1 / 23

The Local Authority Perspective

This article examines the impact of the National Funding Formula (NFF) on schools in Suffolk. It discusses the historical funding disparities, changes in funding under the NFF, winners and losers, and evaluates whether the NFF is a fair methodology for funding allocation.

richardcollins
Download Presentation

The Local Authority Perspective

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. The Local Authority Perspective Councillor Gordon Jones Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Education and Skills Suffolk County Council

  2. Content • Impact of the NFF on Suffolk • Impact of the NFF on schools in Suffolk • Other DSG funding – High Needs and Early Years • Home to School Transport • Conclusion

  3. The impact of the NFF on Suffolk • Historically a low funded authority • 2017-18 • 106/150 lowest schools block unit of funding • 3.9% lower funding compared with the average for England • 2018-19 • £9.2m (2.4%) increase in Schools Block from 2017-18 to 2018-19 • Fully implemented NFF • Suffolk increase of 4.7% from 2017-18 baseline • Average increase for England 3.6% • Average increase for inner/outer London 2.4% • Average increase for England excl. inner/outer London 4.0%

  4. NFF League Tables 2018-19 • Primary • 113/150 lowest schools block primary unit of funding • 5.4% lower funding compared with the average for England • £217 per pupil less than the national average • Secondary • 115/150 lowest schools block secondary unit of funding • 5.8% lower funding compared with the average for England • £301 per pupil less than the national average

  5. Suffolk’s statistical neighbours 2018-19SBUF Primary schools (£/pupil)

  6. Suffolk’s statistical neighbours 2018-19SBUF Secondary schools (£/pupil)

  7. Suffolk’s statistical neighbours 2018-19Central School Services Block (£/pupil)

  8. Suffolk’s statistical neighbours Area cost adjustment values

  9. Is the NFF a fair methodology to allocate funding to LAs? • The objective of a National Funding Formula is undermined because there is a high level of inbuilt protection of the current inherent unfair funding levels • The area cost adjustment provides too much protection and maintains the significant variance in funding between local authorities • For local authorities which have a very low area cost adjustment, the NFF embeds the inability to pay more competitive salaries and negatively impacts on the ability to recruit and retain good quality staff.

  10. The impact of the NFF on Suffolk schools • Suffolk has implemented the NFF in 2018-19 • Fully supported by Schools Forum • Applied a -1.5% MFG • Gains have been scaled back by 23% • Schools furthest from their NFF funding move towards it more quickly

  11. Change in average per pupil funding from 2017-18 to 2018-19 for each Suffolk school

  12. Winners and Losers in 2018-19 • Some schools gain significantly • But not all schools gain • 82 Primary schools lose funding (18 schools > -3%) • 2 Secondary school loses funding • Trend - small rural schools lose funding

  13. The funding factors that have changed most for Suffolk schools • An additional £5.0m has been redistributed through the deprivation factor as the NFF allocates deprivation using both the Free School Meal measures i.e. current FSM and Ever6 FSM rather than only the current FSM measure • Prior attainment unit values have increased so that an additional £5.5m is allocated through this factor • The reduction in the lump sum means that there is a reduction of £1.0m allocated via the lump sum factor • The lump sum used for sparsity has also reduced leading to a reduction of £1.3m allocated through the sparsity factor.

  14. Deprivation • The most influential funding factor in the redistribution of funding in Suffolk schools • Schools that previously had low levels of deprivation but have Ever6 FSM pupils have gained funding through the NFF • But • schools in deprived areas have lost funding due to the significant reduction in unit values across the IDACI bands. Particularly significant impact on large schools with a high level of deprivation.

  15. Comparison of funding via the deprivation factor

  16. Is the NFF a fair methodology to allocate funding to schools? • In Suffolk, schools with the following characteristics are disadvantaged by the NFF : • schools in deprived areas • small schools • rural schools • Suffolk is a rural county with a number of small schools, some of which are geographically remote. There are also significant pockets of deprivation.

  17. The impact of the NFF on Suffolk schools funding compared to the baseline when implemented in full

  18. Do Suffolk schools benefit from the NFF? • Based on the indicative figures provided by the DfE, when the NFF is • fully implemented : • 10 schools in Suffolk will receive a funding increase of 10.0% or more • 71 schools in Suffolk will receive a funding increase of 2% or less • Average gain in funding for Suffolk schools is 4.6% (above the national average gain of 3.6%) • BUT • the per pupil funding rates remain low and Suffolk’s relative funding position compared with other LA actually deteriorates.

  19. Summary of the impact on Suffolk of the NFF • Increase in funding as a result of the NFF and the average percentage increase is higher than the national average but despite this, the relative per pupil funding in Suffolk remains below the national average. • Fall from being in the lowest third to being in the bottom quarter of pupil funding rates compared with other LAs. • Approximately half of Suffolk schools will receive NFF increases of around 5% or less which will not address the cost of living pressures that schools have had to accommodate over recent years. The financial implications of the NFF for some schools will be even more challenging and there is a real concern that some schools may become financially unstainable.

  20. Other DSG funding • High Needs Funding • SCC fairs better – gains 5.8% to 2019-20 & 9.5% if fully implemented – enough to meet demand ? • Historic budgets embedded in formula • Long period of implementation will reduce ability to make step changes • £10k place funding not changed for specialist provision • Early Years National Funding Formula • very low hourly rate £4.30 • significant reduction in funding • real concern regarding long term impact • HN & EY are integral to support schools - there is an inextricable link.

  21. Home to School Transport

  22. Conclusion • The NFF is not an equitable basis to allocate funds either at : • LA level or • individual school level • The redistribution of schools block funding does not sufficiently address the inequality in the variation in funding across the country • The impact on schools of the funding levels of HN and EY can not be overestimated and should not be considered in isolation • The complexity and cost of H2S transport in a rural county is a significant challenge. • Unfair funding in education impacts negatively on childrens’ services increasing demand and costs

  23. Next steps • SCC recognises and supports schools, EY and HN providers who face ongoing significant funding challenges • Continue to implement the NFF locally ahead of the DfE required timescales so that schools have a longer transition period • Actively support the F40 group to achieve objective of fairer funding

More Related