Schools Funding 2017-18 ConsultationAPPENDIX C – Guidance

Guidance notes for Appendices Cii to iv

The appendices Ci to iv show the results of modelling for 2017-18 mainstream schools budgets on a school by school basis. The basis of the modelling work is the 2016-17 Authority Proforma Tool (APT) which is provided to Local Authorities (LAs) by the Education Funding Agency and this comes pre-populated with census data. The census data used in the 2016-17 APT is from October 2015. The figures shown are therefore to give a broad overview of the movements that are likely if the changes had been implemented for 2016-17. They provide an estimate of the impact for 2017-18. The final actual figures as this would depend on a number of inputs including:

  • the next data set from the October 2016 census
  • the MFG impacts as they move forward another year and
  • the need to balance the overall funding pot

Column Reference Notes Appendix C I - Sparsity

Column A: LAESTAB Local Authority Establishment reference number (assigned by Education Funding Agency)

Column B: School Name.

Column C:Average number of pupils in a year group. This is a characteristic of the sparsity factor eligibility and is set in the formula without local flexibility. Primaries to have 21.4 and fewer and secondaries 120 or fewer to be eligible. The APT received by LAs is prepopulated with this data. If the tapered option is chosen for the formula factor, then allocation decreases with increasing average number of pupils in a year group.

Column D: The fixed rate sparsity lump sum modelled in Scenario 1. Schools eligible for sparse funding would receive the full rate for sparsity under the fixed sum option.

Column E: The deduction that would be required from schools lump sums to cover the funding allocated to sparsity eligible schools (based on the number of schools in the October 2015 census) under the fixed rates model in scenario 1.

Column F:The deduction that would be required from schools AWPU rates to cover the funding allocated to sparsity eligible schools (based on the number of pupils in the October 2015 census) under the fixed rates model in scenario 1.

Column G: The tapered rate sparsity lump sum modelled in Scenario 2. Schools eligible for sparse funding would receive a rate based on how close to the maximum average number of pupils in a year group they are.

Column H: The deduction that would be required from schools AWPU rates to cover the funding allocated to sparsity eligible schools (based on the number of schools in the October 2015 census) under the fixed rates model in scenario 2.

Column I: The deduction that would be required from schools AWPU rates to cover the funding allocated to sparsity eligible schools (based on the number of pupils in the October 2015 census) under the fixed rates model in scenario 2.

Column Reference Notes for Appendices C ii to iv:

Column A: LAESTAB Local Authority Establishment reference number (assigned by Education Funding Agency)

Column B: School Name.

Column C: Phase, Ordered first by: All-through, Primary and Secondary and then alphabetically.

Column D:Published 2016-17 Post MFG Budget (on NCC schools website) for comparison with the modelled version after the new factors have been included and other factor rates reduced.

Column E: Modelled 2016-17 Post MFG Budget (on NCC schools website) for comparison with Col D.

Column F: The difference in £ between Col D and Col E.

Column G: The difference between Col D and Col E as a % of Col D.

Column H: The decrease in deprivation or AWPU (full three year impact).

The subsequent columns provide additional data on how the differences are calculated and the approximate annual impact if the changes were implemented across three years.

Appendices Ci to iii Columns I to O

Appendix iv differs as there are more columns, see further down in this document.

Column I: Increase through the added formula factors as per the models; ii) prior attainment, iii(a) EAL funded from decrease in deprivation and iii(b) EAL funded from decrease in AWPU) (full three year impact, before any MFG adjustment).

Column J: The difference between the formula factor that has decreased and the formula factor that has increased. Col I – Col H. (full three year impact, before any MFG adjustment).

Column K:The difference in the MFG adjustment in the published 2016-17 budgets and the MFG adjustment in the modelled scenario.

Column L: The difference post MFG in £ between the published and modelled funding per school. Col J + Col K. This column equals column F.

Columns M, N & O: A third of Columns H, I and J. The MFG movement is not straight line. Bringing the APT model that we receive from the EFAforward a year to show the MFG changes would be time consuming and subject to factors which may change, so the MFG movements across three years have not been modelled.

AppendixCiv Columns I to Q

Column I: Increase in sparsity funding (full three year impact, before any MFG adjustment).

Column J:Increase in Prior Attainment funding (full three year impact, before any MFG adjustment).

Column K:Increase in EAL funding (full three year impact, before any MFG adjustment).

Column L:Decrease in school lump sum funding (full three year impact, before any MFG adjustment).

Column M: The difference pre MFG in £ between the published and modelled funding per school. Col J + Col K.

Column N: The difference in the MFG adjustment in the published 2016-17 budgets and the MFG adjustment in the modelled scenario.

Column O: The difference post MFG in £ between the published and modelled funding per school. Col M + Col N. This column equals column F.

ColumnP: A third of Column H plus a third of column L (Col H + Col L / 3).

Column Q: Is a third of the added formula factor increases (Col I + Col J + Col K /3).

Column R: Column P + Q. Net effect excluding MFG in 1st year.