1 / 13

Schools Funding Formula Review 2010

Schools Funding Formula Review 2010. Jeff Fair: Chair of the Formula Review Sub Group. Schools Funding Formula Review 2010. Work of the Formula Review Working Group Timescale Primary/Secondary Differential Unchanged Funding Factors Factor Change Proposals.

rowena
Download Presentation

Schools Funding Formula Review 2010

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. Schools Funding Formula Review 2010 Jeff Fair: Chair of the Formula Review Sub Group

  2. Schools Funding Formula Review 2010 • Work of the Formula Review Working Group • Timescale • Primary/Secondary Differential • Unchanged Funding Factors • Factor Change Proposals

  3. Primary/Secondary/Special Funding Levels Consultation Question: 1) Given that the LA is given a fixed amount of money do you agree that the overall funding differential between primary and secondary schools is about right? • Do you believe there is a case for increasing the amount of money allocated to special school funding? continued…

  4. Primary/Secondary/Special Funding Levels Background: • Question of Balance determined a Primary : Secondary differential of 1:1.36 in 2000; • The differential was delivered by 2005; • The LA has managed the differential since 2000 for changes: now 1:1.30 • The differential has been Quality Assured by Mouchel and external Education Finance Professional; • Benchmarking suggests Essex differential in line with England averages.

  5. 4. Unchanged Funding Factors • Rent/Rates • Sewage Treatment works • Post 16 Funding and abatement • Split-site • PFI – LA contribution • Special units (other than to propose further delegation from central funds) • London Weighting • Foundation/VA allocation

  6. Lump Sum Funding Consultation Question:Do you agree with the proposed lump sum funding proposals? Proposal:To vary the Lump Sum: - Secondary – Reduce from £327,592 to £267,231 (18.4%) - Primary – Increase from £70,260 to £77,448 (10.2%) The proposal reflects the fixed, unavoidable costs of operating a school.

  7. Additional Education Needs Consultation Question:Do you agree with the proposed approach to AEN allocations? Proposal:To reflect the methodology proposed in the government’s March to June consultation on a Needs Led approach to LA Funding; The LA meets the (then) government’s target for delivering additional resources to schools supporting children from areas of high social deprivation by 2013-14; The LA uses Teacher Assessment as an indicator of under achievement in lieu of SAT results.

  8. SEN Funding Consultation Question: • Do you agree that the duplicated funding should be corrected by delegating the first 7.5 hours of funding for complex and severe needs statements? • Do you agree with the proposal to increase the rate per hour at which statemented hours are funded? (continued)

  9. SEN Funding(continued) Proposal: A technical error exists with the current approach. Pupils and students with complex and severe needs are (effectively) double funded for 7.5 hours of provision; Transfer 7.5 hours per week for each statement from SEN to the proxy AEN factor (c. £9m.); Deliver the resource through a mixture of the AEN factor and Key Stage funding (to mitigate the effect of “winners and losers”); To phase in the transfer over the period 2011-12 to 2013-14; and Increase the hourly rate for SEN to take account of increased employee on costs.

  10. Funding Small Schools Consultation Question: • Do you agree with the revised definition of a ‘small’ school? • Do you agree with the revised small school protection factors? • Do you agree that the Teaching Cost Adjustment should be self funding and limited to schools of less than 210 pupils? (continued)

  11. Funding Small Schools (continued) Background:The current formula incorporated various definitions of a small school, and that it funds small schools very generously in comparison with both other comparable authorities and with larger schools in the authority. Proposal: Introduce a single definition of a small school based on single form of entry, Change the small school protection factor to reflect the actual additional costs of delivering the curriculum in a small school; Maintain the methodology for secondary schools; Retain the TCA but restrict its application to all schools with less than 210 pupils. The TCA to be self financing in future.

  12. Special School Funding Consultation Question:Do you agree that: the current funding formula for special schools should remain unchanged; additional funding is made available (up to £2.0 million) to improve staffing ratios; Background: No change in the basic funding methodology is proposed; Benchmarking evidence suggests that Essex Special Schools are funded at levels below our statistical neighbours. If an option to enhance the level of funding is supported, staffing levels could be improved.

  13. Opening, Closing and Reorganising Consultation Question:Do you agree that support should be offered to small schools entering into “hard” federations? Proposal:To revise to OCR factor to support schools which choose to enter a hard federation. To provide half of an additional lump sum per school, as a one-off budget allocation to help the schools concerned meet any costs they may incur in establishing a federation.

More Related