL.
The alternative would be slightly slower movement towards the NFF.
Question 15
Do you agree that the former combined services funding (for confederations
and school improvement) within the formula, should be reduced by 20%, to
reflect the funding reduction made by the DfE?.
31
C4 Redistribution of surplus primary schools’ contingency Key issue
Schools are asked to support a further refund of surplus “de-delegated”
primary school contingency back to primary schools and the basis of that
allocation. The principle is that those schools which contributed to the surplus
should be those which share in the refund. This proposal is relevant only to
primary schools. The actual sum to be refunded will be determined later in the
year.
Background
The LA maintains a primary school contingency, funding for which has been
deducted from maintained primary schools’ budgets annually since 2013/14,
with the annual approval of their representatives on Schools Forum and
following annual consultation with all schools. Maintained primary schools
may request an allocation from this budget to fund significant unforeseeable
and unavoidable expenditure which cannot reasonably be met by a school
from its normal funding and for which no other funding source exists. This is
the only source of additional funding available for such costs.
The nature of such costs is inevitably unpredictable (ie they are rare but likely
to be large when they do occur) and therefore the budget has been set
prudently, particularly in the first few years. A surplus has therefore
accumulated. The LA is not legally required to return a “de-delegated” surplus
to schools, but the principle has been that those schools which contributed at
the time the surplus was built up should share in the surplus.
The total deductions and surpluses from the school specific contingency
between 2015/16 – 2019/20 (so far) can be seen below:
2015/16 £000s
2016/17 £000s
2017/18 £000s
2018/19 £000s
2019/20 £000s
Underspend brought forward
844 974 786 685 426
Sums “de-delegated” from maintained schools’ budgets
224 212 199 180 167
Less Contingency allocations
94 0 0 111 -813
Less Refunded to schools
-400 -300 -328 -305
Underspend c/f 974 786 685 426 Up to 319
3 Prior year adjustment
32
Thus at the end of 2019/20 there could be a surplus of up to £319,000 and
experience in recent years suggests that the sum available is unlikely to be
much below that. However, it should be noted that the level of accumulated
surplus has fallen over the last few years as a result of previous refunds.
Proposal
The LA proposes to refund part of the expected contingency surplus in
2020/21 to those schools which were maintained in all or part of 2018/19, as
the oldest unspent contingency funds now originate from 2018/19.
The proposed refund is the estimated year end surplus as estimated at the
end of December 2019, less £167,000. The remaining sum of £167,000 would
be retained within the contingency budget. Assuming that funding is “de-
delegated” for this purpose in 2020/21 this would mean that the contingency
funds available in 2020/21 were equal to twice the amount “de-delegated” in
that year. Therefore the sum refunded would be up to £152,000 (roughly half
of that refunded in the current year), or up to £1.79 per pupil.
As in previous years, the refund would be outside the minimum funding
guarantee, minimum per pupil level and ceiling calculations. Allocations would
be pro-rated where schools converted to academies part way through the
financial year 2018/194.The proposal would require the approval of the
Secretary of State, as it is not provided for in the school finance regulations.
The corresponding proposals for 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20
were approved, but that is no guarantee of a repeat approval.
It may well be that a similar refund will be possible in 2021/22 but that issue
can only be considered when the state of the contingency is known.
The LA still proposes to “de-delegate” a contingency in 2020/21 in order to
maintain some year on year consistency in the level of de-delegation.
Question 16
Do you support the proposed basis of returning part of the surplus school
specific contingency funds in 2020/21 to those primary schools which were
maintained for all or part of 2018/19, on the basis described above?
4 eg schools which converted between 2 April-1 September 2018 would receive 5/12 of the 2018/19
per pupil rate. They would have been refunded 7/12 of their contribution to the contingency in the
year in which they converted.
33
C5 Proposed changes to the basis of distribution of Element 2 SEN place funding for mainstream school sixth forms
Key issue
Mainstream schools with sixth forms receive funding for a specified number of “high needs” places at £6,000 per place (known as Element 2 funding) for pupils with Education Health Care Plans (but not in SEN centre places). This reflects the fact that there is no notional SEN funding in mainstream sixth forms. We are proposing changes to the way in which the number of funded places is determined, so that the number of funded places in an academic year reflects the number of high needs pupils at the start of the current academic year, rather than at the start of the previous year. Funding will thus be more closely aligned to need.
This proposal has no impact on schools without sixth forms.
Background
Mainstream sixth forms with high needs pupils (other than in SEN centres) are funded for a specified number of high needs places. For several years the LA was not allowed to update the number of funded places. For the academic year 2019/20, Surrey agreed with most schools that the number of funded places should be updated to equal the number of EHCPs in Oct 2018 (ie using previous year data, consistent with the general basis of funding for mainstream sixth forms). The number of funded places for individual academies (but not maintained schools) still has to be agreed annually in advance with individual schools and with the ESFA.
For 2019/20, but too late for Surrey’s school funding consultation paper, the DFE agreed some additional flexibility over the funding of post 16 high needs places in mainstream institutions, subject to their approval on a case by case basis. Therefore, from August 2020 we propose to ask the ESFA for permission to allocate the Element 2 funding of £6,000 per place to mainstream sixth forms in year based on actual EHCP numbers in the academic year (using Oct 2020 data for 2020/21). Thus original budgets for the academic year would not contain any post 16 place funding. Funding would be allocated directly both to maintained and academy sixth forms during the year, once the Oct 2020 data was available. Thus it would be up to date. However, we will only be able to do this with the agreement of all individual academies which are affected by the change, because the ESFA will not consider the change otherwise. The LA does not need ESFA agreement to make this change for maintained school sixth forms.
(We may be able to provide some transitional funding, on a one off basis, for those schools where the Oct 2018 data was higher than both Oct 2017 and Oct 2019, ie those schools which would have gained in 2020/21 had the “lagged data” method been used again in 2020/21).
34
The proposal may lead to gains or losses for individual schools in individual years but there is no reason to assume that any specific school would be disadvantaged by the change, taking one year with another.
The proposal does not affect the funding of post 16 places in designated SEN centres, for which existing arrangements will continue.
The overall cost of post 16 high need place funding for mainstream schools is around £200,000 and the proposal is not intended to change that cost, although there may be some variation in individual years.
Proposal
That from the 2020/21 academic year, the number of high needs places funded in mainstream school sixth forms (excluding SEN centres) in any year should be the number of high needs learners in each school on the October census for that academic year (ie October 2020 for 2020/21), rather than a historic figure.
This funding would be allocated directly by the LA to all mainstream schools with sixth forms (including academies), rather than through the ESFA.
Question 17
Do you support the use of “in year” October data (rather than lagged data) to allocate Element 2 place funding for pupils with EHCPs in mainstream sixth forms, so that the funding matches current levels of need.
35
C6 Mainstream Schools’ “De-delegation” Proposals
Key issue
We are asking for the views of maintained primary and secondary schools on
the continued “de-delegation” of funding in 2020/21 for most of those services
for which funding was “de-delegated” in 2019/20.
The DfE does not permit funding to be “de-delegated” from academies,
nurseries, special schools or pupil referral units.
Background
Funding for certain services and purposes must be delegated initially to all
schools but may then be centrally deducted (or “de-delegated”) from the
budgets of maintained primary and/or secondary schools in order to provide
them without any further costs to maintained primary and/or secondary
schools, on the basis of need.
“De-delegation” from either sector requires the annual approval of Schools
Forum representatives of maintained schools in that sector, and may apply to
one or both sectors. Funding can only be “de-delegated” for specific services
listed in the Schools Finance legislation.
Opting for central funding of these services means that it is easier to match the
service to demand where demand is relatively low in many schools, but where
it is unpredictable, may be urgent when required, is very important to the well-
being of individual pupils or staff, and may vary widely from year to year. A
central service may be able to reallocate resources between schools at
relatively short notice in response to changes in demand.
Services provided
In 2019/20, funds were “de-delegated” from maintained primary and
secondary schools for:
Specialist Teachers for inclusive practice (behaviour support) (Primary
sector only)
Following last year's discussions with Schools' Forum and consultation
with SENCOs (via quadrant SENCO meetings) the Specialist Teachers
for Inclusive Practice have launched an enhanced Surrey-wide graduated
offer matched directly and specifically to the new Surrey graduated
profile of need. This is now a consistent offer available across all Surrey
quadrants, although the delivery model remains local and quadrant-
based, and can be accessed easily via a named member of the STIP
team for each school who links directly with the SENCO and Head
teacher.
36
This improved offer has been developed in response to feedback from
schools and builds on all the most effective elements of the previous offer
to extend capacity for direct support in the classroom, as well as for
providing advice and guidance on how to implement targeted strategies
or more specialist approaches. This new graduated STIP offer includes
support for the early identification of required interventions for pupils on
the cusp of, or in receipt of EHCPs, as well as providing a service offer
for each step of the graduated pathway. It also includes an enhanced
wellbeing offer in line with Surrey's Emotional Wellbeing and Mental
Health strategy..
CAPITA SIMS licences
There are cost and administration advantages in the council buying these
licences centrally on behalf of all maintained schools.
Teacher association and trade union facilities time
This funding covers the cost of a small number of teacher association
and trade union representatives who are released from their schools to
support maintained schools across Surrey. In 2019/20 this was ”de-
delegated” from primary schools only, but we are asking both sectors to
consider “de-delegation” for 2020/21.
Other special staff costs
This includes costs of public duties and suspensions which may impact
differentially on individual schools.
Free school meals eligibility checking
This service supports schools by checking the eligibility of pupils to free
school meals, to ensure that all pupils are identified and schools receive
the additional funding provided for these pupils. This includes additional
formula funding income and the pupil premium.
Primary school specific contingency.
This benefits only a few schools in any year, but allows a means of
providing additional funding in wholly exceptional circumstances to
primary schools. Should de-delegation not be agreed, all maintained
primary schools would have to bear exceptional risks themselves.
Proposal C4 distributes any surplus from this contingency. (Secondary
schools no longer contribute to a school specific contingency)
Additional school improvement services (“de-delegated” from the primary
sector only). Intervention fund:
37
Funding is devolved to schools to fund interim leadership costs and other
school improvement costs, where the school faces standards issues and
its delegated budget is insufficient to bear the costs. This funding is now
managed by SAFE
Race Equality and Minority Achievement (REMA) Gypsy Roma Traveller
Service
Surrey’s REMA service has unique links to countywide Gypsy, Roma and
Traveller (GRT) communities and excellent relationships developed over
many years. The service consists of specialist GRT teachers as well as
Traveller Education Support Workers (TESWs) who provide an important
'bridge' between school and our GRT families. Much of their work takes
place out on the sites or in the home environment.
Despite a national picture of low educational outcomes for this vulnerable
group, the impact of Surrey’s REMA (GRT) service can be seen in the
small but significant improvement in GRT pupil outcomes shown in local
The increased mobility of this population due to changes in planning
regulations and site costs, mean that Traveller pupils can arrive new to
Surrey or can change schools at any time during the year. De-delegation
is therefore important to ensure that the service can be matched to
unpredictable and often urgent demand.
The service offer includes: induction support for in-year admissions and
transitions, personalised programmes for individual pupils with complex
needs, support for attendance, engagement and behaviour, advice on
providing the right environment for these pupils, vital engagement with
parents and building effective home-school links, support with
requirements of SEND and statutory processes, insight into cultural
background of GRT community and training for staff and governors,
advice and liaison with other agencies.
Note: funding for the administrative costs of the universal offer is not
being requested through de-delegation in 2020/21.
Proposed de-delegation rates for 2020/21 Annex 10 shows the proposed “de-delegation” rates.
The LA is proposing to maintain “de-delegation” rates at 2019/20 levels,
except for
38
* behaviour support, where part of the sum “de-delegated” is based on
deprivation factors. If the deprivation funding factors in the formula
change, the LA proposes that the basis of “de-delegation” should change
to recognise the change in the formula, but in such a way that the overall
sum “de-delegated” should remain the same5;
* CAPITA SIMS licences, where an increase is needed in order to cover
current estimated costs (currently estimated at 5 %, but may require
review when 2020/21 costs are known).
Separate decisions will be made by each sector on each of the individual
services listed in the questions.
Question 18
Schools are asked to indicate their support for the continued “de-delegation”,
at the rates shown in Annex 10, of the following services:
a) Specialist Teachers (behaviour support) (primary schools only);
b) CAPITA SIMS licences;
c) Teaching Association and Trade Union time;
d) Other Special staff costs (eg for public duties and suspensions);
e) Free school meals eligibility checking;
f) Primary school specific contingency;
g) Additional school improvement services for primary schools (Intervention
Fund) for interim leadership and other school improvement costs, where the
school faces standards issues and its delegated budget is insufficient to bear
the costs
h) school improvement support to travellers
5 Eg if less funding is delegated on free school meals, and more on IDACI, then less funding would be
“de-delegated” on free school meals, and more on IDACI
39
D EARLY YEARS FUNDING PROPOSALS FOR 2020/21
Key issues
In 2020/21 no changes are proposed to the key principles of Surrey’s
approach to early years funding. We will continue to pass through 95% of DfE
funding to providers with 5% of funds centrally retained.
We are proposing an increase in the inclusion fund, and some other changes
to the distribution of the funding which are outlined below. These proposed
changes will support Early Intervention in line with the Graduated Response
Programme which was launched September in 2019. We are also proposing
increases in basic funding rates in proportion to the increase in DfE funding
rates.
Background
DfE funds Surrey for the free entitlement for three and four year olds at an
hourly rate and funds Surrey for disadvantaged two year olds at a separate,
and higher, hourly rate.
In the government’s spending review, £66m was allocated nationally in 2020/21 to increase the hourly rate paid to Early Years providers through the government’s free entitlement offers. We are proposing to increase the basic hourly rates and the hourly deprivation supplement and other elements by the same % as the increase in the hourly rate received by Surrey. We do not yet know what that increase will be. . The National Funding Formula for Early Years was introduced in April 2017 in anticipation of the launch of Extended Entitlement in September 2017. Initially, in order to mitigate risk around predicted eligibility and take-up, Surrey allocated a high level of contingency. Now that we have 2 full years of data we have established that the termly average take-up (on which Surrey must fund providers) is consistently lower than the average of January take-up (on which the DfE funds Surrey), leading to an in-year underspend. We estimate that this difference allows up to £2m pa to be redirected within existing budgets in 2020/21 and later years. In 2020/21 we are proposing to increase the Inclusion Fund by £2m, in order
to facilitate early identification and intervention, with targeted support for
disadvantaged children, to enable children to achieve their potential and to
minimise the need for more extensive interventions throughout their
educational pathway to independent adulthood. The funding will be distributed
via both Inclusion Funding and Discretionary Funding.
40
The funding will be drawn down via extended criteria and application process
and will be available to all settings delivering funded entitlement for 3 and 4
year olds. This would include maintained, academies, private, voluntary and
independent. The additional funding will be directed to support children who
are at risk of not reaching their full potential due to disadvantage.
Proposed Headline Principles for Early Years Funding distribution
Increase the basic hourly rate for 3-4 year olds (currently £4.65) by the
same % as the increase in DfE funding rates (yet to be advised);
Increase the two year olds basic rate of £5.88 per hour in line with DfE
funding rate, retaining the 100% pass through for two year old funding
Increase Inclusion Fund significantly to approximately £3.4m;
Continue to deliver a deprivation supplement with funding criteria linked to
Early Years Pupil Premium criteria, taken together with the Early Years
Pupil Premium rate of 53p per hour this generates an uplift of at least
£3.30 per hour for the benefit of disadvantaged children;
Maintain contingency funding at current level;
Continue with current approach to Maintained Nursery Schools
Transitional Grant – subject to government announcements;
Maintain centrally retained funds at 5% of funding for 3-4 year olds to meet
all the costs of support and administration to deliver funded entitlement for
2, 3 & 4 year olds and to support a sufficiency of provision and on-going
provision of 2 year old Inclusion Fund;
Increase the contribution for free school meals for eligible children aged 2,
3 & 4 years attending a full day at Surrey state maintained provision from
£1.66 to £2.35 to bring into line with actual cost. (This would cost
approximately £6,000 and would come from centrally retained funds for
two year olds and from the budget identified for deprivation for 3-4 year
olds and would address a very visible anomaly and source of complaints.
Provision of free school meals is a statutory responsibility for state
maintained providers only).
Inclusion Fund
The proposal to significantly increase the contribution to the Inclusion Fund is
intended to create the opportunity for Early Years providers to target support
at those children who would most benefit from early identification and
intervention. The funding will be used to enable interventions at a time in the
children’s development when they are likely to have maximum impact on
reducing the gap between these children and their peers so that they have
the best chance of a successful transition into school. These interventions
are being piloted this year 2019/20.
41
The key areas of focus will be:
Early communication and closing the word gap
Emotional resilience
Supported transitions.
These programmes will be in addition to existing funding which will continue to
support children with special educational needs and disabilities to access the
Early Years Foundation Stage. There is an expectation that all Early Years
costs will be funded from the Early Years Block.
Maintained nursery school transitional grant
We are proposing to maintain the current principles for the use of the
maintained nursery school transitional grant in 2020/21:
Use first to fund business rates and split site funding in maintained nursery
schools;
Distribute the remainder equally among the four maintained nursery
schools.
It should be noted that the maintained nursery school transitional grant could
be more, or less, in 2020/21 than in 2019/20.
SEN resources in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes
We are not proposing any changes to the funding of SEN resource places ie
they will continue to attract place funding at £9,145 per fte and hourly rate
funding at the normal rate. Universal funding for resource places will continue
to be funded from the Early Years budget. This may be extended to all
specialist maintained nursery provision – subject to impact analysis.
Centrally retained funds
We propose to continue to retain 5% of the funding for three and four year olds
in order to meet statutory duties in administering and distributing the funding,
ensuring that there are sufficient places for eligible two, three and four year
olds and providing a range of support to individual providers. (see annex 11)
42
Questions
E1 Do you support an increase of up to £2m in the inclusion fund, in order to
increase targeted support for early intervention and vulnerable children?
E2 Do you agree that the hourly rates in the early years funding formula for
both 2 and 3-4 year olds should increase by the same percentage as the
funding rates paid by DfE to Surrey in order to allow resources to be
concentrated on supporting vulnerable children, as above?
E3 Do you support the continued provision of an Inclusion Fund for 2 year
olds?
E4 Do you support the continued retention of 5% of funding for 3-4 year olds
for 2020/21 for use as described above and in Annex 11?
E5 Do you have any other comments on the funding proposals in this paper?
43
Annex 1
SEND: Total high needs block DSG, movements between DSG Blocks
and LA contributions
Total high needs block DSG for 2017/18-2019/20 and 2020/21 (estimated) is
shown below
High needs block DSG
2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
(like for like) final initial
(like for like) estimated
£m £m £m £m
Actual 142.347 159.1
SEN centre adjustments* -2.602 Other technical adjustments**
1.1
total (like for like) 139.745 145.552 148.004 160.2
% change
4.16% 1.68% 8.2%
2-18 population 248,126 250,425 251,797 % change in population
0.93% 0.55%
*Funding which was in the high needs block in 2017/18 but which was in the
NFF schools block in 2018/19 and thereafter.
**adjustment for Guildford College changing “home” authority.
The table below shows movements between the three DSG blocks in each of
the years 2014/15 to 2019/20.
Budget transfers from other DSG blocks to High Needs block 2014/15 –
2019/20
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
2019/20 (provisional)
2014-20 est
£m £m £m £m £m £m £m
Early Years 6.6
1.3 Up to 8m
Up to 15.9
Schools 10.0 11.6
4.6
Up to 2m
3.1 Up to 28.6
Less Technical Adjustment
-0.9 -0.9 -0.9
Net Transfers
5.7
9.1
10.7
5.9
Up to 10m
3.1
Up to 44.5
44
(The technical adjustment represents the transfer of funding to secondary schools in 2014/15 for the increase in the
ISPSB threshold from £4,400 to £6,000. Both budget and costs became part of the Schools Block rather than High
Needs but the DfE blocks were not adjusted.)
Surplus 2 year old funding formed a large part of the Early Years sum contributing to
the High Needs block in 2014/15. In 2015/16 funding for 2 year olds moved to an
actual count basis and thus there was no surplus to contribute to High Needs in that
year;
2017/18: The Schools Forum agreed to work with the LA to identify savings in
2017/18 to avoid the need for further transfers from the Schools block to the High
Needs block in 2017/18. In fact those savings were only partially achieved although
part of the shortfall was offset by other, unplanned, savings. At the end of the year
and following discussions with the Schools Forum the LA transferred £5.9m of
unallocated schools and early years block funding to partially offset the high needs
block overspend;
2018/19: The council’s request to transfer 0.5% of the Schools Budget (approx. £3m)
to High Needs was refused by the Schools Forum.
There was a net uncommitted underspend of £10m across the schools and early
years block at the end of the year which could be applied against the high needs
overspend at the end of the same year;
2019/20: £3.1m (0.5%) has been transferred from schools block to high needs
block. This was not supported by the Schools forum but was approved by the
Secretary of State on appeal. It is possible in principle that underspends on other
blocks could be used to support high needs but we are not yet in a position to know
what they might be;
In 2016/17 the DfE undertook a national re-baselining exercise to recognise that
many LAs had made transfers from the schools to the High Needs block and the
2017/18 block allocations were amended to recognise those transfers. Nationally this
meant a transfer of £258m (0.8% of the national Schools Block) to High Needs. The
starting value of the NFF schools block reflects the total of these transfers nationally.
Contributions to high needs block from other LA funds 2014/15-2018/19
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 total
£m £m £m £m £m £m
0 0 1.650 3.942 0.000 5.592
Note: government is currently consulting on limiting contributions to schools budget
from LA general funds in 2019/20 and thereafter.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-changing-the-
dedicated-schools-grant
45
Annex 2
SEND: Changes in High Needs budgets
The table below shows how the main High Needs budgets have changed over the years
2015/16 –2019/20.
Summary of High Needs budgets
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
2018/19 2019/20 Change
£000s £000s £000s £000s
£000s %
Mainstream schools -SEN centres* 10,000 10,556 10,745 9,312
9.459
-3.0
-Other (eg ISPSB) 15,333 15,362 14,967 16,779
19.976
25.5
Special schools** 41,675 42,709 41,462 44,960 52.446 7.2
PRUs 7,037 6,482 6,345 6,345 6.329 -10.0
NMI /OLA placements 37,674 33,332 32,682 37,201
58.711 11.4
Post 16 (FE/6FCs/ SPIs) 6,812 10,282 10,728 9,000
8.239
50.9
Other 17,818 18,511 17,601 17,370
21.253
-1.3
Total 136,349 137,234 134,530 140.973
176.413
4.8
Plus college place funding*** 2,522 2,733
3,338
Total incl college place funding 137,052 143,705
179,751
Note: budgets for 2017/18 included planned savings of £10m, some of which were not in fact
achieved. The budget for 2018/19 was the original budget before the additional high needs
DSG allocation of £2.7m in December 2018.
Budget for 2019/20 includes a projected deficit of £29m. The council has provided a reserve to
offset this in the short term.
*From 2018/19 inclusive the first £4,000 per pupil (approx.) for mainstream SEN centres was
transferred to mainstream (NFF schools block) funding.
**Two former non maintained special schools converted to academies in 2018. The budget for
these schools is shown within special schools from 2019/20 only.
***This was part of gross high needs DSG from 2017/18 onwards.
46
47
Annex 3
SEND: High Needs Budget Pressures
Increased Local Provision
The table below shows the number of places Surrey has funded in mainstream SEN centres,
state maintained special schools and colleges over the last few years. Within the net increase
we have also tried to remove places from schools and centres where there has consistently
been under-occupancy and where this appears likely to continue.
Number of places Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan 19
Special schools 2,052 2,059 2,105 2,177 2,209
2,289
SEN centres 728 690 701 705 699 723
FE /6fm colleges6 256 363 430 468
2,780 2,749 3,062 3,245 3,338 3,440
Note: for consistency figs for Jan 2018 and Jan 2019 exclude St Dominic’s and Grafham Grange
schools which were non maintained special schools converted to academies from 1 January
2018.
Increasing numbers of pupils with EHCPs
The table below shows the number of Surrey children with EHCPs/statements of special educational
needs in various categories of provision (using DfE SEN2 data).
Statements/EHCPs :placements
Jan-16
Jan-17
Jan-18
Jan 19
Mainstream 2,336 2,635 2,960
State maintained special schools and SEN centres 2,507 2,725
2,984
FE and 6 Form Colleges 854 1,144 1,259
Non Maintained/ Independent Schools 8157 793
967
Special Post 16 Institutions 53 80
75
PRUs and alternative provision 14 61
45
Others 264 272 462
Total 5,750 6,843 7,710
8,732
% increase 19.0% 12.7% 13.2%
Average for SE counties 12.7% 12.1% 12.0%
6 NOTE: basis changed in 2015/16 from commissioning by learner’s home LA to commissioning by
provider’s home LA. Hence previous year figures are not comparable. 7 Includes St Dominc’s and Grafham Grange
48
49
Annex 4
SEND: Involvement of Partners
Partnership Working
The LA collaborates with a number of partners to secure high needs provision.
The SEND Partnership Board brings partners together at a strategic level
including Schools, Health, Family representatives and different parts of the
Council including Adult Social Care.
The SEND High Needs Working Group brings together Schools, Family
representatives and the Council to identify measures to increase
effectiveness of spend and reduce the overspend on the High Needs block.
Market engagement events bring together NMI and SPI providers with the
Council to jointly develop new areas of provision to widen the market.
All Age Learning Disabilities Programme brings together key partners to
focus on Preparation for Adulthood.
Other LAs are engaged through ADCS, SE DCS and other national and
regional groups.
Collaboration has provided a number of benefits:
By working effectively with a number of specialist schools pupil numbers have been extended to accommodate ‘bulges’ of SEN pupils, mostly with autism. In some of these schools existing space has been utilised to create additional teaching areas and where this has not been available extra teaching space has been provided by the LA.
Extending the offers at specialist centres attached to mainstream schools has been a highly effective way to develop provision. Good collaboration between the LA, specialist centre leads and headteachers have been pivotal in extending the age range and offer at some of the centres. This has included younger pupils with a different range of needs and has meant that more pupils can be admitted. Parents have been supportive of this approach, which enables pupils to be placed ‘closer to home’.
A number of mainstream schools have expressed their commitment to developing solutions for SEND pupils in partnership with the LA. For some schools additional funding has enabled a number of pupils to remain in a mainstream environment with the benefit of specialist teachers and support staff to collectively meet the needs of the pupils. For other schools this has been about working through formal proposals to develop new SEN centres in areas of the county where little provision exists or demand exceeds supply.
The review of planned places annually has given opportunity to consider raising capacity rates across all specialist centres and schools. Where vacancies exist Headteachers and the LA have fully discussed the need to
50
balance capacity rates, alongside utilising the funding available in the most effective way to get to an agreed position for planned places in future years. The aim of this is to ensure that the existing capacity is fully utilised
Health and Social Care Contributions to the cost of specialist places
The following table shows contributions made by Health and Social Care to jointly
funded placements:
SEND Non-Maintained & independent Placements
HEALTH SEN ADULT DSG
SOCIAL
CARE SOCIAL CARE
No. part funded
Value £’000
No. part funded
Value £’000
No. part funded
Value £’000
No. part funded
Value £’000
2016/17 6 399 164 4,682 32 437 171 9,011
2017/18 7 442 168 5,216 36 501 177 9,588
2018/19 7 545 174 5,766 33 415 136 8,388
SEND Post 16 Placements
HEALTH SEN SOCIAL
CARE
ADULT SOCIAL
CARE
DSG
No. part funded
Value £’000
No. part funded
Value £’000
No. part funded
Value £’000
No. part funded
Value £’000
2016/17 0 0 0 0 46 917 46 1,089
2017/18 0 0 0 0 105 750 105 5,137
2018/19 0 0 4 213 56 673 56 3`143
Children Educated in Social Care Establishments (excluding HOPE
service)
no part funded
Health value
Children’s social care value
DSG Total (excluding HOPE) value
£000s £000s £000s £000s
2017/18 74 117 6671 1434 8222
2018/19 52 156 6522 1327 8005
2019/20 (est)
34 170 4791 1404 6365
51
HOPE service-joint funded
health Social care DSG
value value value
£000s £000s £000s
2017/18 885 113 733
2018/19 894 106 732
2019/20(est) 874 109 733
52
53
Annex 5
Schools: Notional SEN budgets
Surrey’s 2019/20 notional SEN budgets have been calculated at school level
based on the following criteria below. These are reviewed annually.
primary secondary
£ £ Level 1 notional SEN (based on pupil
numbers) Per pupil KS1 and KS2 113.70 Per pupil KS3 143.59
Per pupil KS4 177.32 Level 2 Per pupil on free school meals (FSM) 157.63 23.10
Per Ever6 FSM pupil 147.18 46.73
Per pupil in IDACI band F 51.84 25.90
Per pupil in IDACI band E 62,20 38.80
Per pupil in IDACI band D 93.30 46.24
Per pupil in IDACI band C 101.07 48.92
Per pupil in IDACI band B 108.85 51.30
Per pupil in IDACI band A 141.50 63.80
Per Low attainer (using DFE definition) 365.77 961.08 % of deprivation funding deemed notional
SEN (excluding cost of free school meals) 28.53% 6.63%
% of low prior attainment funding deemed notional SEN 37.30% 61.5%
Average level 2 SEN funding per pupil 147.35 188.79
54
55
Annex 6
Schools: Surrey Formula Factors 2019/20
£ per eligible pupil Total allocated % of total funding
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
£ £m £m
Basic entitlement per pupil 2885.20
KS3 4022.97 KS4 4621.89 258.3 232.2 78.90%
Lump sum per school 118,883 124,843 35.6 7.1 6.90%
Social Deprivation Per pupil on free school meals 992.51 788.43 7.4 3.1 1.70%
Per “Ever 6” Free school meal pupil 515.86 704.84 6 6.3 2.00%
Per pupil in DFE IDACI Band F* 181.68 390.70
Per pupil in DFE IDACI Band E* 218.02 585.20
Per pupil in DFE IDACI Band D* 327.03 697.44
Per pupil in DFE IDACI Band C* 354.28 737.84
Per pupil in DFE IDACI Band B* 381.53 773.76
Per pupil in DFE IDACI Band A* 495.96 962.32 2.8 4.2 1.10%
Low prior attainment: Per low attainer based on Foundation Stage Profile results ** 980.67 25.4 4.09%
Low prior attainment: Per secondary pupil scoring below level 4 in either or both maths and English at key stage 2*** 1552.67 15.3 2.40%
English as an Additional Language Per pupil with EAL in school system for fewer than three years 503.53 1343.85 3.8 1.2 0.80%
Sparsity lump sum 21,275 55,315 0.1 0.00%
Minimum per pupil (funding) level
3,469 4,769 0.6 1.2 0.30%
56
Primary £/pupil
Secondary £/pupil
Primary £m
Secondary £m
% of funding
Minimum funding guarantee (net of ceiling)
2 1.7 0.60%
Total NFF factors 342 272.3 98.85%
Outside the NFF Per looked after child
396 396 0.1 0.1
Pupil mobility:
629 774 0.1 0 Per mobile child above 10% of roll
Others including rent, rates, split site costs
4.4 2.5 1.2
Total (incl NFF and non NFF factors)
346.6 274.9
100
NOTE:
In 2019/20 the school level NFF did not include funding for pupil mobility or for
premises costs. Funding was allocated to local authorities for these on a historic basis
and local authorities are expected to manage the funding locally, outside the NFF In
2020/21 mobility funding is being moved into the NFF but premises funding will
remain historic.
Total formula funding makes up only part of the Schools Block. The block also
includes growing schools funding and additional funding for secondary schools with
temporary falls in rolls. Delegated funding above also includes funding of £1.1m
formerly held centrally as Combined Services budgets for confederations and for
additional school improvement services, which is part of the separate central schools
services block and thus outside the NFF.
*Income Deprivation affecting children index
***Pupils in years 7, 8 and 9 were weighted at 0.636, 0.580 and 0.480 respectively (these are
national weightings).
57
Annex 7
Illustrative school level illustrations of impact of transfer of 0.5% of schools
block funding to high needs block
The tables below show illustrative impacts on typical schools of transfers of
£3,3m to the high needs block. The impact will generally be nil for schools on
minimum funding guarantee protection. For other schools it will depend on
whether the MPPL is varied. Impacts are shown based on two levels of MFG and
whether or not the MPPL Is varied. The sums shown are illustrative of funding
which the school might receive if there was no transfer to high needs but which
they would not receive if there was a transfer to high needs.
Schools not on MFG or MPPL or ceiling if there is a transfer to high needs block
Full MPPL Reduced MPPL
MFG level 1.34% 1.84% 1.34% 1.84%
Primary £ £ £ £
V Small schools (under 80) -55 -69 -31 -55
Small schools (80-200) 1,831 2,323 535 946
Medium (200-370) 3,927 4,982 1,318 2,252
Large (370+) 7,477 9,485 2,308 4,045
secondary
V small under 700 -55 -69 -31 -55
Small 700-900 1,831 2,323 535 946
Medium 900-1200 3,927 4,982 1,318 2,252
Large 1200+ 7,477 9,485 2,308 4,045
Schools which are likely to be subject to a ceiling deduction if there is a transfer
to high needs block
Full MPPL Reduced MPPL
MFG level 1.34% 1.84% 1.34% 1.84%
Primary £ £ £ £
V Small schools (under 80) 5,249 5,258 5,089 5,096
Small schools (80-200) 11,782 11,794 9,957 9,972
Medium (200-370) 22,253 22,264 19,601 19,710
Large (370+) 28,249 28,294 29,061 28,313
secondary n/a n/a n/a n/a
58
Schools likely to be on MPPL
Full MPPL Reduced MPPL
MFG level 1.34% 1.84% 1.34% 1.84%
Primary £ £ £ £
V Small schools (<80) n/a n/a n/a n/a
Small schools (80-200) n/a n/a n/a n/a
Medium (200-370) n/a n/a 5,855 5,855
Large (370+) n/a n/a 9,286 9,286
secondary
V small under 700 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Small 700-900 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Medium 900-1200 n/a n/a 26,084 27,338
Large 1200+ n/a n/a 33,394 33,394
These schools are only affected if the MPPL is reduced.
59
Annex 8
The Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) and the Ceiling
In recent years the DfE has set a minimum funding guarantee (MFG) to limit
the funding reductions at individual school level. In 2020/21 the MFG requires
a minimum increase in average funding per pupil at all schools.
LAs are also allowed to impose a ceiling, or maximum percentage per pupil
gain, on schools with large per pupil funding increases.
Example: Funding entitlement under the formula:
The bars show the formula funding entitlement for three schools, based on
their varying pupil numbers and characteristics. In the example above,
School 1 would receive its full formula funding entitlement. School 3’s
formula allocation would fall beneath the minimum funding guarantee (MFG)
so it would qualify for additional funding to reach that level. School 2 would
lose funding, down to the ceiling level.
The MFG and ceiling are applied to the total budget of each school and
therefore gains or losses arising from changes in the value of individual
formula factors may be overridden by the MFG or ceiling calculation at school
level.
The minimum funding guarantee (MFG) protects the level of funding per
pupil. It does not protect against the loss of funding resulting from falling
pupil numbers.
Note: The MFG protects schools against funding losses whether due to
changes in the local formula or to changes in levels of additional need. LAs
are not allowed to protect schools against the impact of formula changes
alone.
The table below shows the number of schools on MFG and ceiling over the
last few years It also shows the number of schools on MPPL (because
schools on MPPL are exempt from ceiling deductions). They could in
principle be on MFG but usually aren’t
Sch 1 Sch 2 Sch 3
MFG
CEILING
60
Number of schools on minimum funding guarantee and ceiling in recent years
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20
MFG level -1.50% -1.50% 0% 0%
Ceiling level(max per pupil increase) 0.68% 0.58% 4.22% 3.10%
Schools on MFG 84 79 73 91
Schools on ceiling 205 194 175 93
Schools on MPPL n/a n/a 4 26
No of mainstream schools 356 356 358 356
% on formula 18.82% 23.31% 30.73% 48.31%
% of schools not on MPPL which are on formula n/a n/a 29.94% 48.03%
Number of primary schs on MFG 71 68 62 75
Number of primary schs on ceiling 186 181 165 93
Number of primary schs on MPPL 3 12
Number of secondary schs on MFG 13 11 11 16
Number of secondary schs on ceiling 19 13 10 0
Number of secondary schs on MPPL 1 14
In 2019/20 there were no schools on MPPL which were also on minimum funding guarantee.
It can be seen that in 2016/17 - 2018/19, when there were major changes in formula factors, only a small
minority of schools were actually funded according to the formula
Levels of MFG used by other local authorities in 2019/20
Number of LAs
0.5% 46
Above 0% but below 0.5% 21
0% 33
Below 0% but above.-1.5% 12
-1.5% (the minimum allowable) 39
61
Annex 9
Impact of the MPPL on Surrey schools (2019/20 data)
Primary Secondary
Number of schools on MPPL 28 14 Of which:
Above average size
28 14
Below average for: * deprivation
27
14
* low prior attainment 20 14
It can be seen that the vast majority of schools provided with additional funding to
ensure receipt of the Minimum Per Pupil Level funding are relatively large and
are below average for deprivation and for low prior attainment.
62
63
Annex 10
Schools: “De-Delegated” Services: Proposed Rates
2019/20 2020/21 provisional
proposal
Service Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Behaviour
support
services
£6.92 per pupil +
£32.75/FSM
+£30.58/FSM6+
£10.77/IDACI
band F+
£12.92/IDACI
band E+
£19,39/IDACI
band D+
£21.00/IDACI
band C+
£22.62/IDACI
band B+
£29.40/IDACI
band A
n/a £6.92 per
pupil plus
deprivation
bands based
on the same
average
deprivation
funding per
pupil
n/a
Licences and
subscriptions
£3.63 per pupil £4.93 per
pupil
(KS3+4)
£3.82 per
pupil+
inflation
£5.14 per
pupil
(KS3+4)+
inflation
Special staff
costs-union
facility time
£1.68 per pupil n/a £1.68 per
pupil
£2.27 per
pupil in KS3-
4
Special staff
costs (other
eg
suspensions)
£0.47 per pupil £0.64 per
pupil in
KS3-4
£0.47 per
pupil
£0.64 per
pupil in
KS3-4
Free school
meals
eligibility
checking
£275 per school £435 per
school
£275 per
school
£435 per
school
64
2019/20 2020/21 provisional
proposal
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Primary
school
specific
contingency
£3.23 per pupil n/a £3.23 per
pupil
n/a
Additional
school
improvement
-devolved
funding and
direct school
improvement
support
-travellers
education
service
Universal
school
support
£8.75 per pupil
£9.09 per pupil
£0.89/pupil
n/a
£8.75 per
pupil
£9.09 per
pupil
n/a
n/a
Proposed de-delegation rates for 2020/21 may need to be updated when Oct 2019 data is
known. All pupil numbers are year R-11 only.
65
Annex 11
EARLY YEARS FUNDING
Breakdown comparison of distribution 2019/20 and proposed 2020/21 allocations for 3-4 yesr olds
Based on 23,281 3 & 4 year olds census 2019
2019/20 2020/21
Base rate 61,920,100 61,920,100
Less estimated underspend reallocated -2,000,000
Contingency 648,940 648,940
Deprivation 1,562,190 1,562,190
Inclusion 1,429,700 3,429,700
Central retention 3,416,770 3,416,770
68,977,700 68,977,700
Transitional grant for maintained nursery schools* 954,000 TBA
Disability Access Fund (DAF)* 213,000 TBA
Early Years Pupil Premium* 254,000 TBA
Total 70,398,700
*restricted funds for specific purposes
66
Purposes for which centrally retained early years funds are used
The following teams work together to support Early Years provision across all
sectors including maintained, private, voluntary, independent sectors to
promote quality and improve outcomes for children in Surrey
Educational Effectiveness Team - Provides support and advice to settings
in relation to quality of early education and childcare, Ofsted and statutory
requirements, with a focus on settings at requires improvement or
inadequate, as well as providing targeted support around work with
vulnerable groups.
Special Educational Needs and Disability Team - Provides support and
advice to settings in relation to support for children with SEND, with a
particular focus on inclusion, quality and early identification of need.
Access to Inclusion and discretionary funding.
Family Resilience & Early Years Commissioning Team - Meeting the
Council’s statutory duties to ensure a sufficiency of places for funded 2, 3
& 4 year olds across Surrey. Monitoring and delivering sufficiency;
providing support, advice and to promote business sustainability; and
individual commissioning of provision for the most disadvantaged families.
Delivering census, compliance with DfE statutory guidance and
requirements.
Funded Early Education Team - Managing the funded entitlement by
advising providers, processing, administrating and making payments,
including support for the FEE portal. Delivering census.
In addition to funding teams as described above centrally retained funds are
used for the following.
2 year old Inclusion Fund – for short term intervention to enable eligible
children to access their funded entitlement.
Sufficiency and Sustainability Fund – Grant funding to create new provision
and to support sustainability in areas of identified need.
Maintenance and development of Provider Portal and Parent Portal.
67
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ADCS Association of Directors of Children’s Services
AWPU or Basic Entitlement The “basic entitlement” is the sum allocated to
a school for any pupil at a specific key stage. This was formerly known as
the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU)
Budget share The total sum allocated to a school each year under the local
authority’s funding formula. It excludes allocations from specific grants. It
also excludes contingency allocations, allocations from the growing
schools and falling rolls funds and additional funding for high needs SEND
pupils
Ceiling The LA may agree a maximum percentage increase in average
funding per pupil which all its schools may receive, even if the formula
would otherwise generate more than that. This is the “ceiling”.
Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) The funding source for the total Schools
Budget from April 2006. DSG funds mainstream schools’ delegated
budgets (Schools block), a range of centrally managed services to schools
(central schools services block or CSSB) provision for pupils with special
educational needs (High Needs block) and free entitlement to nursery
provision (Early Years block). Transfers between blocks have often been
necessary in recent years – primarily to support high needs SEND
budgets.
DfE The Government’s Department for Education, which prescribes on
schools funding issues
Delegated budget Budget which a school’s governors may spend as
they determine, for the benefit of the school. It may also be spent, in
limited circumstances, for the benefit of pupils at other schools.
De-delegation Where Schools Forum approves the deduction of funding
from maintained primary and secondary schools’ budgets, to be retained
centrally to fund specified services.
Devolved budget Budget which is devolved to a school for a specific
purpose and must be spent for this purpose only
EAL English as Additional Language
ESFA The Education and Skills Funding Agency is the body currently
responsible to the DfE for maintaining the policy framework for funding
68
LAs and academies, co-ordinating the funding of post 16s in school sixth
forms and colleges and for maintaining the post 16 funding formula.
(These roles were previously undertaken by the Education Funding
Agency (EFA) for schools and 16-19 education providers.
FSM6 (or “Ever 6 FSM”). Children who have been eligible for free school
meals on a termly school census date within the last six years, even if they
are not currently eligible. This is an indicator of deprivation increasingly
used by the DFE for school funding and accountability purposes.
High cost pupil Pupil requiring £6,000 or more in additional support (usually
with an education health care plan). Applies only where an LA has agreed
to fund additional support
HNB High Needs Block within the Dedicated Schools Grant, intended to
fund services for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.
IDACI Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, government index often used as a proxy indicator of deprivation
IPSB Individual pupil support budget: (previously ISPSB – individually
statemented pupil support budget). Additional funding allocated (largely)
to mainstream schools to meet the costs of additional support for high cost
SEN pupils beyond the first £6,000 per pupil per year, where the LA has
agreed that such additional support is required. (NB based on a standard
rate per hour of support.)
KS1, KS2 etc Key Stage education phases:
KS1 - pupils in years 1 and 2
KS2 – pupils in years 3, 4, 5 and 6
KS3 – pupils in years 7, 8 and 9
KS4 – pupils in years 10 and 11
LA The Local Authority, which in Surrey is Surrey County Council
MFG Minimum Funding Guarantee – a rate set by the Government each
year, which represents the minimum percentage increase (or maximum
percentage reduction) per pupil which each school should receive in its
new budget
Minimum per pupil funding level (MPPL) This is a minimum average
funding level per pupil which each school will receive under the National
Funding Formula if the individual formula factors would otherwise generate
less than this
69
NFF The National Funding Formula, introduced on a phased basis by
the DfE at LA level in 2018/19. From April 2018 Surrey has been
expected to change its local schools funding formula to converge towards
the NFF over time.
NMI A non-maintained special school (NMSS) or independent special
school catering for pupils whose needs cannot currently be met within the
state maintained sector. Due to the complex nature of some pupils’ needs,
NMI placements can be expensive.
NOR Numbers on roll at a school
PAN Published Admissions Number for a school – i.e. the maximum
number of pupils a school is expected to admit in its normal year of entry.
PRU Pupil Referral Unit. An education facility for pupils who have
specific needs and are currently unable to attend a mainstream school.
Placements are typically part-time or temporary.
SAFE Surrey Alliance for Excellence
Schools block The Schools block is one of four funding blocks within the
Dedicated Schools Grant. It funds schools delegated budgets. In addition
there are funding blocks covering Central Schools costs, High Needs and
Early Years.
SENCO Special educational needs co-ordinator
SEND Special Educational Needs & Disabilities
Schools Forum Each local authority is required to establish a Schools
Forum with which it consults on issues relating to the financing of schools
and the wider Dedicated Schools Grant. The Forum has decision making
powers in specific instances.
Unit of resource The funding allocated to any school for pupils with specific
characteristics (eg a sum per pupil entitled to free school meals).
Previously it was most commonly used to refer to the basic funding rate
per pupil.
