Consultation on Primary & Secondary Formulae Review
Presented By:
Andrew [email protected] 385702
Sarah [email protected] 385701
Session Outline
⢠Presentation
⢠Time for questions
⢠Time to complete a responses form
Session Purposes⢠To present an overview of the reasons why changes are being
implemented
⢠To share the thinking behind the proposals
⢠To present an overview of the impact of changes
⢠To answer your questions
⢠To enable you to respond more confidently to the consultation
⢠To collect immediate feedback
Do Not Panic!
The MFG & the Ceiling⢠The Minimum Funding Guarantee will protect âlosersâ
â MINUS 1.5% per pupil in 2013/14 & 2014/15
⢠The Ceiling will cap the gains of the âwinnersâ to pay for the MFGâ INDICATIVELY set at 1.73% per pupil
⢠Whether a school or academy* is protected by the MFG or capped by the Ceiling is shown in Appendix 4
⢠The MFG will not protect against reductions in pupil numbers
* recoupment academy (converted from maintained)
Appendix 4 Modelling⢠INDICATIVE ONLY â not representative of 2013/14 allocations⢠Designed to show the impact of changes vs. 2012/13 actual⢠Enables schools & academies to âlook at the detailâ if they wish
⢠x3 key columns in summaryâ Column 8 (pink): variance in formula funding only
â Column 28 (brown): variance including MFG & Ceiling
â Column 31 (purple): variance also including estimated Pupil Premium increase in 2013/14 (ÂŁ900)
Caution⢠All modelling is based on:
â 2012/13 DSG funding envelope
â Data taken from the October 2011 census, as provided by the EFA
â October 2011 pupil numbers
â Is your October 2011 census data accurate?
⢠Vitally important that the 4 October 2012 census is completed accuratelyâ No âsecond chancesâ
⢠Impact to be reviewed once October 2012 Census dataset is available in December
Additional LA Consultations⢠Early Years Funding
â No intended changes to the Early Years Single Funding Formula
â Transitional protection for maintained providers ends this year
â Integration of the extension of the free entitlement to 2 year olds
⢠Funding High Needs Provisionâ Significant changes for special schools, resourced & alternative
provision
â Establishment of a clear âcontinuumâ of funding across all settings
â P & S consultation covers the funding of mainstream SEN
Why Change?⢠Required by Government â all Local Authorities
⢠In preparation for a ânational funding formulaâ from April 2015 (at the earliest)
⢠Cross cutting themes:â Simplification & transparency â Less local flexibilityâ Greater consistency in funding levelsâ More direct funding relationships e.g. between commissioners &
providers of SENâ Less centrally managed support > academies & self managing
maintained schoolsâ Greater EFA scrutiny
Headlines⢠Switch from January to October census as the basis for funding⢠Data on which schools are funded to be provided by EFA rather
than calculated by the LA⢠Much simpler formulae â max of 12 allowable factors, set by
DfE ⢠Same formulae apply to maintained & academies⢠Greater proportion of the DSG delegated to maintained schools⢠Fewer centrally managed funds and contingencies available for
maintained schools to access⢠Much continuity in the funding of SEN in mainstream schools &
academies⢠Continuation of the Pupil Premium; expected to increase in
2013/14 & 2014/15⢠Clear decision making âby phaseâ required within the Schools
Forum
Anticipated Impact?⢠More responsive but less protection against reducing rolls⢠More responsive but less protection against data âblipsâ⢠More funding allocated via pupil no.s alone vs. smaller schools⢠Individual variances influenced by previous access to factors no
longer allowed e.g. specialist schools, NQTs, buildings area⢠Greater potential for pressure on school budgets from the
reduction in centrally managed funds & contingencies, influenced by the extent to which schools accessed these funds
⢠Negatively affects schools with later intakes. Encouragement for earlier intake of children
⢠Schools with higher levels of mobility potentially have a greater exposure to cost pressure & budget uncertainty
What are we seeking to achieve?
What We Can Influence⢠The factors we use â only required to have an amount per pupil,
a deprivation factor and to employ the MFG⢠How we use certain factors, where the regulations allow choice
e.g. FSM / IDACI; EAL 1 / 2 / 3⢠The values we assign to each of the factors i.e. how we choose
to distribute the overall value of funding available⢠How we continue to provide support through centrally managed,
de-delegated and contingency funds, within tight regulatory constraints
⢠Our approach to mainstream SEN funding, within DfE national expectations
What We Cannot Influence⢠The use of the October census⢠That certain current formulae factors are no longer allowed by
the regulations⢠The formulae behind each of the factors, in the vast majority of
cases⢠That the value of the lump sum must be the same for both
Primary & Secondary (max £200,000)⢠That certain existing centrally managed funds are no longer
allowed⢠That certain contingencies currently held are no longer allowed⢠The value of the Pupil Premium in 2013/14⢠The level of the MFG
Current Formulae⢠Based on a wholesale review conducted during 2003/04;
implemented at April 2004â âActivityâ or âneedsâ led
â Annually reviewed & adjusted by the Schools Forum
⢠Additional wholesale deprivation & SEN funding review implemented in April 2005 e.g. introduction of IMD, uncoupling of SEN funding from Statements
⢠Reviewed alongside the mainstreaming of standards funds at April 2011
⢠Forum has strengthened funding approaches for changing circumstances as these have arisen e.g. new to English migrants
Review Principles⢠To build on principles established in previous reviews⢠Overarching âfair and equitable allocation of DSG resourcesâ⢠Replication of our current distribution, when looking at themes
or averages of types of schoolsâ Small vs. large
â High deprivation vs. low deprivation
â High ethnicity vs. low ethnicity
⢠âBest fitâ where replication is not fully achievable, governed by:â Ringfencing of phase budgets
â Ringfencing of funding by current factor & purpose
â Adjustments where these minimise funding variances
â Consideration of the anticipated impact of the new model
Impact - Themes
⢠See handouts â scattergraphs showing overall per pupil profile x3 themes: size, deprivation & ethnicity
⢠Prior to MFG & Ceiling
⢠Impossible to address all individual school circumstances
⢠Remember â protection against formula change via the MFG
Simplified Formulae (1)⢠12 allowable factors, of which 11 apply to Bradford District
⢠Key principle: factors need to âadd valueâ
⢠Proposing to use 9 of the 11 (including 2 deprivation factors):â Basic amount per pupil
â Deprivation: Free School Meals
â Deprivation: IDACI
â Low Prior Attainment
â English as an Additional Language
â Pupil Mobility
â Lump Sum
â Split Sites
â Rates
â PFI
Simplified Formulae (2)⢠Means 2 factors not used: LAC & Post 16⢠For the vast majority of factors there is no choice on how
allocations are calculated; formulae are set by the DfE⢠Formulae are very different from those we use currently
â âAWPUâ replaced by a base amount per pupil
â Less allowance for âsaturationâ within additional needs funding
â No allowance in the calculation of FSM% for new to English migrants
â No reference to levels of attainment in EAL data
â Switch from KS1 to FSP results for Primary low attainment
â No use of 3 year rolling averages
Simplified Formulae (3)⢠Formulae are shown in the consultation document
â Simpleâ Calculated on %s based on the October census
⢠Simplification is the main cause of variances
⢠Appendix 4 â look at your allocation for each of the factorsâ Compare with your current S251 Budget Statementâ Compare against the schools you choose to benchmark against
⢠Note â safeguarded salaries & expanding schools / academies will be funded outside the formula in the future
Simplified Formulae (4)The Lump Sum:
⢠Crucial factor in providing some budget stability⢠Main cause of variances in the Secondary formula⢠Regulations
â Maximum value of ÂŁ200,000 (to be reviewed for 2014/15)â Must be the same value for Primary & Secondary
⢠Current ranges:â Primary ÂŁ121,000 to ÂŁ210,000â Secondary ÂŁ359,000 to ÂŁ589,000
⢠Proposal to set at ÂŁ175,000â For Primary: strikes the right balance between providing for stability and
not causing redistribution between small / largeâ Does not help smaller Secondary (but ÂŁ200,000 doesnât help either)
Simplified Formulae (5)Deprivation
⢠Compulsory factor⢠Will continue to allocate deprivation & SEN formula funding⢠Proposal to continue to use 2 measures equally : FSM & IDACI⢠Proposal to use âEver 6â FSM (as per the Pupil Premium)⢠IDACI is not a significant change from IMD
â Crucial in being able to recognise âsaturationâ; weighted modelâ Crucial in countering the redistributing effect of the FSM formulaeâ Careful to avoid âcliff edgesâ; incremental funding modelâ Weightings subject to review for the October 2012 dataset
Simplified Formulae (6)Other Key Factors
⢠Low Prior Attainmentâ Primary: switch to FSP; choice on 73 or 78; proposal to use 73; concern
over robustness; proposal to reduce the budget by ÂŁ3.2mâ Secondary: continued use of KS2, but now measured on pupils not
achieving L3 in English AND Maths
⢠EALâ Applies to all pupils regardless of attainmentâ Choice of EAL 1, EAL 2 or EAL 3; proposal to use EAL 3â Allocates the former ÂŁ500 new to English fund
⢠Pupil Mobilityâ Proposal to increase the budget to support schools with higher levels of
turbulence; recognition of the loss of central funds & the impact of other formula changes
Simplified Formulae (7)The October â January Reception uplift
⢠Schools & academies that continue to admit significant numbers of pupils after the October census will see a permanent reduction in funding over time
⢠The âUpliftâ applies to admissions into Reception classes only i.e. does not help where mobility affects all year groups
⢠Retrospective adjustment based on the intake between October and January in the previous year; dataset provided by EFA
⢠Must apply to all Primary schools & academies or not at all⢠Proposal to adopt the uplift for 2013/14 but to review for
2014/15
Funding Mainstream SEN⢠Much continuity - we moved to a delegated model in 2005/06⢠Focus on establishing a clear continuum⢠Key proposals:
â Continue to allocate the vast majority of SEN resources to schools via the SEN funding formulae (which have now changed)
â Shift the âthresholdâ for funding high value statements from ÂŁ5,155 to ÂŁ6,000 to replicate the national formula
â Continue to allocate > ÂŁ6,000 separately, based on actual value & adjusted on a monthly basis
â Continue to employ the SEN Funding Floor to ensure a minimum level of SEN formula funding
â Continue to calculate a notional SEN figure & to separately identify all SEN resources within a schoolâs budget (I03 funding)
National High Needs Model
⢠National financial definition of High Needs > £10,000 pa
⢠Funded in 3 elements:
â Element 1: ÂŁ4,000 â base formula funding that all children attract
â Element 2: ÂŁ6,000 â additional resources allocated to the schoolâs budget via SEN formulae
â Element 3: value >ÂŁ10,000 â top up paid directly by the commissioning local authority for the difference between ÂŁ10,000 and the assessment of the total actual cost of provision
SEN Resources (I03)
SEN Formula Funding
+
Specific funding for the values of Statements > ÂŁ6,000
+
SEN Funding Floor
+
Notional SEN
Notional SEN⢠A defined sum within a schoolâs base formula funding that is
identified to support pupils with SEN⢠Currently 6% of AWPU⢠Proposal essentially to keep this level, but to reduce the %
recognising that more funding is now allocated via the base per pupil amountâ Primary reduced to 5.5%; Secondary reduced to 4.5%
⢠This maintains the overall position, though there will be some differences for individual schools & academies
⢠Note that I03 funding values will be greater due to the inclusion now of former mainstreamed grants funding (correct to do so)
New Delegation⢠DfE: maximum delegation to schools & academies⢠Greater proportion of DSG funding delegated to schools⢠Fewer centrally managed funds & contingencies⢠Continued allowance of specific named DSG funds⢠Proposals TBC but based on likely majority view & recognising the
purposes for which funds are currently held⢠Further development of traded services⢠Elements:
â Identifying the value of new delegation into school budgetsâ Being clear on the funds that will continue to be managed centrally & the
contribution from schools to enable theseâ Being clear on what funds will no longer be available
⢠Academies â this approach replaces DSG LACSEG
Primary Secondary
2012/13 Total Schools Block (net of income) ÂŁ221.47m ÂŁ165.01m
2012/13 School Budgets (already delegated to schools) - ÂŁ208.08m - ÂŁ153.04m
2012/13 High Needs Block Expenditure (removed from this) - ÂŁ4.60m - ÂŁ8.19m
Allowable Centrally Managed Expenditure prior to New Delegation
- ÂŁ2.23m - ÂŁ1.01m
Allowable Centrally Managed Growth Fund prior to New Delegation
- ÂŁ1.60m - ÂŁ0.10m
Funds for Academies previously allocated via LACSEG recoupment
+ ÂŁ0.05m + ÂŁ0.62m
Adjusted Schools Block for New Delegation to Schools & Academies
ÂŁ5.01m ÂŁ3.29m
Per Pupil New Delegation (based on Oct 2011 no.s) Schools & Academies
ÂŁ102 pp ÂŁ123 pp
Summary of New Delegation Maintained Primary
Academy Primary
Maintained Secondary
Academy Secondary
Adjusted Amount Per Pupil not delegated in 2012/13
ÂŁ102 ÂŁ102 ÂŁ123 ÂŁ123
Additional Contribution to De-Delegated Items for Maintained Schools Per Pupil
ÂŁ53 ÂŁ0 ÂŁ49 ÂŁ0
Additional Contribution toContingencies for Maintained Schools Per Pupil
ÂŁ11 ÂŁ0 ÂŁ14 ÂŁ0
Total Additional Per PupilContribution
ÂŁ64 ÂŁ0 ÂŁ63 ÂŁ0
Final net value of New Delegation added to school budgets (Per
Pupil)
ÂŁ37 ÂŁ102 ÂŁ60 ÂŁ123
De-Delegated Items⢠Maintained schools only⢠Proposed:
â Electrical Health & Safety Testing
â Support for minority ethnic & underachieving groups
â Licences / subscriptions
â Maternity & Paternity costs
â Trade union duties facilities time
â Discretionary exceptions
â FSM eligibility (education welfare)
â Behaviour support services
⢠Funded by reducing base per pupil funding
Central Funds No Longer Available
⢠The following existing funds will no longer be available; the funding delegated to school & academy budgets:â DSG RCCO
â Redundancies in schools
â 14-19 confederations
â Provision of school milk
â Minibus driver assessments
⢠Cost Pressures
⢠Carbon reduction costs charged to school & academy budgets
⢠No central fund planned for single status costs at this stage
Continued Contingencies⢠Can now only be held in specific circumstances⢠Proposed:
â Ringfenced Growth Fundâ Exceptional / Unforeseen Costsâ Schools in Financial Difficultiesâ Safeguarded Salaries
⢠Values to be agreed by Forum within phases
⢠Criteria driven under Forum management
⢠Limited access / limited adjustment of budgets in year
⢠Funded by reducing base per pupil funding
Contingencies No Longer Available
⢠Infant Class Sizes â exceptional circumstances only
⢠£500 new to English new starters (EAL)
⢠General schools contingency for data changes
⢠Small school investigations â exceptional circumstances only
⢠Looked After Children â replaced by the Pupil Premium
Funding Expanding Schools⢠Regulations allow a ringfenced âGrowth Fundâ
⢠Available to both maintained & academies; Primary & Secondary
⢠Proposed to continue to fundâ Permanently expanding schools
â Bulge classes
Immediate Next Steps
⢠Consultation closes 23 October
⢠Pro-forma submitted to EFA by 31 October
⢠Additional EYSFF & High Needs consultations
⢠October 2012 dataset available December - review
Budget Timetable 2013/14⢠Mid / late February 2013: publication of Primary & Secondary
formula allocations for 2013/14â no âindicative budget checkingâ for P & S formulae
â First draft EYSFF allocation published at the same time
⢠Mid / late March 2013 â publication of confirmed indicative EYSFF allocations
⢠See BSO for a more detailed timetable