Essex County Council
School Funding 2011-14
Consultation with Schools
Description of proposals and
questionnaire
September 2010
Page 2 of 20
Contents
Introduction................................................................................3
Overview of Changes on Schools Funding……………..…........5
Primary/Secondary/Special Funding Differences including
analysis of funding through Age Weighted Pupil Units..............6
Lump Sum Funding...................................................................8
AEN Local Pupil Premium.........................................................9
Funding Small Schools............................................................10
Teaching Cost Adjustment.......................................................12
Key Stage 1 Class Size Support..............................................13
Opening, Closing and Reorganising Schools (OCR)………….14
SEN Funding............................................................................14
Special School Place Funding.................................................14
Unchanged Factors……………………………………………….15
Consultation Questionnaire......................................................16
Page 3 of 20
Introduction
The Schools Forum undertook a review of the Funding Formula in 2007 and the changes
recommended were implemented in 2008 to cover the 2008-2011 government funding cycle.
Since the last review additional demands have been placed on schools, and staff and
governing bodies periodically raise issues about the appropriateness of current distribution
methodologies. The Local Authority also wished to consider how the schools formula might
support some of its main objectives, in particular the Every Child Matters agenda. A further
significant consideration is that the DFE launched a review into the way it would distribute
resources to LAs from 2011. For these reasons it was felt that a further review of the Essex
schools funding formula should be completed before the 2011-2014 funding cycle.
In undertaking the review the Schools Forum sought: “that the Essex Formula for Financing
Schools will enable each and every school to offer a quality of education to each and every
child, which meets their individual needs”.
In meeting the vision, the review would need to address the following factors:

An entitlement for all – the principle driver delivering resources into school budgets is
the Key Stage Funding Unit (or Age Weighted Pupil Unit) – the current formula ascribes
different weightings against Nursery and the various key stages.

Attainment – currently educational performance is represented within the formula by
reference to levels of success through the Key Stages. The emphasis has been on
those children whose educational outcomes need to improve.

Social deprivation – currently deprivation factors in the Essex Formula make reference
to the Income of Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI). The national IDACI
tables are used to map pupils (as recorded on school census) to their Lower Super
Output Area (LSOA) using their individual home postcodes. An average IDACI score
is calculated for each school reflecting overall social deprivation of pupils attending the
school.

Economic – a number of factors reflect upon a school’s geographic or demographic
circumstances, an example might be London Allowances.

Pupil differentiation – reflects the way in which the authority addresses the issues of
Special educational needs, and children looked after.

Pupil specific – reflects the way pupils move into, out of and within the County.

School differentiation – reflects on site and size issues.

School Circumstances – reflects upon funding requirements for opening, closing,
amalgamating and reorganising schools.
Meetings of the Schools, Children and Families Directorate Management Team and the
Schools Forum Formula Review Sub-Group produced specific areas for review and/or
issues which the review should take into account, which included:
Page 4 of 20
o
Special Schools
o
Timing of Key Stage 1 funding
o
Children and Young People’s Plan Outcomes – 5 strands from Every Child
Matters
o
Teaching Cost Adjustment
o
Federations and Leadership
o
Key Stage Funding (including Foundation stage)
o
Quality Factor (reference to the national scheme – DCSF website)
o
Vocational diplomas (use of baseline funding and then specific top ups)
o
Small schools
o
Impact of potential loss of SATs data as an attainment measure
o
Primary/Secondary funding differential
o
Private Funding Initiatives’ (under Building Schools for the Future)
o
Value for Money judgements
A Formula Review Working Group (FRWG) consisting of representatives of schools staffs
and governors was set up to receive and consider detailed proposals. The FRWG reported
to a Formula Review Steering Group (FRSG) which in turn informed the Schools Forum of
the main considerations and possible initiatives.
In addition, consultation meetings have been held with:

School staff and governors covering each of the four quadrants of the County;

The Essex Primary Heads Association (by quadrant);

The Association for Secondary Heads in Essex (by quadrant);

The Essex Special School Heads;

The Essex Governors Executive;

Network Consortium Managers;

The Directorate Leadership team.
As part of this final consultation exercise further meetings will be held for all school staff and
governors at four venues across the County, so that questions can be asked and comments
received.
Written comments on the proposals are requested by Friday 22 October 2010 at the latest,
and once all of these have been collated the FRWG and the FRSG will meet on November
16 and make recommendations to the Schools Forum meeting of 1 December and the
Cabinet Meeting of 7 December. This will enable any agreed changes to be implemented in
school budgets commencing 1 April 2011.
Page 5 of 20
1 Overview of Changes on School Funding
To be added after the working group meeting (once agreement on final recommendations in
relation to special schools and SEN funding).
Page 6 of 20
2 Consultation on the School Funding Formula 2011-14
Primary/Secondary Funding Differences including analysis of
funding through Age Weighted Pupil Units
An important area of the review of the schools formula has been the relative funding levels of
primary, secondary and special phases and whether the weightings between the key stages
(as well as the values) continue to be appropriate.
The relative levels of primary and secondary funding are based on detailed work undertaken
in 1999. This specified a target primary: secondary funding ratio of 1:1.36 and identified a
number of specific changes that would bring the funding ratio to that point. These changes
could not be implemented immediately because of the turbulence in funding levels that
would follow, but were made subsequently as and when overall funding levels permitted (see
Annex 1). Had no other changes to the relative levels of primary and secondary resource
requirements taken place since then, the 1:1.36 ratio would apply today.
However, since 1999 a number of significant changes to resource requirements have arisen,
some of which apply across all phases, some of which apply to one or other only, or to both
phases but to a different degree. The Authority has made a series of changes to funding
levels to reflect these specific changes with the result that the current primary:secondary
funding ratio is 1:1.31. In other words, there has been a significant shift in the ratio, to the
benefit of the primary sector, over the period since the ratio was first defined.
In addition, further work has been done to assess whether the AWPU values used for KS1-4
are consistent both with the different demands placed upon schools to deliver the curriculum
at each Key Stage, and with the equivalent ratios used in other comparable authorities.
An initial analysis of the AWPU against its statistical neighbours shows that the relative
weightings for Essex are not significantly different i.e. the relative values for each key stage
are consistent with the patterns seen in other similar authorities:
LA Statistical Neighbours
KS1
KS2
KS3
KS4
Essex
1.02
1
1.31
1.59
Kent
1.06
1
1.34
1.52
West Sussex
0.96
1
1.25
1.52
Hampshire
1.02
1
1.35
1.74
1
1
1.26
1.56
0.99
1
1.28
1.49
1
1
1.19
1.53
North Somerset
1.04
1
1.37
1.56
Warwickshire
1.01
1
1.33
1.43
Staffordshire
1
1
1.40
1.40
Leicestershire
0.98
1
1.38
1.66
Worcestershire
Bedfordshire
Swindon
Page 7 of 20
Analysis of the key stage values reflects current teaching and learning requirements in each
key stage also suggests that the differences between key stage funding are not inconsistent
with expectations:

Although average teacher salaries are not significantly different between the primary
and secondary phases, teacher-led class sizes are significantly smaller in secondary
schools, and this difference represents a 30-40% difference in teaching costs on a per
pupil basis.

Smaller class sizes in Key Stage 2 are generally driven by a higher number of teaching
assistants in primary settings – the cost of reducing class sizes through the use of
teaching assistants is not as significant as specialist subject teachers in secondary
schools.

The impact of management salaries (deputy headteacher, assistant headteacher,
subject leadership) is significantly higher on a per pupil basis in the secondary sector.

Secondary school AWPU values reflect the additional costs of specialist subject
teaching not included in primary AWPUs.

Primary AWPUs reflect only 76% of funding in primary schools (average across all
schools), compared with 81% for secondary schools i.e. there are several additional
funding streams in primary schools which impact on the value of the AWPU e.g. KS1
protection, small school protection, teaching cost adjustment.
It is therefore proposed that the current overall primary:secondary funding ratio is kept under
review as the changing expectations of the sectors are identified, and that the Key Stage
AWPU value remain unchanged (other than as a result of other changes implemented by
this review, such as the reduction in secondary lump sum values and the potential transition
of funding into SEN). The net impact of all these changes is shown in the table below:
AWPU Values
Current Formula
New Formula (with all
changes included)
With SEN
Element
Without SEN
Element
With SEN
Element
Without SEN
Element
KS1
£2,482
£2,407
£2,515
£2,405
KS2
£2,440
£2,367
£2,473
£2,365
KS3
£3,199
£3,135
£3,267
£3,169
KS4
£3,896
£3,818
£3,971
£3,860
Page 8 of 20
Lump Sum Funding
The purpose of the lump sum is to provide all schools, irrespective of size, with a
contribution to the basic costs of operating a school. In 2010/11 the lump sum is £70,260 for
primary schools and £327,592 for secondary schools. The consultation has shown that the
main issues relating to the lump sum are a lack of clarity over which elements of funding are
included in the lump sum and how it has been formulated, and for the primary sector in
particular, how the lump sum reflects issues relating to small schools, and how it relates to
other supplements for small schools.
It is therefore proposed that the lump sum will be recalculated to reflect those basic costs of
running a school which are not directly connected to pupil numbers. This will include
allocations for:

Headteacher

Management and Leadership

Administration and technical support (including ICT support)

Caretaking / grounds management

SENCO
On this basis the proposed lump sums are:
Lump Sum Element Contribution
Primary Lump
Sum Value
Secondary Lump
Sum Value
£43,453
£64,896
£5,776
£81,059
£16,462
£78,053
Caretaker
£8,346
£26,160
SENCO
£3,413
£17,063
Total
£77,448
£267,231
Headteacher
Leadership and management
Administration / technical support
This is a relatively small change for the primary lump sum, but a more significant change for
the secondary lump sum. The funding released by the secondary lump sum will be
redistributed within the overall secondary sector funding.
A full analysis of the lump sum proposal can be found in the paper ‘Lump Sum’ submitted to
the FRWG and held at [location reference].
Page 9 of 20
AEN/Local Pupil Premium
Schools receive additional funding to support children with additional educational needs.
Essex currently distributes this funding via a variety of mechanisms:

Deprivation measures – using a weighted IDACI score for each school based on the
home addresses of the pupils in the school.

Prior attainment – using a mix of prior attainment data for each Key Stage.

Other measures – some of the funding for AEN is distributed via specific measures
related to free school meals, practical learning, turbulence, MoD pupils, and looked
after children.
In addition, the Government is consulting on the implementation of a local pupil premium
which will provide additional funding for the most disadvantaged pupils and which will be
implemented in September 2011. This paper addresses only the current AEN funding.
The previous Government proposed changes in the way national AEN funding would be
distributed to local authorities as follows:
AEN Type
Distribution Indicator
%
Behaviour, Emotional and Social Interaction
Deprivation
13.3
Home Environment
Deprivation
36.2
Cognition and Learning
Underperforming Groups
24.6
Communication and Interaction
Flat Rate per Pupil
7.9
Sensory and Physical
Flat Rate per Pupil
2.2
English as Additional Language
EAL
13.5
Other
Flat Rate per Pupil
2.2
It also announced its intention to require local authorities to ‘passport’ the full level of AEN
funding to schools. The implication of this is that a higher proportion of total schools funding
in Essex will be allocated to AEN with corresponding reductions to other elements of the
funding, principally to AWPU values.
It is therefore proposed that the AEN funding methodology corresponds broadly to the
national methodology set out above (adjusted to reflect local Essex characteristics and
values), and that the transition to full ‘passporting’ takes place over the three-year period to
2013/14.
For the new formula:

All current mechanisms for AEN funding have been combined into the local pupil
premium (including free school meals, turbulence and KS4 practical learning) with the
exception of funding for MOD pupils, which will continue to be distributed using the
Page 10 of 20
current formula1. In 2010/11, the funding for distribution using the local pupil premium
would be approximately £46million.

The current split between funding for primary and secondary schools will be
maintained.

Schools will receive funding for each pupil who meets the agreed criteria and where
pupils meet more than one of the criteria, schools will receive funding for each criterion.
All children within each phase who meet a specific criterion receive the same funding
i.e. there is no additional weighting within each criterion.

Where SATs data will not be available to determine prior attainment levels, the
authority will consult with schools on which data will be used. The working group
supported the use of teacher assessments as an alternative to SATs in the first
instance.
The table below illustrates the proposed mechanism for distributing each of the funding
streams and the per pupil amounts that have been calculated:
Distribution Criteria
Source of
Information
Share of
Allocation
Primary
Amount
Per Pupil
Primary
Total
Amount
Distributed
Secondary
Amount
Per Pupil
Secondary
Total
Amount
Distributed
Deprivation – Pupils
living in IDACI deciles
1 and 2
PLASC – pupil
postcode
13.3%
£313.72
£3,003,883
£420.75
£3,138,410
Deprivation – Pupils
living in IDACI deciles
1 to 5
PLASC – pupil
postcode
36.2%
£187.08
£8,175,981
£248.74
£8,542,138
Underperforming
Groups – Pupils not
meeting criteria for
prior attainment
SAT results /
Teacher
Assessments
34.7%
£466.81
£7,842,844
£734.70
£8,194,081
English as an
Additional Language
EAL
Classifications
(used for
EMAS funding)
3.4%
£157.10
£762,263
£262.58
£796,401
Flat Rate Per Pupil
PLASC - pupil
count
12.4%
£27.43
£2,800,612
£37.28
£2,926,036
A full analysis of the AEN proposal can be found in the paper ‘Local Pupil Premium’
submitted to the FRWG and held at [location reference].
Funding Small Schools
The current formula has a number of small school protection factors including a flat rate
lump sum for each of the primary and secondary phases; an additional sum per pupil (£203)
1
Funding for MOD pupils is being considered in the current consultations for AEN funding by the DfE
and may be subject to national recommendations.
Page 11 of 20
for all primary schools of less than 210 pupils and £633 for all secondary schools of less
than 600 pupils; and compensation for higher than average teaching costs for all primary
schools with less than 300 pupils.
There are a significant number of small primary schools in Essex. The proportion of small
schools in the secondary sector is very much lower – there are only six secondary schools of
less than 600 pupils. Four of these are currently scheduled to close, with the implication that
the small schools issue will virtually be eliminated for the secondary phase. The small
schools proposal therefore relates only to small primary schools.
Essex’s funding of primary schools compares favourably with a selection of its statistical
neighbours. This remains true for most sizes of primary school. In over 70% of the
comparison points of schools of different sizes, Essex is the highest funding authority. For
the very smallest schools – 120 pupils or less – Essex is the highest funding authority in
every case, often by a very large margin. For schools of less than 150 pupils, Essex is the
highest funding authority at all but one comparison point, again with significant differences in
the funding levels.
Size of Primary
School
Essex
Kent
West
Sussex
Hampshire
Worcs
<=90
4,345
3,874
4,331
4,231
3,755
91 - 120
3,922
3,502
3,647
3,612
3,302
121 - 150
3,617
3,381
3,378
3,767
3,191
151- 180
3,379
3,281
3,420
3,425
3,081
181 - 210
3,286
2,982
3,083
3,234
3,095
211 - 240
3,118
2,968
3,116
3,148
3,318
241 - 270
3,105
3,251
3,111
3,019
3,388
271 - 300
3,156
3,104
3,143
2,871
2,908
300 - 330
2,920
2,991
3,168
2,833
2,898
>330
2,931
3,040
3,007
2,683
2,924
Total
3196
3109
3156
3094
3108
Analysis of the funding of authorities which might be expected to have significant levels of
small schools protection as a consequence of their extreme rurality (Northumberland,
Cumbria, Devon, Cornwall and North Yorkshire) suggests that even in these authorities, the
levels of funding targeted at small schools protection tend, with the exception of
Northumberland, to be lower than the equivalent funding in Essex.
It is proposed that Essex moves to a common definition of a small school based on
efficiency of class size, viz that a small school is any school of less than the equivalent
number to one form entry. A small school would therefore be an infant school of less than
90 pupils; a junior school of less than 120 pupils; or a primary school of less than 210 pupils.
We propose that the authority simplifies the forms of small school protection as follows:

All schools will continue to receive a lump sum which meets the unavoidable costs
associated with maintained school status – the increased value of the proposed lump
sum (see section above) will provide all small schools with additional support;
Page 12 of 20

Schools which are classified as small under the revised definitions will continue to be
eligible for the revised teaching cost adjustment (see section below); and

There will be a per pupil amount which reflects the additional teaching costs that small
schools typically incur – as outlined below.
It is proposed that the additional per pupil funding be based on the systemic, incremental
costs faced by small schools in relation to teaching the curriculum i.e. the higher teaching
costs which such schools tend to incur, and the smaller class sizes they are often required to
teach. The protection factor is calculated by looking at average teaching costs per pupil for
a range of different class sizes / school sizes and comparing this with the average teacher
costs for schools not classified as small.
The subsidy is allocated on a sliding scale, such that as the pupil numbers increase, the per
pupil subsidy and the total amount allocated to a school decreases i.e. an increase in the
number of pupils by one will result in a reduction in the amount per pupil allocated to each
school through the small schools factor.
The table below illustrates the value of the subsidy for small primary schools with a range of
different pupil numbers:
Pupil Numbers
Small School Subsidy
Amount Per Pupil
30
£25,803
£860.11
45
£20,689
£459.76
60
£17,475
£291.25
75
£15,908
£212.11
90
£11,967
£132.96
120
£7,645
£63.71
150
£6,371
£42.47
180
£3,823
£21.24
The subsidy would also apply to the three infant and two junior schools which continue to be
classified as small under the new definitions. However, for these schools, the tapering effect
of the subsidy would be to 90 pupils for infant schools and 120 pupils for junior schools to
prevent a ‘cliff edge’ in the funding i.e. as the number of pupils gets closer to these
boundaries, the value of the subsidy will taper to zero.
A full analysis of the small schools proposal can be found in the paper ‘Small Primary
Schools v5’ submitted to the FRWG and held at [location reference].
Teaching Cost Adjustment
The current teaching cost adjustment meets a proportion of the higher teacher costs incurred
by schools with less than 300 pupils. Where such schools have higher than average teacher
costs, they are compensated on a sliding scale which provides up to 90% of the difference
between the schools’ average cost, and the average across the primary phase. This is
Page 13 of 20
funded in part by clawing back funds from schools (of all sizes) with lower than average
teacher costs.
It is proposed that the teaching cost adjustment be self-funding and restricted to schools
which are classified as small under the new definitions of small schools outlined above (i.e.
that non-small schools are not required to contribute). It would operate as follows:

The average teaching cost for small schools (as defined above) would be calculated;

Schools from within the small schools group with higher than average teaching cost
would be compensated for a proportion of their higher costs by re-allocation of funds
from those schools within the group with lower than average costs;

The level of compensation would depend on the available funding i.e. the total salary
differential in the schools with lower than average costs;

Thus, if the value of the salary differential in the schools with lower than average costs
was £500k, and the value of the salary differential in the schools with higher than
average costs was £1m, the schools with higher than average costs would be
compensated for 50% of the difference (allowing for a tapering mechanism from
schools with 120 pupils to 210 pupils to avoid a cliff edge); and
For 2010/11, this would have resulted in contributions from 83 schools being used to
compensate the higher teaching costs of 106 schools, with the maximum allocation being
approximately £20,000.
Key Stage 1 Class Size Support
Class sizes in KS1 are restricted by statute to a maximum of 30. Additional funding – Key
Stage 1 Class Size Support – is therefore provided to schools whose actual KS1 numbers
exceed the KS1 class size multiples for which the school has been funded. Funding is
delivered as a proportion of the average teacher cost for primary schools (£37,957 in
2010/11). The funding is currently restricted to schools with more than 120 pupils on roll.
The principle of KS1 class size support is accepted. However, from the perspective of
schools there is a timing issue: funding is based on class size variation in the previous year.
Schools with KS1 class size issues therefore receive the compensatory funding in the
following year’s allocation, with the result that they can face difficult in-year budgetary
pressures. This retrospective methodology was a response to a previous approach through
which the funding was allocated on the basis of estimated numbers, allowing schools with
KS1 class sizes to benefit from the funding in the year in which the class size issue
occurred. However, these estimates invariably had the result of triggering the funding,
suggesting that the estimates were calculated to have that precise effect. Any change in the
current methodology should therefore address the schools’ timing issue, whilst recognising
the authority’s requirement to have adequate control of the process.
It is therefore proposed to withdraw KS1 support funding from the initial allocations, to hold
the funding in contingency, and to distribute it on the basis of actual pupil numbers as and
when schools demonstrate that their actual KS1 numbers trigger the requirement for
support. The schools would receive their funding in-year, and the authority would not be
exposed to funding on the basis of potentially inaccurate forecasts.
Page 14 of 20
It is proposed that the KS1 Class Size Support operates as follows:

Schools would be funded for a full year from the intake date on the basis of the January
PLASC, which would also be the basis for determining whether schools qualified for inyear support based on their January intake;

Any school which qualified for support based on the September intake, again based on
census returns, would also qualify for support, but only for the Autumn and Spring
terms since any further support required would be triggered by the January PLASC.
This approach would enable funding to be provided in-year. However, it would mean that
schools would be subject to a degree of uncertainty within their budget allocations at the
start of each financial year i.e. it would not be possible for the authority to finalise all
allocations for KS1 support until after the September census.
A full analysis of the KS1 Support proposal can be found in the paper ‘KS1 Class Support
v5’ submitted to the FRWG and held at [location reference].
Opening, Closing and Reorganising Schools (OCR)
It is proposed to extend the existing arrangements which support the O,C and R of Schools
to small rural schools which might wish to federate.
The recruitment and retention of headteachers in small (often rural) schools is difficult, and
as budgets become tighter through the next Comprehensive Spending Review period (201114) other education delivery models may offer improved Value for Money.
The Review has suggested that the formula should support the creation of “hard”
federations, which can deliver governance, leadership and administrative support across
groups of small rural schools.
It is proposed that the establishment of a “hard” federation of small schools (as defined
elsewhere) be supported through the delegated budget. Support will be offered where the
schools are more than one mile apart.
In essence, the proposal will offer an additional lump sum per two schools entering into a
“hard” federation agreement. The lump sum will be paid across the first year of the
federation’s existence to facilitate likely start-up costs.
Should the federation be disbanded within three years of its establishment, it is proposed
that this support be recovered.
SEN Funding
To be added after the working group meeting
Special Schools
To be added after the working group meeting
Page 15 of 20
Unchanged Factors
The review has focussed on those elements of the formula that have generated the greatest
level of concern through the consultation process, or those which are known to be affected
by external change. All of the high value elements of the formula have been covered. Some
elements of the formula have therefore not been changed. These are:

Rent/Rates

Sewage Treatment works

LSC

Post-16 Correction

Split-site

PFI – LA contribution

Special units (other than to propose further delegation from central funds)

London Weighting

Foundation/VA allocation
The review was also asked to consider the possibility of a quality factor. This was rejected
by the Formula Review Working Group and Formula Review Steering Group, and therefore
not taken further.
Page 16 of 20
Consultation Questionnaire: School Funding Formula
2011-14
How to respond to the consultation
Please answer all or some of the questions below in conjunction with the
descriptions above. You are welcome to add any further comments that you may
have. The responses will be collated and reported to the Schools Forum Formula
Review Steering Group in mid November 2010 and the Schools Forum in early
December and agreed changes will be incorporated into the school funding formula
for 2011 to 2014.
Please send your completed form by email or post to:
Rob Baxter
Finance Manager Schools
County Hall
Telephone 01245 436224
Email: [email protected]
This consultation closes on Friday 22th October 2010
Your name:
Your school:
Your position with the school: Head / Deputy / Bursar / Governor /
Other
Your contact details:
1. Primary/Secondary/Special Funding Differences
Given that the LA is given a fixed amount of money do you agree that the
overall funding allocations for primary, secondary and special schools are
about right?
Yes 
No 
No Opinion 
If no please indicate how you think changes should be made and
why:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 17 of 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Lump Sum Funding
Do you agree with the assumptions that have been made for the lump sum
proposals for primary, secondary and special schools?
Yes 
No 
No Opinion 
If no please indicate what you think is wrong and how the assumptions should
be changed:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. AEN Local Pupil Premium
a.
Do you agree with the proposed approach to AEN allocations
Yes 
No 
No Opinion 
If no please indicate how you think AEN should be addressed in the formula:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Funding Small Schools
a.
Do you agree with the revised definition of a ‘small’ school?
Yes 
No 
No Opinion 
If no please indicate how you would define small schools in Essex:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 18 of 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------b.
Do you agree with the revised small school protection factors?
Yes 
No 
No Opinion 
If no please indicate how you would define small schools in Essex:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------c.
Do you agree that the Teaching Cost Adjustment should be self
funding and limited to small schools (as defined in the small schools section)?
Yes 
No 
No Opinion 
If no please indicate whether you agree with the Teaching Cost Adjustment
and if so how you would deal with it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Key Stage 1 Class Size Support
Do you agree that KS1 Class Room support should be dealt with in-year and
as proposed?
Yes 
No 
If no please indicate how you would deal with it:
No Opinion 
Page 19 of 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Opening, Closing and Reorganising
Do you agree that support should be offered to small schools entering into
“hard” federations?
Yes 
No 
No Opinion 
If no please indicate how you would deal with it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. SEN Funding
[Question to be defined following Working Group]
Yes 
No 
No Opinion 
If no please indicate how you would distribute such funding:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 20 of 20
8. Special School Funding
[Question to be defined following Working Group]
Yes 
No 
No Opinion 
If no please indicate how you would deal with it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Other Comments
Do you have any other comments you wish to make about the school funding
formula? If so please use the space below – continuing on a separate sheet if
necessary.
Comment:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for contributing to this consultation.