Presentation on theme: "Mainstream School Funding Reform Stage 2 Consultations 2014/15"— Presentation transcript:
1Mainstream School Funding Reform Stage 2 Consultations 2014/15 SAPH 21st November to at Swindon College
2Today’s Agenda Updates on 2014/15 (Steve) 2014/15 Primary funding issues (Steve / Gill / Gareth)Trade Union Release time (Anne)Prospects for 2015/16 funding (Steve)
3Updates on 2014/15Pupil PremiumExtension of FSM entitlementChanges to the scope of Swindon’s DSGPost 16 update – implications for primary funding
4Pupil Premium Funding Rates 2013/14Service Children £300Looked After Children £900Disadvantaged Children;Primary £900Secondary £900(DfE committed to retaining the PP but no more big annual stepped increases likely)2014/15 £TBC? £1,900 £1,300 £935
5Free School MealsDfE’s Independent School Food Plan recommended that government should extend FSM entitlement for all primary school childrenPilot projects introduced in 2 LA’S (2009 and 2011)17th Sept announcement that every child in reception, year 1 and year 2 in state funded schools and disadvantaged young people in colleges will receive a free school lunch from September 2014£600m funding announced – details to follow later this year
6Free School Meals - Implications For pupilsIncreased attainmentMore children eating healthy foodsFor DfE - Increased FSM take up by disadvantaged pupils who are already eligible will result in increased Pupil Premium costs in future yearsFor LAs - Increased FSM take up will trigger increased deprivation funding in local formulas in future years
7Free School Meals - Implications Unclear whether the additional £600m will be allocated as part of DSG (not really an education issue) or whether it will be used for capital and/or revenue costsNeed to get cash to schools to cover the costs of additional meals – unclear who, how or when?May also need to allocate cash for kitchen & dining room extensions, cookers, dishwashers, furniture, cutlery etc. – unclear process could be via DFC?Pilot LAs undertook kitchen audits across all their primary schools & allocated funds accordingly
8Changes to scope of Swindon’s DSG responsibilities – Swindon Academy DfE are removing “part recoupment” academy arrangements – this means SBC will calculate a full funding allocation for Swindon Academy from 2014/15Good news? - providing we receive additional DSG to at least match the additional costs to the local formula but method of calculation is unclear – part recoupment issues have caused problems for us and the Academy
9Changes to scope of Swindon’s DSG responsibilities - Croft Croft school will not be treated as a basic need academy and will be funded entirely outside Swindon’s DSGGood news as we have allocated £77,140 of trigger funding in 2013/14 and £86,392 in 2014/15 and future yearsThis has been a flip flop decision and is a return to original DfE policy regarding SBC’s financial commitments regarding Croft – TBC?
10Post 16 High Needs Funding Update LA officers and Chair of Schools Forum met with EFA and post 16 providers on 24th OctoberNational budget not yet confirmed23rd December 2013 deadline for LA submission of planned pre and post 16 high need placesDSG High Needs Block funding for 2014/15 to be confirmed in MarchFor 2013/14 the full year gap between costs of meeting new responsibilities and funding allocated = £1mFortuitous use of 2 year old surplus (£1m) in 2013/14 enabled this gap to be covered but not repeatable
11Post 16 High Needs Funding Update FE providers feel they have HN students which the LA will not recognise for funding (EFA support LA stance)Historic funding paid by EFA to Swindon College (£17k) is the main issue as the cash shortfall is mainly due to the introduction of a national formula (£12k).We also have levels of demand above our capped learner numbers in 2013/14.EFA say door is open for LAs to submit bids for special cases – we asked for £1m this year and received only £0.350mSBC strategy – other budgets cannot and should not be reduced to meet a 2014/15 post 16 HN shortfall
12Swindon’s DSG position 2014/15 Still uncertainty over the value of DSG HN block nationally and LAs won’t know their funding until the end of March – two months after mainstream funding must be settledStill anticipating a shortfall in high needs funding (pre and post 16) but LA strategy is to plan that next years HN costs must be contained within current funding levelsTherefore early years & mainstream funding should not need to be reduced – more confident that the primary £54.77 BPPE increase can be repeated for one more year in 2014/15
13Primary Funding - Local policy and formula issues Issues to review;Pupil Growth - Infrastructure set up costsPupil Growth - when to pay set up costsPupil Growth - Trigger Funding optionsDeferred reception admissionsLow Prior Attainment increased eligibilitySparsity Funding
14Pupil Growth Requirements LAs must agree policies and values covering all pupil growth payments which must apply equally to schools and academiesThere is no DSG to cover these costs as DSG is provided on a lagged basis – October 2012 PLASC determined 2013/14 DSGAll pupil growth payments are therefore funded by top slicing school budgets i.e. every school/academy foregoes some funding to create the Pupil Growth Fund
15Pupil Growth – Infrastructure Set Up Costs Agreement reached (SAPH/SASH/SF) to provide one-off infrastructure set up funding at £35,000 per 1FEClarity sought on why only some expanding schools were to receive thisFloor area criteria withdrawn – revised proposal is to pay this to all expanding schoolsExtra costs of £35,000 each for Even Swindon and Orchid Vale supported by SASH – SAPH view?
16Pupil Growth – when to pay set up costs? Hand-out A shows projected set up costs based on current planned expansions – including Even Swindon (ES) & Orchid Vale (OV)will require a 2014/15 budget increase from £105,000 to £175,000Option available to pay in advance from the existing DSG balance to ease pressure on future years (similar approach taken with Croft and Haydonleigh) so more DSG can be made available for schoolsBoth schools are happy to receive the cash up front but there is a risk that pupil numbers may not materialise – SAPH view?
17Pupil Growth Policy - Trigger Funding Schools Forum agreed a new policy for the allocation of trigger funding prior to the start of 2013/14Expanding schools only (we previously also funded general pupil growth above 4%)Expanding classes only (we previously funded net pupil increases across the whole school)However concerns raised at Schools Forum that where pupil intakes are lower than forecast an expanding school may have additional staffing and operating costs which exceed the funding allocated – are other options possible?
18Pupil Growth Policy - Trigger Funding The DfE has confirmed that any policy change supported by SAPH & SASH and agreed by Schools Forum and confirmed as being within the school finance regulations by EFA can be applied to 2014/15 and retrospectively to 2013/14.In general LA pupil forecasts have been reliable but in the current year actual pupil expansion increases were lower than expected in some schools.
19Pupil Growth Policy - Trigger Funding LA agreed to look at alternative models which provided guaranteed funding to ensure at least a “break even” positionEstimates are that part year costs are;Teacher at M £31,868 x 7/ % = £23,237TA 25 hrs (J) £8,103 x 7/ % = £5,908Full / part yr costs £39,971 x 7/ % = £29,145This would require at least 19 £2,645 x 7/12 BPPE = £29,300 to provide sufficient funding.To also provide a contribution to curriculum resources the LA propose a break even position of 21 £2,645 x 7/12 = £33,400 - SAPH views?
20Pupil Growth Policy - Trigger Funding The existing policy follows the overriding DfE principle of pupil led funding and has been agreed by the EFAProviding guaranteed levels of funding to ensure additional costs are met seems sensible and fair but will cost more – should we therefore provide this level of funding to all expanding schools so that no one gains?Should we allocate funding based on the higher of actual pupil numbers or a minimum of 21 pupils?Trigger funding typically costs approx. £700k per year
21Trigger Funding (TF) Options Option 1 – reception pupils only. Allocate 7/12 BPPE based on the actual number of pupils in the reception class only.Option 2 – expanded classes. Allocate 7/12 BPPE based on the actual number of pupils in the relevant expanded form of entry (this is current policy).2 (a) As above with a 21 pupil protection applying to the reception class only.2 (b) As above with a 21 pupil protection in all expanded forms of entry.Option 5 – Allocate TF based on the higher of Option 1 or 2 so that expanding classes can attract no less than part year funding for 21 pupils.Option 6 - Should the above be reduced in any way for new schools opening in all year groups, but have smaller actual numbers in year groups that allow for mixed classes reducing the requirement for a 21 pupil per class protection.
22Trigger Funding (TF) Options Which of the options would SAPH prefer?If a new policy / formula is to be implemented should this be effective from 2014/15 or should it also be retrospectively applied in the current year – SAPH view?
23Primary Mainstream Funding At the SAPH event we provided hand-outs which showed SBC mainstream funding compared to national and regional averagesFurther analysis was presented to October Schools Forum (see Hand-out B) and LA conclusions re primary sector are;Evidence that the 2013/14 primary BPPE increase was appropriate and should be repeatedLump sum, LPA, EAL, and deprivation funding levels are appropriateNo proposals to change any primary funding factors for 2014/15 – SAPH view?
24Low Prior Attainment Eligibility Some concern at SAPH that the changes to the LPA measure would have significant implicationsDfE – “EYSFP is to be retained for primary LPA (years 2 to 5) but for the cohort moving into KS1 a pupil will qualify where they have not achieved the expected level of development in all 12 prime areas of learning as well as maths and literacy”We don’t have the data yet but this can only have a very gradual impact over the next few years as more cohorts are identified for LPA via the new measure.
25DSG Spending Choices?Given uncertainty over DSG funding levels the LA has tried to identify all optional spend that could more easily be curtailed in order to set overall 2014/15 budgets within the funding availableWe still have a DSG balance of at least £1.16m carried forward from 2012/13 but this is only one-off funding which can’t be locked in to formulas for future yearsNo shortage of pressure in the system particularly high needs where funding may be frozen regardless of increasing SEN pupils – therefore lower funding per pupil in Special Schools & SRP’s expected
26DSG Spending Choices – SAPH view? ItemAnnual costDisadvantaged 2 year old nursery funding – do not pay the 40p per hour retrospective supplement on top of the £4.95 hourly rate to any early years providers – SAPH view?£150,000Introduction of deferred reception uplift funding to provide BPPE and other pupil led funding for primary schools where reception numbers in January are higher than October (the base PLASC for annual funding) – approx. 30 pupils in 18 schools – SAPH View?£102,000Introduction of optional sparsity factor – further reconsideration requested by SASH in light of Schools Minister comments implying this was not envisaged for urban LAs such as Swindon – see next slide£95,000Cease or reduce the primary BPPE enhancement of £54.77 per pupil introduced in 2013/14 (funded from the DSG balance) based on regional benchmarking – SAPH view very clear!£900,000Introduce revised trigger funding policy with different cost implications – previous slides£???
27Optional Sparsity Factor Extract from 4th June 2013 letter from David Laws MP describing the introduction of a sparsity factor“The most significant change I will be introducing is a new optional sparsity factor for The review has demonstrated strong support for this from rural authorities as it will enable authorities to target additional funding to small rural schools. We will be providing local areas with a number of flexibilities in how they use the sparsity factor so that it can best meet local circumstances.”
28Optional Sparsity Factor Extract from 29th October 2013 F40 meeting with David Laws MP“MJ asked if the DfE thought sparsity and rurality were the same or different things. DL suggested that sparsity is intended to protect schools when closure would require pupils to travel long, unreasonable distances. Just being rural in itself doesn’t signify sparsity. Many rural schools can demonstrate that they are successful year after year without relying on sparsity funding. TL said that sparsity is a form of “compensation for schools that cannot otherwise achieve economies of scale”.
29Optional Sparsity Factor View from SASH is that this factor is not being introduced by DfE to enable LAs to re create small schools protection – this is aimed at schools in areas such as Cumbria, Northumberland etc. where demographics make small schools uneconomic but unavoidableSASH do not support small Swindon Schools being subsidised by all other schoolsThis need not lead to closures but smaller schools would need to radically review their staffing levels as MFG protection gradually erodes – SAPH view?
31New Primary Delegations? Still liaising with EFA to determine best options on how the following services could/should be fundedNyland Campus Pathway Class (formerly PRU)Nyland Campus Therapeutic Provision (formerly CAMHS)Mountford Manor SRPCurrent funding is direct from the LA via place plus but this may need to changeIf schools are required to pay top ups then LA will delegate extra cash via BPPE increase but new admin arrangements would need to be established
33Trade Union Release Time Letter sent by Anne English explains the positionAll central funding (£23,000) has been delegated in 2013/14 but Schools Forum agreed that the LA could continue to fund existing release arrangements from the DSG balance this year only.New pooling funding arrangements are needed from 1st April 2014 or individual schools and academies can make local arrangementsMaintained schools (by sector) can elect for de-delegation (automatic pooling) or can individually pool funding via a Traded Services agreementAcademies must individually enter into a Traded Services agreement
34If a new arrangement is required; Which unions should be included and what level of of release time should be funded?Which schools and/or Academies wish to join the scheme and pool funding?De-delegate funding (i.e. If all maintained secondary or all primary schools agree) otherwise must set up individual traded services charges.If all settings (28,000 pupils) bought in at current costs of £23,000 (which funds 3 days per week) = a charge of 0.82p per pupilOne day per week release time costs £7,700 per year
35Interest in new arrangements? SASH would be interested in seeing a draft Service Level Agreement which covered a new scheme - with optionsSAPH interest?Maintained schools?Academies?
36DSG and school funding prospects 2015/16 onwards
37DSG & School Funding Prospects 2015/16 onwards “DSG for reception to year 11 will grow at more than flat cash nationwide”Unclear whether this meant inflationary increases would be applied as it could just mean the overall cash value is rising due to extra pupils“Pupil Premium will grow in real terms”Speaker then said “in line with inflation” which suggests this is not a real terns increaseGovernment will consult on the introduction of a national fair funding formula for schools in 2015/16
38DSG & School Funding Prospects 2015/16 onwards School Level Formula - DfE decide individual school level budgets which LAs just passport through without any role for DCS or Schools ForumHybrid Formula - DfE allocate DSG to LAs based on a formula derived from individual school budgets but with an expectation that the DCS & Schools Forums will still have scope to revise themLA Level Formula - DfE allocate DSG to LAs via a new formula leaving DCS & Schools Forums to set school budgets within the finance regulations (unclear whether the schools block would be ring fenced)
39DSG & School Funding Prospects 2015/16 onwards No reason to believe the lowest funded LAs now are the most under fundedThe size of gains an losses across LAs / schools will depend onThe exact formula chosen (primary to secondary funding ratios? Importance of early intervention? include Pupil Premium? regional pay differences?)Time period over which it is implementedInstitute of Fiscal Studies modelled a “low disruption” option and 1 in 6 schools would lose at least 10% whilst 1 in 6 would gain at least 10%
40DSG & School Funding Prospects 2015/16 onwards MFG will continue – “ministers very alive to avoid excessive turbulence” – but DfE want changes sooner rather than later and don’t want to lock funding in via MFG for yearsDfE keen to establish what level of funding a school could lose per yearIndications are that that lower levels of MFG protection than -1.5% per pupil will be available after 2014/15
41DSG & School Funding Prospects 2015/16 onwards “Plotting spend per pupil against attainment shows very different results are achieved by schools which spend the same and higher spending does not correlate to higher achievement – reform needed”“DfE to introduce a simple indicator of overall school efficiency for schools to compare their effectiveness”“Aim to strengthen governor’s role in driving financial efficiency”“DfE to remove unnecessary restrictions that constrain workforce decisions”
42End of PresentationWe will finalise 2014/15 mainstream funding allocations reflecting October 2013 PLASC and the agreed formula values and will issue indicative budgets as soon after Christmas as possibleAny residual questions?Any further information required?