1. SASH School Funding Reform Consultation 2013/14 26 th September 2012 1

2. Background documents issued Headteacher and Governor Awareness sessions 16 th & 19 th July (briefing pack with 5 handouts including draft consultation questionnaire) Consultation Overview & Guidance document sent to Headteachers on 4 th September with consultation questionnaire Letter sent to Headteachers 14 th September showing school data used and financial impact of proposed formula changes on individual settings Letter sent to secondary Headteachers 20 th September explaining main reductions (Deprivation and EAL/SEN) 2

3. Today’s Event Seek sector Headteachers’ consensus view on – A) Centrally retained budget proposals – B) Mainstream formula proposals Feedback from today (and tomorrow’s SAPH & ASSSH) will shape proposals to go to the 9 th October Schools Forum – please vote today! The proposals (factors & indicative values) must then go to EFA for their review/approval by 31 st October Pupil numbers confirmed in October census, DSG & factor values finalised, budgets issued 15 th March 2013 3

4. A) Retained Budget proposals – Q1 central items ServiceAmount 2012/13 Proposal 2013/14 OK? Admissions£200,300£200,000? Schools Forum£2,000 ? Termination of employment costs£100,000 ? Equal Pay – 50% match funding£224,000£200,000? NB – The LA is allowed to retain funding at the same levels as 2012/13 – SBC has, in recent years, reported all retained budget proposals to the Schools Forum 4

5. A) Retained Budget proposals – Q2 to 5 central schools items Item2012/132013/14?Policy? Pupil Growth – set up costs (primary only) £555,000£46,000£11,500 per class? (unless exceptional circumstances) Pupil Growth – trigger funding (primary only) £844,000 £610,000 TBC Additional classes only? Plus general growth above 4%? Infant class size (primary only) £0£27,000£4,500 per year? 6 classes? NB – all settings must be treated the same in terms of eligibility for this funding and any underspends must be carried forward as “pupil growth” must be ring fenced. For 2013/14 no spend anticipated in secondary settings 5

6. A) Retained Budget proposals – Q6A De-delegation items 2012/13 Net 2013/14 Gross ? 2013/14 per pupil (note 1) Free School Meals Eligibility Assessment £4,300£10,800£0.38 per pupil £2.92 per FSM pupil Trade Union Duties (note 2)£9,900£22,100£0.79 per pupil Schools in Challenging Financial Circumstances (not school improvement) £322,000 £11.48 per pupil (1) Academies will receive the per pupil funding automatically as will maintained settings if they decide not to de-delegate the funds back to the LA (2) So far this year 7 Academies have not bought into the TU facilities service (which funds release time for 3 Teacher Union representatives) this will make the service unsustainable unless charges to other settings are increased. 6

7. A) Retained Budget proposals – Q6B Retained High Need Services The LA is not required to formally consult on levels of retained high needs funding but SBC has done so in recent years year’s and would welcome HT feedback 2012/132013/14 Saltway portage service£148,000 Education Support Service Monitoring£10,000 Statemented Pupils Equipment£130,000 Speech, language & Occupational Therapy (mainstream settings only will be centrally funded as funding for special schools and SRP’s is to be delegated) £164,000£100,000 Travellers Children Support£77,000 SENRAP “top up fees” for £10k plus support£1,369,000£1,200,000 7

8. A) High Needs Support & the Notional SEN delegated budget Schools currently receive delegated AWPU / EAL / Deprivation funding plus SEN/AEN funding to notionally meet the first 15 hours of additional support (£5,750) From 2013/14 delegated SEN funding must be allocated based on prior attainment All settings can continue to request “top up” fees from the LA SENRAP budget for SEN pupils whose annual costs exceed £10,000 8

9. B) Proposed Mainstream Formula Changes Guiding principles – maintaining stability Lump sum - value Deprivation – methodology & values Low cost SEN – value EAL – time period and value Drove BME – continued funding Gains and Losses – funding MFG 9

10. B) Guiding Principles – Q7 Do you agree with the LA approach? Harmonise methods of allocation for all factors Harmonise per pupil funding rates for all factors Adjust each sector’s BPPE (Basic Per Pupil Entitlement) values up or down to maintain each sector’s total funding (other than for pupil changes) 10

11. B) Factors no longer allowed – Q8 Do you agree that the following funding should be initially moved into BPPE? Cash flow interest (Abatement) Recent LA delegations (maternity etc.) Secondary Behaviour Support Funding released from reduced Portage service 11

12. B) Lump sum values – Q9 Optional factor with maximum value of £200,000 Do you agree the LA formula should include this optional factor? Do you agree the amount should be £106,700? Do you agree that sector BPPE rates should be adjusted as necessary (increased secondary and reduced primary)? 12

13. B) PFI Affordability Gap – Q10 Do you agree that the LA should continue to delegate funding to match each PFI school’s actual PFI affordability gap charge? NB - this is not funding that could be redistributed – the only other option is central retention 13

14. B) Split Site Funding – Q11 Do you agree that the LA should not retain an optional factor for split sites? NB - no SBC setting has received this for a number of years but Swindon Academy will receive its secondary funding based on the local 2013/14 formula. The Academy will receive two lump sums but will not receive split site funding unless the LA establishes this as a policy with a formula to determine values 14

15. B) Secondary KS 3 & 4 values – Q12 Do you agree that the LA should fund KS 3 and KS 4 pupils at different rates? Do you agree that the ratio should be 1:1.22 - Indicative rates at this stage are; KS 3 £3,652.18 KS4 £4,455.65 Do you agree that sector BPPE rates should be adjusted as necessary? 15

16. B) Social Deprivation – Q13 Same methodology and per pupil values in each sector? Neither FSM / FSM ever 6 or IDACI are perfect allocation methods – do you agree that a blend of 50% via FSM ever 6 and 50% via IDACI is appropriate? Assuming 50% is allocated via FSM ever 6 the per pupil amount would be £868 – if FSM current is used the amount would be £1,301 16

17. B) Social Deprivation (IDACI) – Q13 We cannot use IMD or MOSAIC or any other method of allocation – only FSM or IDACI IDACI scores are derived from IMD scores and are a refined measure of child level deprivation whereas IMD is a more general measure which includes pensions, morbidity, crime etc. See following slides for further details 17

18. B) Deprivation- IMD Indices of Multiple Deprivation Data captured in 2008 with 7 Indicators 1. Income (Families in receipt of Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance, Child Tax Credits & Asylum support) split into 3 measures: 1.Income Domain Numerator- Includes both Adults & Children 2.Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index- Children 0-15 years 3.Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI)- Adults +60 years 2.Employment (Claimants of jobseekers Allowance, Incapacity benefit, Disablement Allowance) 3.Health Deprivation & Disability Domain (range of indicators from morbidity to illness & disability ratios) 4.Education, Skills and Training Domain (not staying in/ entering higher education) 5.Barriers to Housing and Services Domain (Affordability, distance to a Post Office, food shop, GP and Primary) 6.Crime Domain 7.Living Environment Domain (Air Quality and Road Traffic Accidents) 18

19. B) Deprivation- IDACI Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index - ‘The percentage of children aged 0-15 living in income- deprived households’ Data captured in 2007 Measures Families who are dependent on certain means-tested benefits. The benefits included in the count are Income Support, Income Based Job Seekers Allowance, Pension Credit and Child Tax Credit, along with asylum seekers receiving support 19

20. B) Deprivation- IDACI DfE have used IDACI to provide an analysis of the % of each schools’ pupils as at October 2011 which fall into various IDACI bands This is based on Lower Super Output areas (32,482 in England) which typically relate to areas of approx. 1,500 people which are smaller than post code areas. Moving from IMD to IDACI causes funding changes 20

21. B) IDACI – Q13 Do you agree with the values per pupil proposed by the LA which provide greater funding as deprivation increases; – Band 1£434 per pupil – Band 2 £529 per pupil – Band 3£608 per pupil – Band 4£781 per pupil – Band 5£955 per pupil – Band 6£1,215 per pupil 21

22. B) Low Cost High incidence SEN – Q14 Can only use prior attainment data Do you agree that the rate per pupil should be £359 requiring an increase to secondary rates? Do you agree that the LA should, if there is scope to increase funding, seek to enhance this area in particular to boost the delegated notional SEN budget ? 22

23. B) EAL Funding – Q15 Should we recognise EAL for 1, 2 or 3 years? Same funding rate or higher for secondary? Should funding per pupil be; – Current primary£304 – Current secondary£89 – Current average£227 Or should we retain the existing EAL pot and provide higher funding for a smaller number of pupils - £494 (at 3 years)? 23

24. B) Drove BME funding – Q16 Do you agree that the current funding of £124,000 should continue? Do you agree that the effectiveness of the service should be annually reviewed by Schools Forum? 24

25. B) Gains and Losses - MFG Despite the LA’s attempts to minimise turbulence it is inevitable that some settings will gain and some will lose whenever formula changes are made MFG protection must be applied but it is important to recognise that this limits reductions per pupil at 1.5% and not the overall school budget i.e. fewer pupils will still translate into lower funding 25

26. B) Gains and Losses Based on initial projections, assuming LA proposals are supported, substantial MFG funding will need to be paid of £586,000 (the current year figure is only £20,000). The LA will not receive additional DSG to cover this See following summary of gains and losses 26

27. B) Gains and Losses BEFORE MFG AND TOPSLICE OF GAINING SCHOOLS Minimum Funding Guarantee is the key to minimising turbulence but we need to decide how to fund this. 27

28. B) Gains and Losses The indicative cost of MFG is £586k which can be funded in a number of ways A) Top slicing all gaining schools by a percentage (51.1%) of their gain B) Limiting the maximum gain to 0.8% per pupil See handout showing impact of these options on individual settings NB it may be possible to part fund MFG from funding released from the retained budget 28

29. End of Presentation / Consultation Any questions on any other aspects of the school funding reform programme? 29