Transcript Mainstream School Funding Reform Stage 2 Consultations 2014/15

Mainstream School Funding Reform
Stage 2 Consultations 2014/15
SAPH 21st November 09.20 to 10.20
at Swindon College
1
Today’s Agenda
1. Updates on 2014/15 (Steve)
2. 2014/15 Primary funding issues
(Steve / Gill / Gareth)
3. Trade Union Release time (Anne)
4. Prospects for 2015/16 funding (Steve)
2
Updates on 2014/15
• Pupil Premium
• Extension of FSM entitlement
• Changes to the scope of Swindon’s
DSG
• Post 16 update – implications for
primary funding
3
Pupil Premium Funding Rates
2013/14
2014/15
Service Children
£300
£TBC?
Looked After Children
£900
£1,900
Disadvantaged Children;
• Primary
• Secondary
£900
£900
£1,300
£935
(DfE committed to retaining the PP but no
more big annual stepped increases likely)
4
Free School Meals
• DfE’s Independent School Food Plan recommended
that government should extend FSM entitlement for
all primary school children
• Pilot 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
5
Free School Meals - Implications
• For pupils
– Increased attainment
– More children eating healthy foods
• For DfE - Increased FSM take up by
disadvantaged pupils who are already eligible
will result in increased Pupil Premium costs in
future years
• For LAs - Increased FSM take up will trigger
increased deprivation funding in local
formulas in future years
6
Free 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 costs
• Need 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
7
Changes 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 2014/15
• Good 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
8
Changes 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 DSG
• Good news as we have allocated £77,140 of
trigger funding in 2013/14 and £86,392 in
2014/15 and future years
• This has been a flip flop decision and is a
return to original DfE policy regarding SBC’s
financial commitments regarding Croft – TBC?
9
Post 16 High Needs Funding Update
• LA officers and Chair of Schools Forum met with EFA
and post 16 providers on 24th October
– National budget not yet confirmed
– 23rd December 2013 deadline for LA submission of
planned pre and post 16 high need places
– DSG High Needs Block funding for 2014/15 to be
confirmed in March
• For 2013/14 the full year gap between costs of meeting
new responsibilities and funding allocated = £1m
• Fortuitous use of 2 year old surplus (£1m) in 2013/14
enabled this gap to be covered but not repeatable
10
Post 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 £0.350m
• SBC strategy – other budgets cannot and should not
be reduced to meet a 2014/15 post 16 HN shortfall 11
Swindon’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 settled
• Still 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
levels
• Therefore 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
12
Primary Funding - Local policy and
formula issues
Issues to review;
1. Pupil Growth - Infrastructure set up costs
2. Pupil Growth - when to pay set up costs
3. Pupil Growth - Trigger Funding options
4. Deferred reception admissions
5. Low Prior Attainment increased eligibility
6. Sparsity Funding
13
Pupil Growth Requirements
• LAs must agree policies and values covering all pupil
growth payments which must apply equally to
schools and academies
• There is no DSG to cover these costs as DSG is
provided on a lagged basis – October 2012 PLASC
determined 2013/14 DSG
• All 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
14
Pupil Growth –
Infrastructure Set Up Costs
• Agreement reached (SAPH/SASH/SF) to provide oneoff infrastructure set up funding at £35,000 per 1FE
• Clarity sought on why only some expanding schools
were to receive this
• Floor area criteria withdrawn – revised proposal is to
pay this to all expanding schools
• Extra costs of £35,000 each for Even Swindon and
Orchid Vale supported by SASH – SAPH view?
15
Pupil 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 £175,000
• Option 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 schools
• Both schools are happy to receive the cash up front
but there is a risk that pupil numbers may not
materialise – SAPH view?
16
Pupil Growth Policy - Trigger Funding
• Schools Forum agreed a new policy for the
allocation of trigger funding prior to the start of
2013/14
• Expanding 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?
17
Pupil 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.
18
Pupil Growth Policy - Trigger Funding
• LA agreed to look at alternative models which
provided guaranteed funding to ensure at least a
“break even” position
• Estimates are that part year costs are;
– Teacher at M6
– TA 25 hrs (J)
– Full / part yr costs
£31,868 x 7/12 + 25% = £23,237
£8,103 x 7/12 + 25% = £5,908
£39,971 x 7/12 + 25% = £29,145
• This would require at least 19 pupils @ £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
pupils @ £2,645 x 7/12 = £33,400 - SAPH views?
19
Pupil Growth Policy - Trigger Funding
• The existing policy follows the overriding DfE
principle of pupil led funding and has been agreed by
the EFA
• Providing 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
20
Trigger 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.
21
Trigger 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?
22
Primary Mainstream Funding
• At the SAPH event we provided hand-outs which
showed SBC mainstream funding compared to
national and regional averages
• Further 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 repeated
– Lump sum, LPA, EAL, and deprivation funding
levels are appropriate
• No proposals to change any primary funding factors
for 2014/15 – SAPH view?
23
Low Prior Attainment Eligibility
• Some concern at SAPH that the changes to the LPA
measure would have significant implications
• DfE – “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.
24
DSG 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 available
• We 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 years
• No 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
25
DSG Spending Choices – SAPH view?
Item
Annual cost
Disadvantaged 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?
£150,000
Introduction 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?
£102,000
Introduction 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
£95,000
Cease 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!
£900,000
Introduce revised trigger funding policy with different cost
implications – previous slides
£???
26
Optional 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 2014. 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.”
27
Optional 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”.
28
Optional 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
unavoidable
• SASH do not support small Swindon Schools being
subsidised by all other schools
• This need not lead to closures but smaller schools
would need to radically review their staffing levels as
MFG protection gradually erodes – SAPH view?
29
Best use of DSG Balance?
30
New Primary Delegations?
• Still liaising with EFA to determine best options on
how the following services could/should be funded
– Nyland Campus Pathway Class (formerly PRU)
– Nyland Campus Therapeutic Provision (formerly
CAMHS)
– Mountford Manor SRP
• Current funding is direct from the LA via place plus
but this may need to change
• If 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
31
Trade Union Release Time Cost
Pooling
32
Trade Union Release Time
• Letter sent by Anne English explains the position
• All 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 arrangements
• Maintained schools (by sector) can elect for dedelegation (automatic pooling) or can individually pool
funding via a Traded Services agreement
• Academies must individually enter into a Traded
Services agreement
33
If 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 pupil
• One day per week release time costs £7,700 per year
34
Interest in new arrangements?
• SASH would be interested in seeing a draft
Service Level Agreement which covered a new
scheme - with options
• SAPH interest?
– Maintained schools?
– Academies?
35
DSG and school funding prospects
2015/16 onwards
36
DSG & 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 increase
• Government will consult on the introduction of a
national fair funding formula for schools in 2015/16
37
DSG & 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 Forum
• Hybrid 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 them
• LA 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) 38
DSG & School Funding Prospects
2015/16 onwards
• No reason to believe the lowest funded LAs now are
the most under funded
• The size of gains an losses across LAs / schools will
depend on
– The exact formula chosen (primary to secondary
funding ratios? Importance of early intervention?
include Pupil Premium? regional pay differences?)
– Time period over which it is implemented
• Institute 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%
39
DSG & 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 years
• DfE keen to establish what level of funding a school
could lose per year
• Indications are that that lower levels of MFG
protection than -1.5% per pupil will be available after
2014/15
40
DSG & 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”
41
End of Presentation
• We 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
possible
• Any residual questions?
• Any further information required?
42