14. Yes.
Yes.
Yes , essential to maintain the increased demands of the new examination systems. The notional per pupil amounts need to be decided ASAP as there is considerable variation between primary and secondary funding across LA’s.
Pupil level only as it reflects the actual intake as we have seen significant shifts in IDACI over a 5 year period. However, considerable work needs to be done on the proportions attributed to deprivation factors as some would argue that schools in high deprivation areas are double funded via pupil premium.

15. Yes, if used in 50/50 combination with deprivation.
Yes, but only EAL3 as EAL 1,2 are not accurate measures of need.
Yes, but careful modelling needs to be done in regards to minimum funding guarantee in the transition period.
Yes, but calculated on a National basis. In the current LA formulas other schools in a LA fund the sparsity factors, which further exacerbates underfunding and causes problems for MFG. There is a direct link to sparsity, deprivation and rural underperformance which has long been ignored so sparsity should be a priority.
Yes.
Yes.

16. Yes. Schools did not enter into PFI agreements but LAs did encouraged by Government. There were many badly negotiated contracts and it is schools in a LA area that have had to fund some of the excesses. PFI responsibilities should be calculated on a National DSG Basis and returned to the LA needing to fund the PFI. This way, other schools in an LA who have not benefitted from new builds, will not be penalised and the costs of PFI spread across all schools.
Yes, but reviewed biannually as these contracts do not exist in perpetuity.
Yes. Business rates.
Yes. Split Sites.
Yes. PFI – LAs should endeavour to renegotiate contracts in the years to minimise costs to other schools. (see answer to question 11)
Yes. Other exceptional circumstances ( see answer to question 12)
Yes, but factored for demographic growth as it is greater in some areas than others.

17. Yes, but using the hybrid methodology as the general market methodology does not reflect the schools’ labour market which can differ significantly from the local labour market.
Yes, the current methodology is too cumbersome.
No, for some schools the in year changes can be significant and the lag in funding will not meet the needs of pupils. However, this should be part of a LA centrally held contingency growth fund which responds to immediate need not a factor based on historic movements.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, but with the power to review schools MFG resting with schools forum not the EFA or DfE.

18. Yes.
Yes but with schools forum reviewing the current centrally retained funds from the DSG.

20. No
Yes but limited to certain headings.

22. Yes

23. The alternative provision context
1.5 Funding for AP is primarily provided to enable local authorities to discharge their duty to provide a suitable education for all the children of school age in their area who cannot attend school. The reasons for their need of AP vary. Most AP provided by local authorities, either directly or through pupil referral units or other providers, is for pupils who have been permanently excluded by a school. Other AP is for those temporarily excluded or who need interventions to help them reintegrate back into school. There is also a form of AP for those with medical or health needs, often provided by hospital schools or other institutions associated with health care facilities.
1.6 AP is funded from the high needs funding block because it is generally more expensive than mainstream school provision, with teaching in small groups and
more personalised, and a set of needs that usually require more specialist support.
1.7 We are currently considering options to make AP more rigorous and will be publishing our plans in due course. In the light of this, we will keep under review how the different kinds of AP are funded to make sure that the financial arrangements support any changes in delivery. In particular, we will continue a constructive dialogue with schools and academies using and providing AP; those seeking to develop multi-academy trusts to deliver forms of AP, including hospital education; AP free schools and those proposing to establish AP free schools; and local authorities.

24. What high needs funding is used for
1.8 The majority of high needs funding is for children and young people with SEN and disabilities. The high needs funding block is allocated to local authorities as part of their DSG. Local authorities decide how that funding is used. According to the latest local authority budget statements, and direct Education Funding Agency (EFA) expenditure records, out of total high needs expenditure of £5.3 billion:
• about 89% (£4.7 billion) is spent on SEN and disability placements and services;
• 10% (about £0.5 billion) is spent on AP; and
• a further 1% (about £70 million) of the total high needs expenditure is spent on hospital education (a type of specialist AP for those children and young people in hospital or elsewhere because of their medical needs).

25. A funding system that supports opportunity
The funding system should support local authorities and institutions in extending opportunities for all children and young people, including those who need additional support to achieve improved outcomes. In the case of high needs funding we need to consider the impact on particular groups of pupils, some of whom are the most vulnerable in our society. The funding system should support educational excellence everywhere.
• A funding system that is fair
Funding should be allocated on the basis of objective measures or factors which drive costs, or act as appropriate proxy indicators for the need to spend.
• A funding system that is efficient
Funding should support the right behaviours in local authorities, institutions and across the system as a whole. The changes should support provision that delivers the best outcomes, and does so in the most efficient way. We intend that this next period of funding reform will provide an opportunity to gather examples of good practice and innovation that can be shared more widely to help all areas improve.
• A funding system that gets funding to the front line
The 2015 spending review protected the national schools budget in real terms. Every pound of that budget matters: the education budget must work harder than ever to ensure that it delivers educational excellence everywhere. Funding should be delivered to the level at which spending decisions can be made most effectively and efficiently, so that those decisions – whether by local authorities, school head teachers, or others – secure suitable provision and achieve good value for money.
A funding system that is transparent
Funding calculations should be easy to understand and justify. There should be more transparency in the way that funding is allocated, at each level. It should be clear why a local authority or institution is funded the way it is. In a system that relies on local assessment and decisions about how needs are met – mainly taken at institution or local authority level – it is not necessary or desirable to have complete consistency across the country. Local authorities, working with parents, schools and other providers, will devise different approaches that reflect not only the diverse needs of children and young people with SEN and disabilities, but also some variation in local circumstances. But we should move towards funding each local authority on an objective basis that reduces the extremes of local variation, and make sure that we do so in an open and transparent way.
• A funding system that is simple
Funding streams should be combined as far as possible, and formulae should not be too complex but reflect relevant factors; although we should be mindful of the need to balance simplicity with accuracy.
• A funding system that is predictable
A smooth transition to new funding levels is essential. Funding changes from year to year should not be too great or unpredictable, so that local authorities and institutions can plan ahead and manage changes. It is important that they look ahead and plan for future needs, whilst making sure that they do not disrupt the provision for existing pupils and students. We are proposing changes that would in some cases take some time to be fully implemented, and are more about shaping provision for future cohorts of children and young people.

26. Yes
Yes but with oversight being given to a revised schools forum. An alternative approach might be to devolve funding for Alternative Provision on a formula basis to local Headteacher/Principal’s Associations to administer on the behalf of all schools in an authority.
Yes

27. No- although I agree with using proxy measures I do not agree with some aspects of the model proposed for the following reasons:
I agree - a basic unit of funding is sensible for those students in specialist provision as this almost equates to the Lump sum for mainstream schools
2. I agree with a % factor for Health and Disability.
3. Population factors and deprivation factors should be looked at together. I would suggest 75% deprivation and 25% population as a weighting.
4. The suggested low attainment criteria need urgent revision to bring them in line with the new attainment measures. IDACI, although useful for many other comparisons, is not sufficiently responsive to changes in deprivation to be used as criteria.
Yes but please redefine ‘hospital’ education as ‘health related Alternative Provision’.

28. Yes, but using the hybrid methodology as the general market methodology does not reflect the schools’ labour market which can differ significantly from the local labour market.
Yes, but using the % proportion of spend in relation to other blocks in 2016/17 would perpetuate unfairness between authorities if used for the 5 year period. I would suggest that if the proportion of spend in 2016/17 is to be used as a factor that we move to the national average spend over 3 years to ensure fairness. Then remove it altogether over the following two years in stages.
Yes, but those authorities at the extremes of low/high funding may need to have different MFG/gains caps than those closer to the average. The fixed MFG has sometimes worked against equalisation in mainstream schools using the current formulas e.g. after 5 years of -1.5% MFG some schools are still more generously funded than others in an LA because of historical factors. A sliding scale MFG would be fairer.
This area needs a lot of further work. Some schools, in similar contexts, attract more students with SEN/EHC than others because of their reputation. These schools, especially small schools are unfairly burdened with the extra costs of provision in comparison with other local schools.

29. Yes, but what is the timescale for this to happen
Yes, but what is the timescale for this to happen? Should you also have a clawback when units do not fill all their places? ?
? See question 9.
No – Local Authorities should hold all the funding not the EFA . There is too much variation in the cost of independent schools places – this proposal is too liable to misuse. Las commission these places not the EFA. ?