Peterborough Schools Funding Consultation Jonathan Lewis (Assistant Director of Education & Resources) Steve Whitley (Schools & Settings Finance Manager)

Content National context changes – the history National changes for Local decisions for Key benchmark areas Consultation on formula changes for Timetable Early years recap High needs funding recap Other issues

National context The changes introduced in financial year for maintained schools and 2013/14 academic year for academies were the first steps towards a national funding formula for schools. The simplification of local authority funding formulae was a radical step and produced some outcomes that were unexpected. Ministers committed to reviewing the impact with the possibility of some changes for and continue to move towards a national funding formula. The announcement on 4 June set out the changes as a result of this review.

National context The structure of the reform remain in place. The simplified local formula is still at the centre of the system. There is still a closely limited set of factors that can be used in the school formula distribution. The high needs system remains as in The changes being introduced for are relatively minor and the result of a review by DfE with local authorities of the impact of the factors. The Minimum Funding Guarantee continues at -1.5% per pupil with the same exclusions + sparsity.

changes – the history Single DSG allocation based on combined census counts )Schools Block – Schools census 2)Early Year – EY census 3)High Needs – Baseline + growth 4)Additional Allocation

changes – the history 29 Factors (old funding formula) AWPU FundingBaseline Funding Ex Standards Funds GrantEIC Expanding SchoolsBIP Planned ChangesPrior Attainment Lump SumSEN (Ex SF) PoolInternal Exclusions RatesStatements InsuranceMedical Hours AdmissionsSocial Deprivation TurnoverSchool Meals BroadbandPFI Enhanced ResourcesProtected Salaries Children in CareSpecialist Schools EALMFG Personalised Learning 11 Factors (New Formula) Basic Entitlement Deprivation LAC Low Cost High Incidence SEN EAL Lump Sum Rates PFI Split Site Mobility MFG

changes – the history Old factors mapped to one of the new allowable factors 100% Behaviour Improvement Partnership 100% Social Deprivation 81% Free School Meals 100% Excellence in Cities 41% Personalised Learning Deprivation Funding

changes – the history Turbulence minimised by Minimum Funding Guarantee but at a cost.

National changes for There is one new factor – an allowance for sparsity, aimed at supporting necessary small schools, mainly in rural areas – later slide illustrates Where a sparsity factor is used the maximum allowable for a sparse school is £100,000. The factor can be flat rate or tapered. There are two triggers for sparsity funding and both need to be met: Pupil numbers – less than 150 in primary. Less than 600 in secondary. Distance to second nearest school - >= 2 miles in primary. >= 3 miles in secondary. One schools qualified using October 2012 data. No schools qualified using May 2013 data.

National changes for Two schools hit first trigger

National changes for Three schools hit second trigger

National changes for No schools hit the first trigger

National changes for No schools hit the second trigger

National changes for Changes to the lump sum: LAs can now choose to have different lump sums for primary and secondary schools – with middle schools getting a weighted average. The lump sum is now capped at £175,000 per school. Where two schools amalgamate the new school will receive 85% of the total of the lump sums of the predecessors for the next full year.

National changes for Further factors with changes: The looked after children factor must now apply to any child who has been in care for at least one day during a specified period (no choice of datasets). No changes for Peterborough. The prior attainment factor has changes in its measurement at Early Years Foundation Stage and Key Stage 2. For EYFS it will be for not achieving a good level of development for the 2013 cohort; for KS2 it is for not achieving level 4 in English or Maths for all cohorts The mobility factor, if used, is now applied when the number of “mobile” pupils exceeds 10% The basic entitlement for primary pupils (AWPU) must be at least £2000; and for secondary pupils (KS3 and 4) at least £3000.

National changes for In addition to the changes in factors there is an additional condition applied - Authorities must ensure that at least 80% of delegated funding is distributed by pupil-led factors For we are not putting any constraints on the primary/secondary ratio

Local decision for formula based on mapping old factors into one on the 10 allowable factors + MFG. How do we know we have it right? For the first time local authorities funding formula’s are comparable. Agreed to benchmark Peterborough’s funding formula against our statistical neighbours. Benchmarking has been used to inform local decisions about funding levels.

Key benchmark areas

Consultation on formula changes for Secondary Prior Attainment Funding Change in criteria from pupils who fail to achieve a level 4 or higher in English and maths to English or Maths Qualifying pupils increased from 1,252 to 2,815 using October 2012 data set rate: £1,583 To fund the new criteria set by the DfE at the rate used in would result in an additional £2.4m being allocated via this factor. Governments intention to increase the cohort being funded through this factor. CONSULTATION QUESTION 1: Do you agree that the level of funding per pupil should be maintained at the rate?

Consultation on formula changes for Key Stage 4 Basic Entitlement Benchmarking against our statistical neighbours revealed that Peterborough’s key stage 4 is the highest amongst our statistical neighbours. £500 per pupil higher than the benchmark average. It is proposed to reduce the key stage 4 basic entitlement to meet the cost pressure of the increased secondary attainment cohort. CONSULTATION QUESTION 2: Do you agree that basic entitlement for key stage 4 should be reduced? CONSULTATION QUESTION 3: Do you agree that funding released from reducing the basic entitlement for key stage 4 should be reallocated to secondary prior attainment?

Consultation on formula changes for Deprivation Funding Benchmarking showed Peterborough is a clear outlier when comparing the % of schools block allocated for deprivation. Peterborough allocates 5.8% compared to a benchmark average of 10.8%. It is proposed that this gap is closed by allocating more funding through the deprivation factors. Needs to be gradual to avoid too much turbulence. Consulting on four options offered.

Consultation on formula changes for Deprivation Funding CONSULTATION QUESTION 4: It is proposed that a larger proportion of the Schools Block is allocated using deprivation factors. Four options are being consulted on: Option 1: No change in deprivation funding. It would remain at 6% of the total schools block. Option 2: Increase the deprivation funding to 8% of the total schools block. Option 3: Increase the deprivation funding to 10% of the total schools block. Option 4: Increase the deprivation funding to 11% of the total schools block.

Consultation on formula changes for Lump Sums The lump sum provides contribution towards fixed costs. Provides an element of stability. Benchmarking showed that £150k was close to the benchmark average. National funding changes now allow a differentiated lump sum between phases (primary/secondary). Revised cap at £175K. Lump sum allocation is currently excluded from the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) calculation. This means that schools are not protected against year on year fluctuations in the level of funding for this factor.

Consultation on formula changes for Lump Sums CONSULTATION QUESTION 5: Do you agree that there should be no differentiation between the level of lump sum funding for Primary and Secondary? CONSULTATION QUESTION 6: Do you agree that the lump sum funding should continue to be set at £150k?

Consultation on formula changes for Split Site Lump Sums Allocated to those schools who: Operate more than one phase (Primary / Secondary). The second phase is run from a separate building. Dedicated management structure for additional phase. Purpose of this factor: Meet the fixed costs associated with operation of an additional building/site. Meet the management costs of operating a second phase (primary/secondary) from the additional building/site. The split site lump sum value was validated through extensive modelling undertaken with Thomas Deacon Academy.

Consultation on formula changes for Split Site Lump Sums It is proposed that we keep the arrangements currently in place for split site lump sum funding. CONSULTATION QUESTION 7: Should Peterborough continue to have a split site lump sum in its funding formula? CONSULTATION QUESTION 8: Should the value of the split site lump sum be set at the same value as the lump sum?

Consultation on formula changes for Sparsity Funding New factor introduced in the national funding reforms. 2 triggers: Pupil numbers – less than 150 in primary. Less than 600 in secondary. Distance to second nearest school - >= 2 miles in primary. >= 3 miles in secondary. No Peterborough schools qualify when using latest data. CONSULTATION QUESTION 9: Do you agree that there should not be a sparsity factor in Peterborough’s funding formula?

Consultation on formula changes for Mobility Additional resources for pupils which start outside the normal times of admission. £124 per pupil is allocated in the primary phase £65 per pupil is allocated in the secondary phase. National funding reform introduced 10% threshold. Large majority of the schools receiving mobility funding also received growth funding.

Consultation on formula changes for Mobility It is proposed to remove the mobility factor from Peterborough’s funding formula for for the following reason: The vast majority of the schools currently receiving mobility funding are also receiving growth/expanding schools funding for the same pupils. The amounts allocated are minimal and it is questionable whether the allocation received can really make a difference. CONSULTATION QUESTION 10: Do you agree that there should not be a mobility factor in Peterborough’s funding formula?

Consultation on formula changes for Primary: Secondary Ratios The primary to secondary ratio measures the weighting in funding level across the primary and secondary phase. The 2013/14 primary to secondary ratio in Peterborough was 1:1.35. For every £1 spent in the primary phase £1.35 was spent in the secondary phase. Peterborough 1:1.35 compared to benchmark average of 1:1.33.

Consultation on formula changes for Primary: Secondary Ratios Proposed changes will cause movement in schools budgets and MFG. It is proposed that the ratio is maintained at the level to prevent movement between sectors and cause less turbulence. CONSULTATION QUESTION 11: Do you agree that the primary to secondary ratio should be maintained at the levels?

Consultation on formula changes for Consultation Responses Electronic response required to allow us to collate and analyse the data as quickly as possible in preparation for Schools Forum on the 23 rd October Responses will be cut off on the 20 th October

Timetable DateEvent June 2013Government released plans for the funding reforms. June 2013 – September 2013Work undertaken with Schools Forum on the funding reforms. 25 th September 2013Schools Forum – schools funding consultation proposals. 11 th October 2013Schools funding consultation document published. 16 th October 2013Schools funding consultation briefing sessions. 20 th October 2013Deadline for consultation responses. 23 rd October 2013Schools Forum - meet to review consultation responses. 31 st October 2013Submission of the proposed formula to the EFA. End November 2013October 2013 data set released by EFA. 11 th December 2013Schools Forum – Review budget allocations. End December 2013Indicative budgets released to schools. 22 nd January 2014Schools Forum – Sign off final proposals. 31 st January 2014Submission of the final formula to the EFA. 16 th February 2014Final school budgets released

Early years recap Funding can be claimed for 15 hours of nursery education for 3 & 4 years olds over 38 weeks of the year. Funding is paid at an hourly rate. An admin payment is made each term for every 3 & 4 year old for which funding is being claimed. A deprivation premium is paid for those pupils from the most deprived areas. Funding reflects actual hours taken in the school / setting.

High needs funding recap Schools responsible for the first £6k of any additional need Schools Notional SEN Budget – Deprivation Funding + Low High Incidence SEN Funding + 3% of the basic entitlement. Funding in 3 elements when discussing high needs pupils. Element 1 – AWPU – Meets the cost of the pupil basic education entitlement. Element 2 – 1 st £6k of additional need – Schools need to meet the cost of this from their Notional SEN Budget. Element 3 – Top-up funding – this funding will be allocated by LA to meet the cost of any additional need over and above Element 1 & 2. Element 1 AWPU Element 2 Schools SEN Budget Element 3 Top-up funding from LA

High needs funding recap Specialist Settings Specialist settings include Special Schools, Pupil Referral Units (PRU) and Enhanced Resource Provision (ERP) Funding be based on: £10,000 per place commissioned by the local authority, £8,000 for PRU. Top-up funding for the pupils on roll. Existing banding system for the top-up funding will continue until a new banding system is in place.

Other issues Pupil Premium Pupil Premium expected to increase again in 2014/15. Rumoured to be £1,200 per ever 6 FSM

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: My ambition is that every primary school pupil should be able to sit down to a hot, healthy lunch with their class mates every day. Millions of parents across the country are feeling the squeeze. Over the course of a year families spend over £400 lunch money for each child. I am determined to do all we can to help put money back in the pockets of these families. We will start with infant school pupils because teaching healthy habits young, and boosting attainment early, will bring the biggest benefits. Universal free school meals will help give every child the chance in life that they deserve, building a stronger economy and fairer society. “it is up to those running schools there to decide whether to spend the money on free lunches.” What happens to FSM eligibility? What is healthy?

Other issues School Meal Announcement – School Food Plan Phased roll out of free school meals for all children in School Food Plan recommended all primary schools – presented evidence that this would lead to positive improvements in health, attainment and social cohesion, and help families with the cost of living. £600m allocated to fund – starting September 2014 The average school meal costs parents £437 per child per year (£2.30) Many children on low incomes are not eligible for free school meals – approximately 4 in 10 children living in poverty In pilot areas (3 local authorities): students were found to be on average 2 months ahead of their peers elsewhere around 2% more children reached target levels in Maths and English at Key Stage 1; while at Key Stage 2 the impact on achievement of between 3% and 5% academic improvements were most marked among children from less affluent families there was a 23% increase in the number of children eating vegetables at lunch and an 18% drop in those eating crisps

Other issues £600m nationally – we normally get about 0.4% of national settlements – roughly £2.4m We have 8,212 children of which 1,825 already get a free school so funding probably for the remaining 6,387 *190 (school days) *£2 = £2,427,060 + other bits = ?

Other issues Balances Balance control mechanism – reduced allowable carryforward to 10% for primary schools from 13% - likelihood that government will act on balances above 10% from 14/15. Revenue Capitalisation Early notification please. Form needs to be completed and sent to your Schools Financial Advisor.

Questions