1 / 11

School Funding Reforms: Consultation with Somerset Schools & Academies for 2014/15

School Funding Reforms: Consultation with Somerset Schools & Academies for 2014/15 . Analysis of responses. 23 returns overall 14 Primary (4 from federated schools) 9 Middle and Secondary (6 academies)

fauna
Download Presentation

School Funding Reforms: Consultation with Somerset Schools & Academies for 2014/15

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. School Funding Reforms:Consultation with Somerset Schools & Academies for 2014/15

  2. Analysis of responses • 23 returns overall • 14 Primary (4 from federated schools) • 9 Middle and Secondary (6 academies) • The number of responses was disappointing, but may reflect the difficulty in schools understanding the issues. • More generally Headteachers may not have had time to complete an informed return. • The TWG views are therefore key and the group has made some revised proposals, having analysed the responses and comments.

  3. Element 1: Basic Entitlement Question 1: Do you agree with the proposed values for the lump sum appropriate to your school? Comments: Primary schools thought money was being moved to Middle and Secondary schools. TWG view: After reviewing the 2012/13 ALF formula and looking at the correlation the TWG recommend a revised lump sum of less than £95k but more than £85k, approx £90k depending on DSG available, with an increase in the per pupil value.

  4. Element 1: Basic Entitlement Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed criteria and values for the sparsity factor? Comments: Primary schools thought money was being moved to Middle and Secondary schools. TWG view: Recommend we await the refreshed data due from the DfE in December, along with the NFFF announcements Request the DfE reviews the data for Boarding schools and Middle schools where some concerns were raised.

  5. Element 1: Basic Entitlement Question 3: Can you suggest “exceptional premises circumstances” that might need to be taken into account? Comments: Concerns about listed buildings and restrictions for schools in national parks. TWG view: Unable to apply for exceptional circumstances in 2014/15 as the opportunity has now passed, however the MFG will protect schools in the short term. Consider applying for 2015/16 once we understand the NFFF announcements.

  6. Minimum Funding Guarantee & Capping Arrangements Question 4: Do you agree with the proposal to cap formula gains? Comments: confusion about % losses, some small schools think that they should be protected when pupil numbers fall, whereas the MFG protects the amount per pupil not the number of funded pupils. Otherwise general agreement that a cap should be used to fund the MFG.

  7. Element 2: Additional Needs Question 5: Do you agree that this is an appropriate use of the available data to indicate levels of additional need in Somerset schools and academies? Comments: Concern the proxy indicators don’t recognise AEN/SEN in some schools. Concern that Pupil Premium already rewards the same schools that benefit from higher funding through the formula. General acceptance that the proxy indicators are the only available options to allocate funds for AEN/SEN.

  8. Element 2: Additional Needs Question 6: Do you agree with the proposal to allocate “Top Up” funding for ASD2 and LLSC2? Comments: Agreement that these pupils need support and should be recognised. TWG view: Recommend the Forum support the proposal to allocate £200 “top up” funding per ASD2 and LLSC2 pupil from September 2013 (pro rata).

  9. Centrally Retained Resources Question 7a: Do you wish funds to be held centrally to support good schools with falling rolls? Comments: Agreement to this amongst primary schools, although concern that it could only apply to good and outstanding schools and that it should only be short term. TWG view: The TWG was concerned how this would work in principle and requested officers to review the number of good or outstanding schools with a lower than usual reception in-take before a recommendation was made.

  10. Centrally Retained Resources Question 8: Please indicate whether you wish to see budgets for insurance, maternity cover, FSM Eligibility checking and licences and subscription de-delegated (maintained schools only). Comments: Agreement across the board. TWG view: Recommend the Forum vote on de-delegation in line with the responses from maintained schools.

  11. Contingency Funding Question 9a: Do you wish the contingency budget to continue? Comments: The only comments were that larger schools, particularly Middle and Secondary can cope because they have larger budgets and therefore no requirement for a contingency. TWG view: Recommend not to maintain a contingency without a clear reason.

More Related