Schools Forum Meeting of Wednesday 30 April 2008 Agenda Item 7
Consultation document: Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver – proposals for the transfer of responsibility for the effectiveness of 16-19 education to Local Authorities and a joined up approach to 14–19 education.
- Introduction.
1.1The DCSF and DIUS have issued a consultation document on the future for the provision of 16 to 19 education, in addition the consultation makes proposals for a more co-ordinated approach to 14 to 19 education. The consultation ends 9 June 2008.
1.2The main issues in the consultation are:
- The transfer of the commissioning role for 16-19 places from the LSC to LAs;
- For LAs to provide a place in learning for every young person through strategic commissioning;
- For LAs to judge demand across their area and ensure that supply meets that demand and makes a reality of the new entitlements to Diplomas, Apprenticeships, and the Foundation Learning Tier;
- For LAs to work at a local and, collaboratively, at sub-regional level to commission provision, reflecting the wide areas over which some 16-19 providers attract students;
- To ensure that each provider is funded by a single commissioning agent as far as possible;
- The establishment of a Young People’s Learning Agency, which will be responsible for determining the budgets of each provider by reference to a National Funding Formula. the formula will be based upon current LSC 16-18 methodology;
- Lead LAs will be expected to adopt a strong performance management approach to monitoring outcomes, intervening is necessary;
- For LAs to be responsible for provision for all learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities up to the age of 25;
- A wish to extend the way that 16-18 learning provision is funded to the 14-16 age range as this presents an exciting opportunity to drive a strong, sustainable 14-19 sector offering all young people good quality learning that prepares them for success in later life. This forms part of a wider schools funding review.
- The full consultation can be accessed at :
- Funding issues which may require the views of the Schools Forum.
2.1The consultation paper concerns itself with the wider issues of transferring responsibility for 16-18 year olds from the LSC to LAs and the implications for an extension to statutory education to 16 (in 2013) and 17 (in 2015).
2.2The Schools Forum will wish to consider those questions addressed by the consultation document which have implications for the Schools Budget:
Q1. Do you agree that transferring funding from the LSC to LAs to create a single local strategic leader for 14-19 education and training is the right approach?
In a sense, the question is not about funding per se. The approach proposed will continue to involve the application of a National Funding Formula to 16-18 provision managed nationally by a Young People’s Learning Agency.
The approach to funding proposed will build on that developed by the LSC.
Comment: “The revised funding arrangements introduced for 2008-09 relate to the two academic years 2007/08 and 2008/09. The data supporting 2008/09 was collected during the autumn term 2007 and related to September 2007 students.
The approach does not lend itself well to the provision of three year budgets.
The current arrangements and their predecessors were not well understood by 11-18 schools in Essex”.
Q2. Do you agree that the model we have proposed for transferring funding to the LA is the best way to give LAs effective powers to commission, to balance the budget, create coherence for providers and retain the national funding formula?
Again, it is difficult to argue that real funding decisions are being delivered at local level. The overall size of the 16-18 “pot” is determined nationally and local “differences” cannot be recognised in a National Funding Formula.
Comment: the proposals give LAs, working collaboratively, effective powers to commission, it is difficult to argue that balancing the budget rests other than with central government. A national funding formula offers LAs no opportunities to reflect on local differences.
Q3c. Do you agree that there is a need for: (c.) A slim national 14-19 Young People’s Learning Agency with reserve powers to balance the budget and step in if needed?
The consultation paper makes plain that it is for the DCSF and the Young People’s Learning Agency to secure and determine the total budget and the management of its overall distribution. They will also be responsible for advising on funding rates for qualifications and on the national funding formula.
Comment: There seems to be little scope for not having a Young People’s Learning Agency if it is to discharge the functions detailed above. In terms of “step in”, I believe that this might come about where a LA failed to develop a coherent, realistic commissioning plan, where such a proposal would be essential.
Q6. Do you agree with the proposed approach for Learners with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities?
The proposal guarantees financial support to learners with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities(LLDD) up to 25. The proposals assume that the costs of LLDD provision will be included within the “indicative budgets” determined by the Young People’s Learning Agency for each LA.
Comment: the way in which LAs have been resourced for 16–18 provision for SEN in the past has been problematic. There has never been a clear link between costs incurred and funds provided. The funding envelope will need to recognise the ever increasing costs and access to education resulting from this group of student if the overall funding per pupil is not to deteriorate.
Q7a. Do you agree that LAs should be responsible for commissioning provision for young offenders in custodial institutions? A. do you favour the “host” funding model, or the model where “home” authorities are charged (recoupment)?
The consultation paper proposes two approaches for young offender provision:
- The “host” model which ensures that young offender institutions are commissioned by just one authority for the provision of learning needs; and
- A model where the “home” authority meets the costs of provision as a result of a recoupment process with the “host” authority. This approach would promote a strong incentive for LAs to prevent young people from entering custody in the first place, and to maintain a role in ensuring appropriate education is available and is continued on release.
Comment: The “host” model is in line with the rest of the 16-19 proposals, by keeping the procurement of provision as simple as possible for the provider. The “home” model does not appear to undermine this approach, but adds a recoupment dimension to the process. It is unclear [to me] with the overall “pot” of money to be delivered for 16-19 being determined by and delivered through a national funding formula, how the “home” authority will be affected in the way described nor how they would recover the educational element of the costs of maintaining a child in a juvenile institution from the Young People’s Learning Agency. At present, recoupment arrangements already exist between host authorities maintaining secure units and the “home” authority for non-educational and special needs costs; minimising this expense should suffice as a spur to prevent young people entering custody in LA provision.
Q10 Are you content with the proposals:
- to retain a national funding formula based closely on the existing one?
- For funding to flow to institutions on the basis described?
The current funding arrangements in place with the LSC determine entitlement for next year on the basis of student counts, qualifications and retention based upon historic data. The current arrangements fund school sixth forms on the basis of academic years rather than financial years. No three year data is provided.
Response: the current scenario does ensure that funding follows the learner, however, as the data which drives funding is a year behind it does lead to schools providing for more or less students than they are actually funded for that year. The approach is not widely understood by schools and provides for no forward planning.
The institutions budget is derived from a national funding formula with no local discretion for variation. The Young People’s Learning Agency will inevitably be remote from local institutions and difficult to influence.
Q11 Would you support a move to a single national 14-19 funding system?
The consultation paper believes that extending a national formula would represent an exciting opportunity to drive a strong, sustainable 14-19 sector offering all young people good quality learning that prepares them for success in later life. With the increased diversity of qualifications on offer this might represent a sensible way of resource delivery.
Comment:
The main advantages might be:
- to provide a consistent approach to funding the growing volume of provision which will be available pre and post 16 including Diplomas and the Foundation Learning Tier, the latter covering entry and Level 1 provision in the qualifications framework for 14 and above
- to facilitate collaboration between providers eg in delivering Diplomas, and more generally a wider choice of what and where to study
- being better able to reflect the variations in cost of an increasingly differentiated curriculum at Key Stage 4
- funding by qualification potentially allows greater control to be exerted over the range and quality of the qualification offer across 14-19.
The main policy risks are that:
- the creation of a 14-19 funding block may move the funding barriers currently experienced at 16 to the KS3/KS4 interface;
- there could be significant redistribution of resources over time resulting from the move from locally determined 14-16 funding to a national formula;
- the third of secondary schools without 6th forms and lacking experience of the national funding methodology would face a particularly challenging transition;
- extending national rates to 14 may be seen by local authorities as a diminution of flexibility to shape local provision to need through local formulae;
- without some regulation funding by qualification could encourage over provision eg GCSEs. At 16-18 this is currently controlled by a cap on the size of programmes that can be funded
- the proposal could see 14-16 resources being used to support 16-19 provision if success rates in that phase increases.
- Conclusion.
3.1The Forum is asked whether they would wish to take an independent view on the Consultation.
3.2The LA will provide a copy of its overall response to the Schools Forum.
Author: Jim MacDonald
Senior Finance Manager