Schools Budget 2016-17 Consultation
Afternoon Session Briefing 1-3pm Kettering Conference Centre
Welcome, introductions and context from Jon.
Mixed audience, Governors, Heads and Finance Professionals.
Key points: DSG protected, not subject to cuts, flat cash level which results in real cost pressures from inflation, pension and NI increases and other areas. Additional funding is pass-ported to the DSG grant Northants receives for increased pupil numbers, from the October census. Additional funding from the fairer funding last year has been base lined by the DfE. However there are still significant pressures that schools are facing in setting medium term budgets. In reviewing those pressures and benchmarking our formula funding nationally, Schools Forum (and the Forum working group) have requested we model and consult on certain changes where we are different to the national position. We would like to emphasise that we are in consultation with you, nothing has been pre-decided and we really want to hear your views.Unfortunately we have constraints on our timetable, and there is a shorter consultation period than we would ideally like. Schools Forum is on 13th Oct and the return of the first 2016-17 budget formula to the EFA is required by the end of October. Please do feed back your views to us via the online survey and these will be taken back to Forum.
Bob talked through consultation slides. PowerPoint available on the web on 16th Sept. Though the slides are largely using the consultation paper as the material.
Item 1) Primary to Secondary Funding Ratio
In the slide and selection in appendix A, we have included statistical neighbours and three city Local Authorities to make a fair comparison. Northants is out of kilter with national average. It would be better to be close to average if/when national formula is brought in to minimise disruption. Forum have asked what a change would mean,on a school by school and by sector, and this is shown in the Appendixes on the consultation website. The proposals to be consulted upon were discussed with Schools Forum in July 2015. Forum selected three of the options taken to them and preferred that any proposed changes should take place over three years.
Questions and answers on Item 1)
Q: Regarding the ratio dataon the slides and in the appendices:
- the ratio for Northamptonshire in 2015-16 formula fundinge.g. 1.34 shown on the slide as compared to the figurein the national tables of 1.327 in appendix A
- the 1.28 the national average shown on the slides as compared to the 1.288 shown in the appendix A and
- a delegate had calculated an average from the national data set and arrived at a higher figure than 1.288.
A: It was explained that
- the first difference is due to the Northants ratios needing to be adjusted to remove the one off funding as we are considering movements to a ratio in three years time when the one off funding won’t be in the formula.
- the second difference, the slides are referring to the EFA report published on the .gov.uk website alongside the national dataset* whereas the appendices are giving the average of the group selected for comparison and
*
- Officers were asked to follow up these differences – see post meeting feedback below
- Post meeting feedback - the average provided by the EFA in the report that accompanies the national dataset appears to be based on the ratio of the total national funding for primary to total national funding for secondary, rather than looking at the simple average of the 151 Local Authorities with ratio’s in the dataset, which returns an average of 1.302.
Action - Further work/liaison with the EFA will be conducted to confirm the reason for these differences. (Note - see feedback in 13th October Forum report)
Q: Why are you proposing lining up with national formula for this particular ratio? Shouldn’t we align with national funding before we align ourselves with our formula factor percentages and ratios?
A: Regarding the funding pot that NCC receives – we are lobbying for that change. We can lobby but the result isn’t directly within our control. What we are trying to do here is to manage the funding arrangement that is directly within our control. Forum have asked us to model and consult. So in response to that we are asking the question on what is an equitable split, and workingon the questions raised by Forum. In responding to the request for that analysis we find thatthe benchmarking data on this and some other comparisonsare saying we are not aligned with national averagesin certain areas.
A: List of authorities – how many of those are in the bottom 40. 8 of the authorities listed on the slide (not including Northamptonshire) are f40 members.
Q: I can see what its going to cost me, three teachers over three years. What is the cost to standards to me for losing three teachers in comparison to primary schools. Is the small amount of additional funding that Primary schools will receive going to increase their standards significantly when each receives such a small amount?
A: This has been discussed at Forum.
Clarification to the question: But what is the rationale to introduce the changes to ratio funding with regards standards?
A: The performance data shows that Primary school results are not as far below national averages as with the secondary sector. Butthere are significant differences between the proportion of funding we are giving to secondaries as compared to primaries when compared to the national average position. There isn’t a direct measurable link between performance and funding. It’s difficult but it would be wrong to ignore these national differences and itmust be right to have this discussion and consultation. We have discussed these issues at forumwho have requested this consultation take place.
Q: Have you modelled the finances against the nearest neighbours with results.
A: Not yet
Q: So why change it.
A: It has been identified and requested by Schools Forum to model and consult on the national differences in ratios. And in addition to that Primaries have been saying for many years that they are underfunded compared to Secondaries.
Q: How much is the lump sum for primaries contributing to their funding, that is meant to be protecting them.
A: £125,000 base and with the one off funding £140,000.
Bob movedthe debate on to thenext slides in the presentationand discussed the three models. Model 2 (reduce Secondary lump sum) has a more significant (negative) impact on the smaller secondary schools (mainly UTCs)
Q: Max gain would provide LSA/nearly full time teacher in a Primary school but take away £100k after 3 years - two teachers in Secondary schools.
A: Not sure this is a fair comparison,
Input to discussion from Headteacher of a primary, £5k isn’t going to have any impact on my school but I can see it will cause upheaval to the secondaries.
A: so how could we better distribute that funding into Primaries? Is there a better factor that it could go into? If you can think of a better way to distribute then please feedback into the online survey.
Q: If not doing it for the standards agenda, why are you doing it? If just being done to move to a national average how can that be a sensible movement?
A: Perhaps a question back in response to that this to both Secondary heads and Terry and Rose (LSE, NCC), has the secondary attainment been on an upward trajectory in recent years? There has been lots of one off funding going in, additional funds, has there been an upwards movement in results?Terry gives percentage points that demonstrate that Northants is below on all the comparatives to statistical neighbours and a regional basis. Overall bad news and the regional report the inspector made summarised the East Midlands as being “a region plagued by mediocrity”. Regionally standards aren’t good enough orin Northamptonshire and isn’t showing an upward trajectory. There is also no evidence of the gap closing on the outputs for vulnerable pupils for primary or secondary.
Q: Shouldn’t the efforts being put into this proposed budget changebe put into the f40 group instead, surely we should be focussing on getting additional funding in order to increase the funding for Primaries without reducing the Secondaries funding.
Q: Yes, I agree, we should be working nationally to improve the primary and secondary funding. How long does the damage to a secondary school from these sorts of proposals take to undo when we finally get additional funding to put back in in the future.
A: As above and for the previous similar question theinformation in the context section of the consultation report was read out covering the Government accepting that significant differences in comparable schools funding across the country was not acceptable.Changes to the national formula areprobably not going to be implemented in 2016-17. So we don’t expect to have significant additional funding from the f40 lobbying in the 2016-17schools budget.
Delegate: its worth saying that the context in which these conversations were started was that the DFE could move to a national funding formula and the changes would be done to us. Our plans were to anticipate what might start happening to us and moving to it gradually which is within our control and not over a much smaller time frame if left.
Delegate: There is the feeling that primaries are getting doubly hit by any funding reductions and pressures. Also permanent exclusion and other children with SEN, small funds could be pooled by primaries to make a resource to combat the problem of children becoming excluded.
The benefits of Early investment and intervention were discussed
Q: What is the representation of secondaries on Schools Forum?
(Action – to feed back subsequent to briefings)
Delegate: It would be useful for modelling purposes to see the impact of all pressures together, so we can see the effect of all of the pressures on secondaries? Can see many going into deficit budgets, and a number already are.
A: We are able to update the potential impact once the options have been narrowed down through the consultation exercise, there are currently too many possible modelling options with limited resources. There is nothing to stop you doing this modelling yourself on the information provided. We wouldn’t be able to model all the pressures for all Secondaries and Primaries as we don’t have all the information on academies, for example staffing or contribution rate to sponsors.
Comment referring to EAL students and the effect on outcomes. Response: clarified that the deprivation funding is based on the FSMever6 cohort and that Forum haven’t requested a look at using the EAL formula factor in 2016-17
Q: Why not put this ratio and funding change through the deprivation funding,
A: yes this option is there, please feed that back to us, we didn’t come up with this in the Forum discussions and there are some schools which have significant proportion of their funding from deprivation, so those impacts would need to be viewed.
Item 2) Cap Deprivation Funding
Background explained, Northamptonshire have a very high proportion of the formula funding being distributed through the deprivation factor and is above national average. Forum asked to model a cash flat position, where the overall pot remains the same. This is likely to result in a reduction in the per pupil rate if the increase in FSMever6 numbers continues.
Q: Can you do modelling workto look at deprivation ratio differences between the sectors – looking atreducing secondary deprivation more than primaryto see if this could move the primary:secondary ratio towards the average. It was felt this could be a good idea and something we can look at.
(Action – to look at and bring information to Forum in October)
Item3) Reduce AWPU Funding to move £1 million to the High Needs AP Budget
Q: Can you model the impact on all three options together, AWPU, deprivation and Alternative Provision.
A: Yes we plan to do this, as noted above, once the options have been narrowed down through the consultation we can show the overall impact although the financial impact for each proposal is shown in the appendixes included with the consultation material
Q: Question on the out of county children, how much of the county’s AP places/budget is being spent on out of county children?
Ralph: There are about 4-5 LAC that are technically out of county that are funded in AP places, but they are not commercially traded places.
Discussion on not agreeing with the model being proposed. Bob comments on this may not be the preferred/fairest method but we need to generate funding to cover the £1 million increased cost.
It was flagged that the rate of new permanent exclusion was increasing faster in the Primary sector than in Secondary (though the starting base was lower), so the split of increasing costswould need to be reviewed annually including assessing the impact of the measures being put in by Ralph Beresford working to find solutions to change the trend of increasing numbers – through the clusters and other groupings of schools.
Delegate: Students whose schools are already paying for alternative provision but managing to avoid permanent exclusion will also see their costs increasing. If taking funding off per student but still need to pay for alternative provision then it will drivethe need to permanently exclude sooner.
Response from Ralph Beresford: I would be really interested to hear from schools to know what they are doing to avoid permanent exclusions. The aim is to be procuring what we want and not what the market tells us. If we can commission the exclusions for £6-7k per year, then it improves the budget problem.
Delegate: we managed two year 11 children to avoid permanent exclusion, cost £8k each, not £20k and how does the “hard to reach” protocol fit in with this. Many children who are on that excluded list who are now placed back into the schools, why doesn’t the funding follow them to support them in the school?
(Action/feedback - Ralph to respond)
Item 4)Split site funding.
No comments
Item 5) Pupil Growth Fund
Two delegates present from schoolswho receive growth funding. Talked through what this is, what the DfE recommend this should be used for and the criteria set in Northamptonshire for schools to be entitled to receive the funding. Currently this is predominantly an issue for Primary. The fund has existed for 2-3 years and the rate has not been increased. £1.5m base budget and £0.5 million contingency.
Delegate: I do think this does warrant an increase, it pays for a class teacher, part of LSA, size of school is doubled but contribution is the same. Pupils come in not fully funded, takes a year for them to be fully funded, eating into the carry forward.
Item 6) Set up and diseconomy costs.
Brief explanation of the changes proposed. No discussion ensued.
Summary of the briefing provided by Jon Lee to conclude the meeting.
Second Session 6pm to 8pm – Northampton School for Girls
Welcome, introductions and context from Jon.
Mixed audience, Governors, Heads and Finance Professionals.
Key points and background: as per afternoon session above.
Item 1) Primary to Secondary Funding Ratio
Introduced as per the afternoon session.
Q:Why do the number of gaining schools increase. Year on year in option 2.
A: Answer relates to the MFG, as those schools are raised out of protection and into an increasing budget.
Q: Why are you looking to move the ratio to the national figure of 1.28, inputs from several delegates that can’t see the reason for simply moving to a national average.
A: It was emphasised that this is a consultation and not set.We welcome the comments and are opening the discussion on this.
Q: Looking at the consultation and data used there is an implication that we should or will be going to 1.28 and some of the cities in there are higher.
A: Bob comments that yes the cities have beenput in to try to make the comparison fairer and open the debate on whether the current Northants ratio can be justified.
Q: Are those on the list lower funded authorities.
A: Yes 8 of these are f40 members.
Comment from a delegate in a Trust that covers regions from several of the Local Authorities on the data list, for example Nottinghamshire. The changes and effects across the regions and many of them being in the lowest 40 funded regions might mean a double whammy, we’re feeling like we may be going to go bankrupt soon.
Reponse: That is absolutely not our intention. The Primary sector have been saying for a number of years that compared to other authoritiesNorthants primary schools are under funded in relative terms. Need to have this discussion because the data does appear to suggest that is true.
With respect of going bankrupt there are other issues that may be more significant, particularly for secondary, eg. EFA Post 16 funding reductions.