1. The Local Authority Perspective
Councillor Gordon Jones Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Education and Skills Suffolk County Council

2. Content Impact of the NFF on Suffolk
Impact of the NFF on schools in Suffolk
Other DSG funding – High Needs and Early Years
Home to School Transport
Conclusion

3. The impact of the NFF on Suffolk
Historically a low funded authority
106/150 lowest schools block unit of funding
3.9% lower funding compared with the average for England
£9.2m (2.4%) increase in Schools Block from to
Fully implemented NFF
Suffolk increase of 4.7% from baseline
Average increase for England 3.6%
Average increase for inner/outer London 2.4%
Average increase for England excl. inner/outer London 4.0%

4. NFF League Tables 2018-19 Primary
113/150 lowest schools block primary unit of funding
5.4% lower funding compared with the average for England
£217 per pupil less than the national average
Secondary
115/150 lowest schools block secondary unit of funding
5.8% lower funding compared with the average for England
£301 per pupil less than the national average

5. Suffolk’s statistical neighbours 2018-19 SBUF Primary schools (£/pupil)

6. Suffolk’s statistical neighbours 2018-19 SBUF Secondary schools (£/pupil)

7. Suffolk’s statistical neighbours 2018-19 Central School Services Block (£/pupil)

8. Suffolk’s statistical neighbours Area cost adjustment values

9. Is the NFF a fair methodology to allocate funding to LAs?
The objective of a National Funding Formula is undermined because there is a high level of inbuilt protection of the current inherent unfair funding levels
The area cost adjustment provides too much protection and maintains the significant variance in funding between local authorities
For local authorities which have a very low area cost adjustment, the NFF embeds the inability to pay more competitive salaries and negatively impacts on the ability to recruit and retain good quality staff.

10. The impact of the NFF on Suffolk schools
Suffolk has implemented the NFF in
Fully supported by Schools Forum
Applied a -1.5% MFG
Gains have been scaled back by 23%
Schools furthest from their NFF funding move towards it more quickly

11. Change in average per pupil funding from 2017-18 to 2018-19 for each Suffolk school

12. Winners and Losers in 2018-19 Some schools gain significantly
But not all schools gain
82 Primary schools lose funding (18 schools > -3%)
2 Secondary school loses funding
Trend - small rural schools lose funding

13. The funding factors that have changed most for Suffolk schools
An additional £5.0m has been redistributed through the deprivation factor as the NFF allocates deprivation using both the Free School Meal measures i.e. current FSM and Ever6 FSM rather than only the current FSM measure
Prior attainment unit values have increased so that an additional £5.5m is allocated through this factor
The reduction in the lump sum means that there is a reduction of £1.0m allocated via the lump sum factor
The lump sum used for sparsity has also reduced leading to a reduction of £1.3m allocated through the sparsity factor.

14. Deprivation
The most influential funding factor in the redistribution of funding in Suffolk schools
Schools that previously had low levels of deprivation but have Ever6 FSM pupils have gained funding through the NFF
But
schools in deprived areas have lost funding due to the significant reduction in unit values across the IDACI bands. Particularly significant impact on large schools with a high level of deprivation.

15. Comparison of funding via the deprivation factor

16. Is the NFF a fair methodology to allocate funding to schools?
In Suffolk, schools with the following characteristics are disadvantaged by the NFF :
schools in deprived areas
small schools
rural schools
Suffolk is a rural county with a number of small schools, some of which are geographically remote. There are also significant pockets of deprivation.

17. The impact of the NFF on Suffolk schools funding compared to the baseline when implemented in full

18. Do Suffolk schools benefit from the NFF?
Based on the indicative figures provided by the DfE, when the NFF is
fully implemented :
10 schools in Suffolk will receive a funding increase of 10.0% or more
71 schools in Suffolk will receive a funding increase of 2% or less
Average gain in funding for Suffolk schools is 4.6% (above the national average gain of 3.6%)
BUT
the per pupil funding rates remain low and Suffolk’s relative funding position compared with other LA actually deteriorates.

19. Summary of the impact on Suffolk of the NFF
Increase in funding as a result of the NFF and the average percentage increase is higher than the national average but despite this, the relative per pupil funding in Suffolk remains below the national average.
Fall from being in the lowest third to being in the bottom quarter of pupil funding rates compared with other LAs.
Approximately half of Suffolk schools will receive NFF increases of around 5% or less which will not address the cost of living pressures that schools have had to accommodate over recent years. The financial implications of the NFF for some schools will be even more challenging and there is a real concern that some schools may become financially unstainable.

20. Other DSG funding High Needs Funding
SCC fairs better – gains 5.8% to & 9.5% if fully implemented – enough to meet demand ?
Historic budgets embedded in formula
Long period of implementation will reduce ability to make step changes
£10k place funding not changed for specialist provision
Early Years National Funding Formula
very low hourly rate £4.30
significant reduction in funding
real concern regarding long term impact
HN & EY are integral to support schools - there is an inextricable link.

21. Home to School Transport

22. Conclusion
The NFF is not an equitable basis to allocate funds either at :
LA level or
individual school level
The redistribution of schools block funding does not sufficiently address the inequality in the variation in funding across the country
The impact on schools of the funding levels of HN and EY can not be overestimated and should not be considered in isolation
The complexity and cost of H2S transport in a rural county is a significant challenge.
Unfair funding in education impacts negatively on childrens’ services increasing demand and costs

23. Next steps
SCC recognises and supports schools, EY and HN providers who face ongoing significant funding challenges
Continue to implement the NFF locally ahead of the DfE required timescales so that schools have a longer transition period
Actively support the F40 group to achieve objective of fairer funding