Schools’
Funding
Consultation
Proposals for Changes in 2017/18
For the attention of:
The Headteacher & Chair of Governors
Please respond by 4 October 2016
to ensure views can be taken into account
Contents
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS CONSULTATION
A
1
INTRODUCTION
Government Funding
3
The Surrey Schools Funding Formula
4
High Needs funding (SEND)
5
The Decision Making Process
5
Adjustments to the funding formula to match 2017/18 grant
allocations
6
B
PROPOSED SAVINGS IN HIGH NEEDS SEND FUNDING
7
C
PROPOSALS FOR MINOR CHANGES TO THE SCHOOLS’
FUNDING FORMULA
1.
2.
3.
Redistribution of DSG Sixth Form Funding
Delegation of School Improvement funding
Redistribution of Surplus Contingency to Primary Schools
11
15
19
D
DE-DELEGATION OF FUNDING
21
E
DEVOLVED FUNDING OF CONFEDERATIONS &
PARTNERSHIPS
23
ANNEXES
Annex 1
Surrey’s current formula factors 2016/17
25
Annex 2
Minimum funding guarantee and ceiling
27
Annex 3
High Needs budgets 2016/17
29
Annex 4
Equality Impact Assessment requirements
31
Annex 5
Redistribution of DSG Sixth Form Funding
Annex 6
(proposal C1) impact
33
Proposed continued de-delegation proposals
35
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
37
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS CONSULTATION
Schools are asked to respond to this consultation by 8pm on Tuesday 4
October 2016. Please note that due to the large volume of responses we
receive on or near the deadline, and the need to analyse and summarise these
for Schools Forum on 7 October, responses received after the deadline are
unlikely to be incorporated into the report. Please respond to the address or
email contacts below.
Schools Funding Team
Surrey County Council
Room G37, County Hall
Penrhyn Road,
Kingston-upon-Thames KT1 2DN
or by email to:
[email protected]
Schools should feel free to comment on some or all proposals, as they feel
appropriate.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO BE PROVIDED TO SCHOOLS
1
ADVICE
FOR INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOLS
To aid understanding
of the changes
proposed in this paper, individual
primary and secondary maintained schools, academies and free schools
will be provided with illustrations showing the estimated funding which they
would receive in 2017/18 on the basis of the formula funding proposals in
this report, if pupil numbers and other data were unchanged from 2016/17.
These will be based on DfE data taken from the October 2015 census.
Schools are warned that actual funding for 2017/18 will be based on the
October 2016 pupil census and year on year changes in data may have a
significant impact. Therefore, in responding to this consultation, schools are
advised to concentrate on the principles rather than simply on the
illustrative cash changes.
We expect to provide these illustrations by secure email during September.
For maintained schools we will use the email addresses which we used for
the 2016/17 budget letters unless we are advised otherwise. 1 For
academies and free schools we will use the latest email addresses we
have.
1
Please advise any change of email address to [email protected] In particular,
we recommend that academies and free schools advise us of a current email address.
1
Academies and free schools
We do not have information on the actual minimum funding guarantees and
ceilings applied by the Education Funding Agency to academies in 2016/17.
Therefore we have assumed in the illustrations that every academy’s minimum
funding guarantee and ceiling is the same as it would have received as a
maintained school, unless otherwise advised by the academy. We are happy to
adapt illustrations to include actual minimum funding guarantees and ceilings for
academies if they supply the necessary data. Please also note that most of the
proposed changes will only affect them from 1 September 2017 (not April).
Schools affected by these proposals
The proposals in sections C, D and E do not directly affect nursery schools,
special schools, pupil referral units or SEN centres. However, the proposals in
section B affect all schools. Therefore all schools, irrespective of sector, are
urged to respond.
Early years funding
On August 11 the DfE published a consultation on future arrangements for the
early years block and the funding of nursery providers. That consultation closes
on 22 September 2016. We will consult separately on changes to Surrey's single
early years funding formula resulting from the changes proposed by the DfE.
Further Details & Any Questions
This Consultation Paper is intended to communicate the main principles of the
proposed changes. Additional details and Frequently Asked Questions will be
available on the Surrey webpage entitled “Schools Funding Consultation for
2017/18”. (Access to this web site is via: www.surreycc.gov.uk/schools and
learning then tab to ‘Teachers & Education staff’, followed by ‘School finance”
then “school budgets and funding’). This paper and the consultation pro forma
will also be available on the web pages.
Email is the preferred method by which questions should be raised as this
facilitates swifter responses. Contact details for senior accountants in the local
authority’s Schools’ Funding team are as follows:
Lynn McGrady
David Green
[email protected]
[email protected]
2
020 8541 9212
020 8541 8010
A
Introduction
___________________________________
This consultation paper seeks schools’ views. This chapter provides
background information, setting out the context behind the proposed changes.
1.
GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Schools are funded by the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) provided to the
council by the Department for Education (DfE). It funds three categories of
educational provision:

Schools
£591m
This ‘block’ funds primary and secondary schools including those that
have converted to academy status. Funding is allocated to schools on
the basis of a formula consulted upon annually with schools and
approved by the County Council. This block also funds growing schools,
school confederations and the admissions service.

High Needs
£125m
The High Needs block caters principally for pupils with special
educational needs and disabilities (SEND). It provides funding to all
schools (including maintained primary and secondary schools and
academies) to support pupils with SEN statements/Education Health
Care Plans. The High Needs block also funds special schools, SEN
centres in mainstream schools, pupil referral units (PRUs), additional
support to post 16 learners with SEN in colleges and the provision of
education to those pupils with complex or severe special educational
needs requiring support in a non-maintained or independent special
school.

Early Years
£49m
The Early Years block funds nursery education for 2-4 year olds in
maintained schools, maintained nurseries, academies and private,
voluntary and independent (PVI) settings.
The DSG received by the council is a ring-fenced grant and can only be used to
fund the services set out above. However, the DfE expects local authorities to
move funding between blocks where that is necessary in order to manage
budget pressures. In 2016/17, the council used £11.65m of Schools Block
funding to support the high needs block, where the increased level of demand in
recent years has exceeded the small year on year increase in funding provided
3
by the DfE. The council is therefore consulting on potential savings in SEND
budgets in this consultation.
2.
THE SURREY SCHOOLS FUNDING FORMULA
The Government funds the local authority for its schools through the Dedicated
Schools Grant (DSG). The council then allocates funding to individual schools
on the basis of a formula which is determined locally, within government
parameters. Annex 1 details the current funding formula for 2016/17, which
provides a basic entitlement to every pupil – varying with age – and further top
ups to schools to recognise levels of social deprivation and low prior attainment
etc.
National Funding Formula
The Government intends to introduce a school level National Funding Formula
(NFF) to replace the various local formulae determined by local authorities. In
March 2016 the DfE consulted on the introduction of the NFF from April 2019
with transitional arrangements during 2017/18. However this has recently been
deferred.
The original timetable assumed that during 2017/18 and 2018/19 provisional
funding figures for each school - calculated on the new NFF basis –would be
made available to local authorities (LAs), along with the total funding for schools
in their area. Each LA would then re-work their individual funding formula to
manage the transition to the NFF for schools over a two year period.
However in July 2016, following changes at Ministerial level, the DfE announced
the deferral of the process for a year and local authorities therefore retain the
freedom to determine their own funding formula for 2017/18. The timing of this
announcement in late July removed any opportunities for the council and its
Schools Forum to develop new proposals. Furthermore, there are concerns
regarding making large scale changes to the funding of individual schools that
could be overturned by NFF proposals. Accordingly the council is proposing no
significant changes to the schools’ funding formula in 2017/18. Only minor
changes are now proposed – largely arising from changes in DfE regulations, as
set out in Section C.
In particular, the LA proposes not to change the secondary :primary funding
ratios. We recognise that some strong views are held about this issue, but as
the current 1.296:1 secondary :primary ratio in Surrey is very close to the
national median, any local changes might well be reversed in a forthcoming
national formula, causing undesirable turbulence at school level.
4
3.
HIGH NEEDS FUNDING (SEND)
As part of its review of the High Needs block within the Dedicated Schools
Grant, the DfE is proposing to introduce a new formula-based mechanism to
fund local authorities for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).
Details are still awaited but are expected to reduce the funding available to
Surrey - as a comparatively high spender in an area of the country with relatively
low deprivation and needs. Accordingly the council is developing with its
partners, a longer term strategy for SEND provision and is seeking immediate
savings in 2017/18.
Planned savings of £14m are already identified in respect of expenditure in the
High Needs Block, with a further £10m funding gap anticipated in 2017/18.
Section B outlines savings proposals totalling £5m developed following
partnership events during the summer and seeks suggestions for a further £5m
to address the potential funding gap.
The county council’s wider funding has reduced considerably which, coupled
with a council tax cap, has meant Surrey County Council has had to realise
£330m savings over the past five years to meet increasing demands for local
services and will require additional savings of around £360m from a total budget
of £1,690m over the next five years.
4
THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS
Surrey, in common with all local authorities, must maintain a Schools Forum.
The Forum has a total membership of 32, comprising elected headteachers,
governors, representatives of academies, teaching associations, early years
providers, special educational needs and post 16 education providers. The
Forum has a largely consultative role but has decision making powers in relation
to de-delegation proposals.
Schools’ views arising from this consultation will be presented to the Schools
Forum on 7 October 2016 and will inform its recommendations to the Surrey
County Council Cabinet. The Cabinet will consider schools’ responses to this
consultation and the Schools Forum’s recommendations alongside their
statutory duties (including equalities duties) and make final decisions on 22
November 2016.
5
5
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FUNDING FORMULA TO MATCH 2017/18
GRANT ALLOCATIONS
Schools’ budgets for 2017/18 will be based largely on October 2016 pupil
numbers and characteristics. This data will be made available by the DfE in
December 2016. The funding rates in the funding formula must then be updated
in order to ensure the formula is affordable with the available funding. For
example:


The proportion of pupils on free school meals, and the proportion of
pupils who are funded as low attainers, may change considerably from
one year to the next. An increase in either will increase costs.
The number of additional classes needed to support pupil number growth
from September 2017 may be higher than that needed in September
2016, thus requiring an increase in the growing schools fund.
Therefore, where adjustments to funding rates are necessary once December
2016 data is known, we propose to:


Adjust deprivation funding rates so that deprivation funding remains at
7.79% of total formula funding (as proposed and supported by schools in
2016/17);
Make all other necessary adjustments to basic entitlement (per pupil)
funding only, in such a way that the ratio of secondary to primary average
funding per pupil remains unchanged.
These changes could mean that basic entitlement rates increase or decrease.
6
B
Proposed Savings in High Needs
SEND budgets
The High Needs block (HNB) funds expenditure on pupils with high cost special
educational needs and disabilities (SEND). This includes provision in
maintained mainstream and special schools, non maintained (NMI) special
schools, colleges and independent post 16 providers. It also funds alternative
provision (including pupil referral units) and a range of SEN support services
which work with pupils, schools and parents. Annex 3 lists the services funded
from the High Needs block in 2016/17. It should be noted that 56% of the HNB
funding is provided to Surrey maintained schools and academies.
Government funding for High Needs has proven to be insufficient in recent
years. In Surrey this has necessitated funding transfers - initially from Early
Years funding and more recently from the Schools block. The total 2016/17 High
Needs budget of £139m is supported by a contribution of £11.65m from the
Schools block and £1.65m from the county council. The Government has now
rebased HNB funding nationally to incorporate transfers from other DSG
sources but proposes a revised funding mechanism from 2018/19, details of
which are currently awaited.
Savings strategy
Surrey is a relatively high spender on special educational needs and is expected
to face reduced funding in future years. Pressures in council funded services
have necessitated planned net savings of £4.2m (gross savings £7.5m) on
SEND home to school transport.
High Needs block (HNB) savings totalling £14m have been proposed assuming
a shift in provision from independent sector providers to maintained mainstream
and special schools / centres. This represents a 40% planned reduction in the
cost of NMIs. In order to support this an Inclusion Strategy is being developed
and the Index for Inclusion has been piloted in 52 Surrey schools. In addition,
three free special school bids are in development.
These and further plans to change the nature of existing special schools and
centres to align better with current needs and to enhance support to mainstream
SEN pupils are progressing as part of the SEND 2020 Strategy & Development
Plan. This was published in spring 2016 under the auspices of the SEND
Partnership Board which comprises headteachers and other key stakeholders. It
will take time for new facilities to be brought on stream and pupils can only
usually be moved at accepted transition points, limiting the ability for short term
savings in these areas.
7
2017/18 Savings Requirement
In 2017/18 Surrey is facing further pressures from demographic growth, inflation
and new legislation that increases entitlements to SEND provision for post 16
pupils. Initial projections of current cost commitments and likely levels of post
16 take-up indicate a likely funding gap of £10m in 2017/18. (This figure will be
confirmed once DSG funding is announced in December 2016.)
Following a series of partnership discussions and in particular a partnership
event on 10 June 2016 which established a range of principles, savings totalling
£5m are proposed for consultation below.
Proposal
£m
Comments
a
New Operating Model for
SEN Pathway
-0.5
Review quadrant SEND team structures and
pathways to release efficiencies. The SEND
pathway provides the assessment and review
process and a case manager for those requesting
SEN support and/or a statutory plan. (LA funded
service).
b
Traded Model for SEN
support services
-1.1
Trade specialist learning and language teachers
and educational psychologists with schools in
areas where schools have the option to buy
additional services. Excludes core statutory and
preventative activities. (LA & HNB funded)
c
Service Cost reduction and
/or recommissioning
-0.7
Services to be reviewed. Services in scope:
Physical & Sensory Support Service (PSSS),
Special schools / SEN outreach, portage, training,
secondary school learning support units.
d
Alternative Provision
-0.5
Review Alternative Learning Provision (including
PRUs) reducing some non-statutory services and
providing statutory services at a lower cost
e
Post 16 SEND
-0.9
Assume recent trends in take-up continue (ie lower
than previously budgeted for). There is a risk this
could change as there is considerable uncertainty
in this area.
F
Inflation – ISPSB and Special
schools support staff
-0.9
No Government funding is currently provided for
inflation so continued HNB funding of inflation on
ISPSB and special schools’ support staff is not
affordable.
g
Special Schools: reduce topup funding
-0.4
Proposal is to reduce special schools’ total funding
by an average of 1% in 2017/18. A targeted
approach will be developed.
Total for 2017/18 (ie part year
impact)
-5.0
In order to generate the full 2017/18 savings requirement – currently estimated
at £10m – a further £5m in savings is necessary. The full list of High needs
services and their current budgets is set out in Annex 3 and schools are asked
to suggest options to provide further savings of £5m. Further work will be done
8
to assess the impact of the existing proposals, and of any additional proposals,
on individual providers before any final decisions are taken, particularly where a
number of proposals might simultaneously affect the same providers.
Question 1 Do schools support the proposals to achieve £5m savings set
out in the table above?
a) New Operating Model for SEN Pathway
b) Traded Model for SEN support services
c ) Service cost reductions / recommissioning
d) Alternative Provision
e) Post 16 SEND
f) Inflation: ISPSB & Special schools support staff
g) Special Schools: reduce top-up funding
Question 2 Where the above savings proposals are not supported,
schools are asked to suggest alternative, deliverable savings
from High Needs budgets set out in Annex 3.
(Please note: LAs must pay due regard to the Equalities Impact criteria set
out in Annex 4)
Question 3 Our funding shortfall is £10m in 2017/18, so schools are asked
to put forward suggestions for the other £5m eg further
savings from the High Needs budgets, or suggest other
funding options. (For example: reviewing residential
provision in special schools [current cost £3m]; reducing
alternative provision to statutory services only, taking a
standard percentage reduction from every budget where
contractually possible etc?)
(Please note: we must pay due regard to the Equalities Impact criteria set
out in Annex 4)
9
10
C
Proposed Changes to the Funding
of Surrey Schools
___________________________________
The Surrey Schools Funding Formula
Surrey’s schools are funded on a formula basis. Annex 1 shows the formula
indicators used to allocate funding to schools in 2016/17 and their values.
The council and Schools Forum review the formula on an annual basis and
where appropriate propose changes to address local needs. However in view of
the DfE’s intention to consult on a school level National Funding Formula during
the autumn, no significant changes are proposed to the local formula for
2017/18. The proposals below arise largely from DfE changes.
As in previous years, all schools will be protected by the Minimum Funding
Guarantee (MFG) which will limit any potential reductions in funding to a
maximum of 1.5% per pupil. This is funded by a limit on the average increase
per pupil in those schools which gain from the changes (the “ceiling”). More
details about the MFG and the ceiling are shown in Annex 2.
C1
Redistribution of DSG Sixth Form Funding
Key issue
Currently the local authority (LA) allocates £1.327m of additional funding to
secondary schools on the basis of the number of sixth form pupils. In 2017/18,
the DfE will no longer permit LAs to allocate DSG funding to mainstream post 16
pupils (other than high cost SEN). The LA is proposing two options for
distributing the funding previously allocated based on sixth form numbers.
Note: This proposal does not affect sixth form funding provided by the Education
Funding Agency.
Background
Funding for school sixth forms is mainly provided by the Education Funding
Agency using its own national funding formula, which is separate from the
council’s own schools funding formula. Up to 2016/17, LAs have been allowed to
provide additional funding to sixth forms within their local funding formula, up to
the level provided in 2012/13. Surrey is one of a small minority of LAs (13 out of
11
150 in 2016/17) which allocates additional funding to sixth form pupils in this
way. The total DSG funding allocated is currently £1.327m (£181.43 per pupil)
and allocations to individual schools in 2016/17 range from £5,261- £89,626. It
was allocated originally to recognise that certain former specific grants (merged
into DSG in 2011/12) had been allocated to schools on a basis which included
post 16 pupil numbers. The DfE will no longer allow DSG to be allocated on post
16 pupil numbers in 2017/18.
The LA proposes that two options are considered for redistributing the sum
previously allocated on sixth form pupil numbers only.
Option A
Allocate this funding across all mainstream schools, using Year R – Year
11 pupil numbers. This option would spread the funding to more age
groups.
To preserve the primary: secondary (year R-11) ratio we would distribute
the additional funding to secondary pupils at 1.296 x the rate for primary
pupils.
Within the total secondary funding we propose to maintain the existing
KS4:KS3 funding ratio (ie KS4=1.23488 x KS3);
or
Option B
Allocate across secondary schools only, using key stage 3-4 pupil
numbers and again weighting KS4 at 1.23488 x KS3)
The main issue of principle is whether funding previously allocated to sixth forms
should now be considered funding specifically for secondary schools, or whether
it should be distributed across the whole of the school system, now that it cannot
be allocated to sixth forms. There is no longer any permitted method to retain
the funding within the 11-18 sector.
Option B would retain the funding within the secondary sector (although not
within the 11-18 sector). Option A would not. It could be argued that although
this funding has been allocated to secondary schools in recent years, there is no
compelling argument for retaining it within the secondary sector as it relates to
an historical legacy.
Annex 5 shows the changes to units of resource and the possible impact of both
options on typical schools. Note the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) and
ceiling calculations on total school budgets may vary this impact at individual
school level, particularly in 11-18 schools where the loss of DSG sixth form
12
funding may be protected in part by MFG (a change of rules from previous
years).
We will also need to amend the secondary schools’ split site funding allocation
(which applies only to one school) so that it does not include sixth form pupils.
Question 4
Which of the options for the redistribution of existing DSG 6th form funding do
you support?
Option A Allocate to all mainstream schools, using Year R – Year 11 pupil
numbers. (Secondary pupils to be funded at 1.296 x the rate for
primary pupils to maintain current ratios.)
or
Option B Allocate to secondary schools only?
13
14
C2
Delegation of School Improvement funding
Key issue
In recent years, approximately £1.3m of Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) has
been used to fund additional school improvement support to Surrey schools.
The LA is proposing to delegate this funding to schools in 2017/18. Schools are
asked to consider two possible methods of distribution (subject to Schools
Forum’s views).
Background
From 2011/12 - 2016/17, a sum (currently £1.292m) has been allocated from
DSG on an annual basis to support the school improvement programme, using
the “combined services” powers, whereby the Schools Forum and the LA jointly
fund activities.
From September 2017, the government’s “Educational Excellence Everywhere”
White Paper proposes that LAs should cease to have a role in school
improvement. Instead, schools will need to fund their own school improvement
costs and buy in support where necessary. Therefore the LA proposes to
delegate the existing DSG school improvement budget to primary and
secondary schools in 2017/18.
Schools are asked to consider two possible distribution methods:
Option A
per pupil (ie Year R – Year 11 pupil numbers)
Option B
50% per pupil and 50% based on pupils eligible for free school
meals.
We propose to maintain both the current KS4 :KS3 funding ratio and the existing
secondary :primary funding ratio.
Option A would be simplest. However, there is some evidence that schools
graded ‘Requires Improvement’ or ‘Inadequate’ typically have above average
levels of deprivation (and also SEND). This would suggest that schools with
disadvantaged pupils would lose out overall if this funding were distributed
simply on pupil numbers.
Option B may be seen as recognising the higher incidence of deprived schools
among those requiring additional support, while still distributing some funding to
all schools based on pupil numbers.
As this is delegation of an existing central budget, the additional delegated
funding will be outside the minimum funding guarantee calculation (MFG) in
15
2017/18, which means that allocations will be made in full, without affecting a
school’s minimum funding guarantee allocation or ceiling deduction.
Impact on Funding Rates
The table below illustrates the difference in funding between the two options if
the whole of the £1.292m was delegated to schools in 2017/18. In Option A, the
additional funding made available would increase the basic entitlement per pupil
as shown. The increase in basic entitlement would be lower for Option B, but the
funding of pupils on free school meals would increase.
Option A
Addition to Basic
Entitlement Per
Pupil
£
Option B
Addition to Basic
Entitlement Per
Pupil
£
8.45
10.02
12.37
4.23
5.01
6.19
Primary
Secondary: KS3
KS4
Option B
Plus: Additional
funding to each
pupil on Free
School Meals
£
56.00
78.11
78.11
Individual schools will be provided separately with illustrations of the potential
impact, as allocations will vary with the size and deprivation of the school. These
will be based on October 2015 pupil data. However schools should note that
actual funding will be based on the October 2016 census data and there can be
significant year on year changes in pupil characteristics, therefore, schools are
advised to concentrate on the principles of this proposal rather than simply on
the potential cash changes at individual school level. The additional sums
allocated to individual schools will not be large: £2,400 for the average primary
school and £10,000 for the average secondary school.
Summer term 2017
The role of LAs in school improvement is expected to end in August 2017 and
DfE funding will cease at that point, although this issue is currently under review
by the DfE. Schools are asked whether, in the event that the county is funded to
provide school improvement for the summer term, DSG should be used to
enhance that funding under the “combined services” rules. This would reduce
the DSG funding available to distribute to all schools by approximately one third,
from £1.292m to £862,000.
16
Question 5
Which of the following options do you see as most suitable for distributing the
existing DSG school improvement funding between schools?
Option A Allocate to all mainstream primary and secondary schools, using pupil
numbers
or
Option B Allocate to all mainstream primary and secondary schools based 50%
on pupil numbers and 50% on pupils eligible for free school meals
Question 6
Do you support a continued contribution from DSG to school improvement at an
approximate cost of £430,000 for the summer term 2017?.
17
18
C3
Redistribution of Surplus Contingency to Primary Schools
Key issue
Schools are asked to support the basis of allocation of surplus de-delegated
primary school contingency back to primary schools. This proposal is relevant
only to primary schools.
Background
The LA maintains a primary school contingency, which has been deducted from
maintained primary schools’ budgets since 2013/14, with the annual approval of
their representatives on Schools Forum. This funds significant unforeseeable
and unavoidable expenditure which cannot reasonably be met by a school from
its normal funding. This is the only source available for such costs.
The nature of such costs is inevitably unpredictable (ie they are rare but likely to
be large when they do occur) and therefore in the first few years, the budget was
set prudently. At the end of 2014/15 there was a surplus of £884,000 on the dedelegated school specific contingency, which had built up over the period
2013/14 - 2014/15. Of this, £400,000 was returned to schools in 2016/17, being
shared among those primary schools which were maintained for all or part of the
financial year 2014/15, and which thus contributed to the initial surplus.
At the end of 2015/16 the total surplus on the de-delegated contingency was
£973,000, of which £400,000 had been committed as above. The LA proposes
to return a further £300,000 to schools in 2017/18, again via a per pupil
allocation to those schools which were maintained for all or part of 2014/15 (and
which thus contributed to the surplus). This would be a one off allocation,
outside minimum funding guarantee and ceiling calculations. Allocations would
be pro rated where schools converted to academies part way through the year 2.
The allocation to a school which was maintained for the whole of the year would
be £4.26 per Oct 2013 pupil in years R-6 (excluding SEN centre places).
From 2015/16, the contingency has been set at a lower level, and so the level of
any future surpluses will be lower.
The proposal would require the approval of the Secretary of State, as it is not
provided for in the school finance regulations. The corresponding proposal for
2016/17 was approved, but that is no guarantee of a repeat approval.
The LA still proposes to de-delegate a contingency in 2017/18 (see section D),
in order to maintain some year on year consistency in the level of de-delegation.
2
Ie schools which converted between 2 April-1 September 2014 would receive 5/12 of the per pupil rate.
They would have been refunded 7/12 of their contribution to the contingency in the year in which they
converted.
19
Question 7
Do you support the proposed basis of returning part of the surplus school
specific contingency funds in 2017/18 to those primary schools which were
maintained for all or part of 2014/15 (ie to those schools from which the
funding was initially de-delegated)?
20
D
De-delegation of Funding:
Proposals for 2017/18
(Maintained primary & secondary schools only)
_______________________________
Key issue
We are asking for the views of maintained primary and secondary schools
on the continued de-delegation of funding in 2017/18 for all of those
services for which funding was de-delegated in 2016/17.
---------------Funding for certain services and purposes must be delegated initially to all
schools but may then be centrally deducted (or “de-delegated”) from the budgets
of maintained primary and/or secondary schools. These services are then
provided without further cost to maintained primary and/or secondary schools,
on the basis of need.
De-delegation from either sector requires the annual approval of Schools Forum
representatives of maintained schools in that sector, and may apply to one or
both sectors. Funding can only be de-delegated for specific services listed in
the School Finance legislation.
Opting for central funding of these services means that it is easier to match the
service to demand where demand is relatively low in many schools, but where it
is unpredictable, may be urgent when required and very important to the wellbeing of individual pupils or staff, and may vary widely from year to year. A
central service may be able to reallocate resources between schools at relatively
short notice in response to changes in demand.
In 2016/17, funds were de-delegated from maintained primary and secondary
schools for:






behaviour support services (primary sector only);
CAPITA SIMS licences - as there are cost and administration
advantages in the council buying them centrally;
centrally funded teacher association and trades union representation;
special staff costs, such as costs of public duties and suspensions;
free school meals eligibility checking;
the school specific contingency. This benefits only a few schools in any
year, but allows a means of providing additional funding in wholly
exceptional circumstances to primary schools. (This is de-delegated
21
from the primary sector only, as secondary schools did not support dedelegation for this purpose when proposed).
Should de-delegation not be agreed, the primary school specific contingency,
and funding for special staff costs, would cease, and schools would have to bear
those risks themselves. The LA may provide the other services on a traded
basis, but continuation of the services would depend on an adequate level of
buyback.
The DfE does not permit funding to be de-delegated from academies, nurseries,
special schools or PRUs.
Proposed de-delegation rates for 2017/18
Annex 6 shows the proposed de-delegation rates. The LA is not proposing any
changes to the sums de-delegated for individual services from 2016/17 to
2017/18. However, the Schools Forum will be asked to review the de-delegation
rates in January 2017, when October 2016 pupil data is available and the level
of de-delegation for CAPITA SIMS licences may require review when more
information is available about costs for 2017/18.
Separate decisions will be made on each of the individual services listed in the
questions.
Question 8
Do you support continued de-delegation, at the rates shown in Annex 6,
of the following services:
a)
behaviour support services (maintained primary schools only)?
b)
CAPITA SIMS licences ?
c)
centrally funded teacher association and trade union representatives?
d)
special staff costs (eg for public duties and suspensions)?
e)
free school meals eligibility checking?
f)
the school specific contingency for primary schools?
22
E
Devolved Funding of Confederations
& Partnerships
___________________________________
Key issue
We are asking if primary schools continue to support the central funding
of confederations and partnerships at the existing level.
---------------Note: There is no change to funding of individual primary schools (including
primary academies) if this proposal is supported and no impact on secondary
schools irrespective of the outcome.
Historically, funding has been devolved directly to the 19 extended schools
confederations. The direct funding of confederations was supported by 84% of
the primary schools which responded to the autumn 2015 schools funding
consultation. Direct funding of confederations / partnerships requires annual
approval by the Schools Forum and schools’ views are sought to inform this
decision.
From 2013/14, that part of confederation / partnership funding attributable to
secondary and special schools was delegated to individual secondary and
special schools and that funding will remain delegated to individual schools in
2017/18. However - so far- primary school representatives on Schools Forum
have agreed that primary schools’ shares of confederation / partnership funding
should still go directly to the partnerships (£657,000 in 2016/17). The purpose
of this direct funding was to give confederations greater financial stability and to
reduce administrative burdens faced by confederations seeking contributions
from large numbers of individual primary schools.
The proposal is that the current level of direct funding of confederations/
partnerships should be continued into 2017/18. In areas where confederations/
partnerships have been dissolved (ie there is no such body operating in an
area), their share of the central funding would be distributed directly to schools.
But where there is a local confederation/partnership, individual schools will not
receive direct funding if they choose not to join it; that funding will still go to the
confederation/ partnership. This applies both to maintained primary schools and
to primary academies. The funding was equivalent to an average of £7.60 per
primary (4-11) pupil in 2016/17.
Schools are warned that the continuation of central funding for this purpose in
2017/18 may be subject to the approval of the DfE, and that the DfE has made
23
clear that the “combined services” power, under which the funding is allocated,
may not continue for much longer, even for existing commitments.
Delegation mechanisms
While we recognise the advantages of direct funding of confederations in
reducing bureaucracy, it is prudent to consider how funds should be delegated
directly to schools if that proves to be the preference of schools in this
consultation. The funding would be delegated to primary schools only, because
the share of funding attributable to other sectors has already been delegated to
those sectors.
If funding is delegated, it must be distributed using only those formula factors
permitted by the DfE for use in the schools funding formula. Therefore it is
proposed that, if schools and the Schools Forum prefer funding to be delegated
directly to individual primary schools (or the DfE insists), 40% is allocated using
pupil numbers and 60% on the basis of the number of pupils eligible for free
school meals, to broadly retain the existing distribution.
This proposal applies to primary academies in the same way as maintained
primary schools.
Question 9
Do you support the continued allocation of £657,000 to directly fund
confederations/partnerships on behalf of primary schools?
Question 10
If it is necessary to delegate the existing confederation/partnership
funding, do you support the proposed method of delegation?
24
Annex 1
SURREY’S CURRENT FORMULA FACTORS 2016/17
£ per eligible pupil
Total allocated
Primary
Primary
£m
Secondary
£
Basic entitlement per
pupil
2,760.82
£
3,661.67 KS3
4,521.72 KS4
Lump sum per school
135,000
Social Deprivation:
Per pupil on free school
meals
3,959.75
Secondary
£m
% of
total
funding
238.1
205.6
77.87
175,000
40.7
9.6
8.84
2,607.14
25.8
9.4
6.18
863.58
0
2.7
0.46
1,557.71
0
6.6
1.15
Per pupil in DFE IDACI*
Band 1
*(Income Deprivation
Affecting Children Index)
Per pupil in DFE IDACI
Bands 2-6
Low attainment:
Per low attainer based
on Foundation Stage
Profile results
857.89
9.5
Per secondary pupil
scoring below level 4 in
either or both maths and
English at key stage 2
1.67
10.7
1080.12
1.86
English as an Additional
Language:
Per pupil with EAL in
school system for fewer
than three years
275.95
672.95
1.9
0.6
0.44
Per looked after child
796.17
796.17
0.1
0.1
0.05
Pupil mobility:
Per mobile child above
10% of roll
629.00
774.00
0.2
0.0
0.03
181.43
0
1.3
0.23
2.6
1.22
249.2
100.0
Per post 16 learner
Others including rent, rates,
split site costs
4.3
Total
320.6
25
NOTE: Total formula funding makes up only part of the Schools Block. The block also
includes growing schools funding, additional funding for secondary schools with
temporary falls in rolls, “combined services” funding for school improvement (see
proposal C2) and for confederations/partnerships (see proposal E) and funding for
admissions and appeals and copyright licences.
26
Annex 2
The Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) and the Ceiling
In 2017/18, schools will again be protected from large budget reductions at a
maximum loss of 1.5% of funding per pupil (the minimum funding guarantee).
The minimum funding guarantee (MFG) protects the level of funding per pupil. It
does not protect - and has never protected - against the loss of funding resulting
from falling pupil numbers. The level of minimum funding guarantee is decided
annually by the DfE.
In 2016/17, 84 (out of 356) Surrey primary and secondary schools were on
minimum funding guarantee. The MFG is funded from a ceiling on the gains of
other schools. Consequently any formula changes which create sizeable losses
in any schools will require a larger MFG pot and in turn, a lower ceiling.
Example: Funding entitlement under the formula:
CEILING
MFG
Sch 1
Sch 2
Sch 3
The bars show the formula funding entitlement for three schools, based on their
varying pupil numbers and characteristics. In the example above, School 1
would receive its full formula funding entitlement. School 3’s formula allocation
would fall beneath the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) so it would qualify for
additional funding to reach this level. School 2 would lose funding, down to the
ceiling level, in order to fund the MFG for School 3 and other schools.
The MFG and ceiling are applied to the total budget of each school* and
therefore gains or losses arising from changes in the value of individual formula
factors may be overridden by the MFG or ceiling calculation at school level.
*(Subject to certain exceptions, principally the lump sum and business rates.)
27
28
Annex 3
HIGH NEEDS BLOCK BUDGETS 2016/17
£'000
% of
total
high
needs
spend
27,945
20%
42,711
31%
6,482
5%
77,138
56%
35,902
26%
10,282
1,200
5%
1%
47,384
34%
FUNDING PROVIDED TO SCHOOLS
£'000
Funding to Mainstream Schools
Statemented pupils in Surrey mainstream schools (ISPSB)
Additional high needs funding including hard to place
Nursery schools place funding and SEN top up
12,731
1,832
684
SEN Centres in mainstream schools & academies.
Place funding + top-up
10,556
Learning Support Units in eight secondary schools
330
Nurture groups in primary schools
361
HLTAs in Mainstream SLCN centres (to support other schls)
131
SALP (reducing exclusions in networks)
1,320
Funding to Special Schools
Maintained special schools : place funding, top-up and ISPSB
Payments to special schools for outreach work
43,328
619
Cross border income from other LAs
(1,236)
Funding to Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)
PRUs : places & top up funding
PRUs - hospital schools (Tadworth Court and St Peter's)
PRU – HOPE places & top up funding
5,091
634
757
Total Funding to Surrey maintained schools & academies
NMI & COLLEGE PLACEMENTS
Non Maintained & Independent (NMI) and out county
placements
Colleges and post 16 specialist SEN: (top-up)
FE and 6th Form Colleges
Independent Specialist Providers (ISPs
Education provided within social care homes
35,902
2,231
8,051
1,200
Total Funding to other providers
29
SEN SUPPORT
Physical and sensory
2,793
Learning and language
1,675
Speech and Language Therapy
2,420
Occupational Therapy
1,168
Nursing Therapy
450
Portage
Access to Education (A2E)- medical plus other hospital /
medical tuition
792
A2E : non-medical (1,951) plus virtual learning (252) & Lift Off
(255)
722
2,663
Alternative Education Management (ALPs etc)
190
Children with Disabilities contracts (including White Lodge)(c3)
124
Active Learning
225
Elective home education
122
Early years SEN advisers and inclusion support
1,022
Total SEN support
14,366
TOTAL HIGH NEEDS BLOCK WITHIN SCC CONTROL
30
138,888
138,888
10%
Annex 4
Equality Impact Assessment Requirements
Under the Equalities Act 2010, the county council must have “due regard”,
among other issues, to the impact of its decisions on specified protected groups
and, in particular, to the need to advance equality of opportunity between people
with specified “protected characteristics” and people who do not share those
characteristics. Advancing equality of opportunity means:
*
Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their
protected characteristics.
*
Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where
these are different from the needs of other people;
*
Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in
other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.
Due regard means giving an appropriate level of consideration to equalities
issues.
The defined protected characteristics are as follows
*Age
*Disability
*Gender reassignment
*Pregnancy/maternity
*Race
*Religion/belief
*Sex
*Sexual orientation
*Marriage and civil partnerships
Additionally, the impact of carers should be considered where they could suffer
“associative discrimination” because of their relationship to people with the listed
protected characteristics.
The council considers the impact on protected groups by undertaking equalities
impact assessments. The council undertakes such assessments on major
proposals within this consultation paper. For the purpose of the proposals in this
paper, the most significant protected characteristic is likely to be disability.
31
32
Annex 5
Redistribution of DSG Sixth Form Funding (Proposal C1)Impact
Potential Impact of redistribution Options A and B on typical Surrey schools
Changes to basic entitlement rates per pupil (ie increase compared to 2016/17
funding rates)
Option A
Option B
£
Primary
8.69
KS3
10.30
KS4
12.71
Impact on typical schools (before MFG/ceiling)
£
0.00
23.74
29.31
Increase in basic entitlement
rates per pupil
Increase for typical
primary schools
100 pupils
200 pupils
400 pupils
600 pupils
Option A
£
900
1,700
3,500
5,200
Increase for typical
11-16 secondary schools
Option B
£
0
0
0
0
800 pupils
1200 pupils
Option A
£
9,000
13,500
Option
B
£
20,800
31,200
11-18 schools will see similar increases in pre 16 funding to 11-16 schools but
those increases will be offset by reductions in DSG sixth form funding, leading in
most (but not all) cases to an overall loss (before MFG)
Net impact on 11-18 secondary
schools : number of schools
which
Lose under £5,000
Lose £5,000-£10,000
Lose £10,000-£20,000
Lose £20,000-£30,000
Lose £30,000-£40,000
Lose £40,000-£50,000
Lose more than £50,000
Option A
1
2
6
6
7
6
3
31
Option B
4
3
9
7
2
0
2
27
Note for 11-18 schools: DSG funding for sixth forms will be included in the minimum funding
guarantee calculation, therefore such schools can only lose a maximum of 1.5% per under-16 pupil
33
year on year. The MFG is calculated on the school’s total budget – not on one single factor – so
cannot be estimated in the table above.
34
Annex 6
PROPOSED DE-DELEGATION RATES FOR ALL DEDELEGATED SERVICES IN 2017/18
2016/17
Service
Primary
Free school meals
eligibility checking
£275/school
Behaviour support
services
£6.92/pupil+
£115.61/ FSM
pupil
Special staff costs
2017/18 provisional proposal
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
£275/school
£435/school
n/a
(delegated)
£6.92/pupil+
£115.61/ FSM
pupil
n/a
(delegated)
£1.68/pupil
£2.27/pupil in
KS3-4
£1.68/pupil
£2.27/pupil in
KS3-4
Special staff costs (other
eg suspensions)
£0.47/pupil
£0.64/pupil in
KS3-4
£0.47/pupil
£0.64/pupil in
KS3-4
Licences and
subscriptions
£3.63/pupil
£4.93/pupil
£3.63/ pupil+
inflation
£435/school
(centrally funded union
representation)
£4.93/ pupil+
inflation
(KS3-4)
School specific
contingencies
£3.23/pupil
n/a
(delegated)
£3.23/pupil
n/a
(delegated)
Proposed de-delegation rates for 2017/18 are based on October 2015 pupil data
and may need to be updated when Oct 2016 data is known (and potentially also
for inflation where they cover external costs). All pupil numbers are year R-11
only.
Proposed de-delegation rates for licences and subscriptions will need to include
an estimate for inflation. It is assumed that the full cost of maintained secondary
schools’ licences and subscriptions would be recovered by de-delegation based
on the number of pre 16 pupils. DfE rules do not allow the number of post 16
pupils to be included in the de-delegation calculation.
35
36
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AWPU or Basic Entitlement
The “basic entitlement” is the sum
allocated to a school for any pupil of a
specific age. This was formerly known as
the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU)
Budget share
The total sum allocated to a school each
year under the local authority’s funding
formula. It excludes allocations from
specific grants. It also excludes
contingency allocations and additional
funding for high needs pupils
Ceiling
The LA may agree a maximum percentage
increase in average funding per pupil
which all its schools may receive, even if
the formula would otherwise generate
more than that. This is the “ceiling”. The
savings from imposing the ceiling are used
to pay for the cost of the minimum funding
guarantee (see below)
Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)
The funding source for the total Schools
Budget from April 2006. It funds schools’
delegated budgets, provision for pupils
with special educational needs and free
entitlement of nursery provision.
DfE
The Government’s Department for
Education, which prescribes on schools
funding issues
Delegated budget
Budget which a school’s governors may
spend as they determine, for the benefit of
the school. It may also be spent, in limited
circumstances, for the benefit of pupils at
other schools.
De-delegation
Where Schools Forum approves the
deduction of funding from maintained
primary and secondary schools’ budgets,
to be retained centrally to fund specified
services.
37
Devolved budget
Budget which is devolved to a school for a
specific purpose and must be spent for this
purpose only
EAL
English as Additional Language
EFA
The Education Funding Agency is the body
currently responsible to the DfE for
maintaining the policy framework for
funding LAs and academies, co-ordinating
the funding of post 16s in school sixth
forms and colleges and for maintaining the
post 16 funding formula.
High cost pupil
Pupil requiring £6,000 or more in additional
support (usually with a statement of special
educational needs or education health care
plan). Applies only where an LA has
agreed to fund additional support
HNB
High Needs Block within the Dedicated
Schools Grant, intended to fund services
for pupils with special educational needs
and disabilities.
IDACI
Income Deprivation Affecting Children
Index, government index often used as a
proxy indicator of deprivation
ISPSB
Individually statemented pupil support
budget: additional funding allocated to
mainstream schools to meet the costs of
additional support for high cost SEN pupils
beyond the first £6,000 per pupil per year,
where the LA has agreed that such
additional support is required. (NB based
on a standard rate per hour of support.)
KS1, KS2 etc
Key Stage education phases:
KS1 - pupils in years 1 and 2
KS2 – pupils in years 3, 4, 5 and 6
KS3 – pupils in years 7, 8 and 9
KS4 – pupils in years 10 and 11
38
LA
The Local Authority, which in Surrey is
Surrey County Council
MFG
Minimum Funding Guarantee – a rate set
by the Government each year, which
represents the maximum percentage
reduction per pupil which each school
should receive in its new budget
NFF
The National Funding Formula, proposed
for introduction by the DfE from April 2020.
From April 2018 Surrey’s schools funding
formula will be expected to converge
towards the NFF. Details on the NFF and
hence the potential impact on Surrey
schools have not yet been issued.
NMI
A non-maintained special school (NMSS)
or independent special school catering for
pupils whose needs cannot currently be
met within the maintained sector. Due to
the complex nature of some pupils’ needs,
NMI placements can be expensive.
NOR
Numbers on roll at a school
PAN
Published Admissions Number for a school
– i.e. the maximum number of pupils a
school is expected to admit in its normal
year of entry.
PRU
Pupil Referral Unit. An education facility for
pupils who have specific needs and are
currently unable to attend a mainstream
school. Placements are typically part-time
or temporary.
SEND
Special Educational Needs & Disabilities
Schools Forum
Each local authority is required to establish
a Schools Forum with which it consults on
issues relating to the financing of schools
and the wider Dedicated Schools Grant.
The Forum has decision making powers in
specific instances.
39
Unit of resource
The funding allocated to any school for
pupils with specific characteristics (eg a
sum per pupil entitled to free school
meals). Previously it was most commonly
used to refer to the basic funding rate per
pupil
40