1. Funding Formula Consultation Summary of Joint Response: Schools Forum, Learn Sheffield and Sheffield City Council Schools Forum 23 June 2016 1

2. Proposed principles A funding system that:  Supports opportunity  Is fair  Is efficient  Gets funding straight to schools  Is transparent  Is simple  Is predictable 2

3. Proposed principles: our response 3 Agree with the principles but don’t believe that sufficient thought has been given to: 1.Local flexibility 2.Collaborative working 3.More pupils with complex needs 4.The financial impact on schools with growing pupil numbers, newly arrived children and the impact lagged funding has on these schools 5.Sufficient time for Local Authorities along with their school forums to respond to the consultation or to develop a local response to the 2 years of soft formula funding without any safety net or minimum funding guarantee at local authority level

4. Schools Block - do not agree with: Proposal to move to a school-level national funding formula in 2019-20 given that we have spent considerable time developing our local funding formula and have concerns regarding removal of contingencies which schools rely upon – Q2 The sparsity factor (potentially double-funding with lump sum) – Q8 Exceptional premises circumstances factor (already have split site) – Q11 Allocating funding to LAs in 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on historic spend for business rates and PFI – as these are known in advance – Q13 4

5. Schools Block - do not agree with: Allocating funding to LAs based on historic spend – this is not forward-looking or responsive enough – Q15 Requirement for LAs to distribute all schools block funding to schools from 2017-18 – more time is required to consider implications and manage the process - Q20 In general, we feel it unnecessary to force additional responsibilities on schools 5

6. Schools Block - agree with: Private Finance Initiative (PFI), but have concerns around disproportionate impact where there is no growth – Q11 Inclusion of area cost adjustment, but only for London. BUT, don’t agree with either proposed methodology as there are concerns that the area cost adjustment could be used to replicate current funding trends– Q16 Allowing LAs to retain some maintained schools’ DSG centrally. Also think this should apply to all schools including academies 6

7. High Needs Block - do not agree with: Independent schools receiving place funding directly from EFA as this could lead to uncertainty, especially if lagged funding – Q13 The notion of large post-16 ‘units’ (similar to Integrated Resource Units) as this would not promote inclusion or have any other additional benefits – Q14 7

8. High Needs Block - agree with: The majority of high needs funding being distributed via LAs but have concerns around unnecessary conflict with proposed allocation of schools block – Q2 Basing the formula on proxy measures, but have concerns that the proxies effectively represent numbers and level of need at area level – Q3 The proposed factors, but with comments re. proxy factors, early years, attainment and we have concerns about repeat use of deprivation factors across high needs funding – Q4 8

9. High Needs Block - agree with: Including a proportion of 2016-17 spending in the high needs allocation, but have concerns that the proposals don’t take into account costs resulting from increased Free Early Learning – Q7 Greater clarity is required around purpose and expectations of notional SEN – Q9 Funding approach of special units in principle, but where £ per pupil is less than £4k (e.g. Sheffield) it represents a reduction to overall funding – Q10 9