Consultation Response Form
Consultation closing date: 17 October 2014
Your comments must reach us by that date
RESPONSE FROM VOICE THE UNION
School and Early Years Finance (England)
Regulations 2014
If you would prefer to respond online to this consultation please use the following
link: https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations
Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information,
may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information
regimes, primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act
1998.
If you want all, or any part, of your response to be treated as confidential, please explain
why you consider it to be confidential.
If a request for disclosure of the information you have provided is received, your
explanation about why you consider it to be confidential will be taken into account, but
no assurance can be given that confidentiality can be maintained. An automatic
confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as
binding on the Department.
The Department will process your personal data (name and address and any other
identifying material) in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and in the
majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to
third parties.
Please tick if you want us to keep your response confidential.
Reason for confidentiality:
Name: Ian Toone
Please tick if you are responding on behalf of your organisation.
Name of Organisation (if applicable): Voice
Address:
2 St James’ Court, Friar Gate, Derby DE1 1BT

If your enquiry is related to the DfE e-consultation website or the consultation process in
general, you can contact the Ministerial and Public Communications Division by e-mail:
[email protected] or by telephone: 0370 000 2288 or via the
Gov.UK 'Contact Us' page.
Please insert an 'x' into one of the following boxes which best describes you as a
respondent.
Local authority
Schools forum
Governor
 Other
Comments:
Voice is a trade union, representing teachers and support staff throughout all sectors of
education, from nursery to tertiary.
Regulation 3 amends the Schools Forums (England) Regulations 2012 to add
representation of special and alternative provision academies to schools forums, and to
require local authorities to consult the schools forum on the commissioning of places
and the local authority’s arrangements for top-up funding.
1 a)
Do you agree that special academies should be represented on schools forums?
Agree
 Disagree
Not sure
Comments:
Whilst the change in the Regulations appears to be reasonable, the outworking of them may be
perverse. It seems sensible that, in order to ensure continuity and coherence, all stakeholders
should be represented on schools fora. This is particularly so when strategic issues (such as
the local offer of SEN) are being discussed. Given that defined geographical areas may have
only one special school or PRU, it would not be sound operational planning if such a school
were to be excluded purely on the basis of its status as an academy. However, the situation
could arise where there are academies, special academies and alternative provision academies,
as well as maintained special schools and alternative provision, all sitting on the schools forum,
resulting in disproportionate representation and influence. Moreover, if the academy is part of a
chain or multi-academy trust, there could be undue influence if, for example, a school in special
measures or ‘requires improvement’ is being discussed. There is a risk that, with an ‘overload’
of academy schools sitting on the forum, an enthusiasm to suggest an academy route as the
best solution could out-vote a strategically sound local authority approach. This could impact on
the integrity and probity of the forum. Similarly, for academies to wield disproportionate
emphasis on issues such as budgeting or LA strategy would undermine the validity of the forum.
Any academies on schools fora should have restricted remits and limited voting rights.
We would suggest that where best practice is already in place, schools fora have already
adapted to the changing educational landscape, and those that have not need to be supported
and challenged to adopt a best practice approach. We would draw the Department’s attention
to the conclusions of recent research:
Schools forums play a significant role in influencing and shaping local education funding. They
provide a collaborative and consultative platform for strategic discussion and contribute to local
decision making. Drawing on a wide spectrum of stakeholders’ knowledge, views and
experience ensures that funding decisions are shaped by open dialogue, informed
debate and challenge.
The research indicates that schools forums are responsive to the changing educational policy
context, particularly in terms of the growth of academies and the implications this has for the
representativeness of their membership, as well as funding and service provision.
A more connected and proactive way of working characterised the most effective schools
forums in terms of representing the interests of the local educational community and the
children and young people it serves. The most effective schools forums operate in an open and
transparent way, are accessible to the public, consult extensively with stakeholders,
communicate effectively, are engaged in the detail of decision making and have a common
strategic vision and commitment to meet the needs of all young people in the area.
[Featherstone, G., McCrone, T., Sims, D., Southcott, C., (2012). A Best Practice Review of the
Role of Schools Forums. (LGA Research Report). Slough: NFER, p vii.]
1 b)
Do you agree that alternative provision academies should be represented on
schools forums?
Agree
 Disagree
Not sure
Comments:
If one school or type of school is required to be represented separately, it could have an
inordinate effect on decisions and how business is conducted. Therefore, and also for reasons
given in our response to 1(a) above, we would urge the Department to explore other ways of
ensuring that all state-funded schools (including academies) can be represented fairly on
schools fora. A starting point for this would be to look at how the best schools fora are already
doing this. Again, we quote from the recent research conducted by NFER:
Forum Chairs pointed out that it was important to keep the membership of their schools forum
and its working groups under review, especially given changes to the education sector such as
the increasing number of schools converting to academy status (as discussed in section 3.3
above) and the growth in federated schools. Where schools forums had undertaken this type of
review, forum Chairs reported that membership had been revised, and became more
representative giving them a more informed view of different provision and priorities. [ibid. p 12.]
Securing separate provision for different types of school risks compromising the democratic
composition of schools fora, so that they become driven and fractured by tendentious interests
rather than reflecting what is in the best interested of constituent communities. A system of
proportional representation should be encouraged to ensure that all state-funded schools are
represented fairly and proportionately, rather than giving any particular type of school an
advantage purely because of how they are funded or governed.
1 c)
Do you agree that schools forums should be consulted about the commissioning
of high needs places and the authority’s arrangements for top-up funding?
 Agree
Disagree
Not sure
Comments:
This should be adopted as standard practice, providing confidentiality is maintained for affected
individuals. Such practice would also aid transparency and accountability and is particularly
needed in the light of the revised Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice.
2
Regulation 14(1) and paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 – these changes would mean
the Dedicated Schools Grant must not be used to fund places or top-up for 19-25
year olds in maintained special schools and special academies. Do you agree
with these changes? What impact would they have on the availability of existing
local provision for 19-25 year olds with Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans?
Agree
 Disagree
Not sure
Comments:
In spite of the superficial soundness of the proposals, we are concerned that this may, in
practice, worked contrary to the best interests of some young people with special educational
needs and/or disabilities. By what process would funding be topped up if there were a, not
uncommon, urgent set of medical or mental health issues which were becoming more complex
and, therefore, commanding a higher cost? Where are the alternative sources of funding for
such pragmatic and necessary provisions?
3
Regulation 14(3) implements the change in value for an alternative
provision place from £8,000 to £10,000 a year with transitional protection. It also
clarifies that places in pupil referral units include those to be commissioned by
schools. Local authorities will be responsible for funding these places. Do you
agree with these changes?
Agree
 Disagree
Not sure
C
Comments:
o
The proposed changes appear, at a superficial level, to be sound. The uplift in value reflects a
m
true cost for such provision. It has to be appreciated that placements in alternative provision,
m
with
e low staff-pupil ratios, are costly. However, central funding is shrinking and where schools
are
n excluding pupils and placing them in alternative provision, such schools should (regardless
of its source of funding) fund at least part of the cost. Otherwise, there is a perverse incentive
t
for schools to exclude pupils. This has sadly been the case in a number of schools, particularly
s
academies, as shown by recent research undertaken by the Office of the Children’s
:Commissioner for England. This approach is contrary to the principles of inclusion and puts
vulnerable children at risk. If the additional funding is to come from LAs, at a time of austerity
and budget cuts, this could impact negatively on (other) SEND provision.
4
Regulation 21(2) amends the provision for the determination of budgets for new
maintained schools and for schools that have opened in recent years and are still
adding year groups. Local authorities will now have the flexibility to fund these
schools on estimated pupil numbers if they so wish. Local authorities will
reconcile any difference between estimated and actual pupil numbers the
following financial year. Do you agree with these changes?
 Agree
Disagree
Not sure
C
Comments:
o
This would appear to indicate sound practice. However, would this change carry risk of there
m
being a possible clawback if projected numbers are not achieved? Many schools would be
m
eunable to sustain a clawback. Also, Ofsted would need to take account of any apparent
nfinancial discrepancies during inspections. There would need to be a clear audit trail and
evidence base within school budgeting.
t
s
:5
The other changes to the regulations reflect policies that we have already
announced. For these changes we are therefore only consulting on the drafting
of the regulations rather than the substance of the policy. Do you have any
comments on the drafting?
Comments:
The new Regulations refer to excluded early years provision (Schedule 2, para 14), defined as
provision which does not actively promote fundamental British values or promotes, as evidencebased, views and theories which are contrary to established scientific or historical evidence and
explanations. We are not aware that this has been subject to proper consultation. It appears to
be a hasty response to a campaign launched by the British Humanist Association. Such a
position undermines both science and British values. Science has always progressed through
critical scrutiny, such that all knowledge is provisional and subject to attempts to falsify it.
Therefore, attempts to quench critical debate of what is regarded as established scientific
evidence risk stifling scientific progress. History is rife with evidence of genuine scientific
progress being halted by misplaced attempts to protect established paradigms. Also, as one of
the fundamental British values is the mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths
and beliefs, we fail to understand how early years settings which teach about Adam and Eve or
Noah’s ark should have their funding withdrawn. Many early years settings use stories, whether
Aesop’s fables, stories by the brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Anderson, or from Greek or
Roman mythology, as well as other myths and legend, to teach deep moral lessons or profound
truths which speak of life’s purpose and meaning beyond ostensible naturalistic or materialistic
factoids. This is apart from the fact that very few early years settings teach discrete science
lessons in which issues such as the fossil record, carbon-14 dating, cosmology, ontology or
epistemology will be subject to critical debate, although children will acquire knowledge and
understanding of the status of different types of narrative through more informal means.
Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to
acknowledge individual responses unless you place an 'X' in the box below.
Please acknowledge this reply.
X
E-mail address for acknowledgement: [email protected]
Here at the Department for Education we carry out our research on many different
topics and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, please confirm below if you
would be willing to be contacted again from time to time either for research or to send
through consultation documents?

Yes
No
All DfE public consultations are required to meet the Cabinet Office Principles on
Consultation
The key Consultation Principles are:
 departments will follow a range of timescales rather than defaulting to a 12-week
period, particularly where extensive engagement has occurred before
 departments will need to give more thought to how they engage with and use real
discussion with affected parties and experts as well as the expertise of civil
service learning to make well informed decisions
 departments should explain what responses they have received and how these
have been used in formulating policy
 consultation should be ‘digital by default’, but other forms should be used where
these are needed to reach the groups affected by a policy
 the principles of the Compact between government and the voluntary and
community sector will continue to be respected.
If you have any comments on how DfE consultations are conducted, please contact
Aileen Shaw, DfE Consultation Coordinator, tel: 0370 000 2288 / email:
[email protected]
Thank you for taking time to respond to this consultation.
Completed responses should be sent to the address shown below by 17 October 2014
Send by post to:
Ms Beth O’Brien
Department for Education
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT
Send by e-mail to: [email protected]