Agenda item

Report ED12043

Members of the Forum considered a report outlining a range of proposed financial modelling options for the new funding formula as part of the 2013/14 funding review.  Twelve versions of the funding model had been developed following the meeting of the Schools’ Forum on 12^th July 2012, where members of the Forum had considered a report outlining feedback from schools on the basic principles underlying the new funding formula.  The modelling had been undertaken using the prescribed number and type of factors laid down by the Department for Education, applying variations within the factors based on the findings from the first stage of the consultation.  For each version of the financial modelling, the current overall levels of funding for Primary, Secondary and Special Schools had been maintained to ensure that no particular sector was adversely affected by the proposed changes. 

The funding of Special Schools would not be allocated through the proposed financial modelling options and members of the Forum were advised that representatives of the Local Authority would meet with representatives of the Special Schools to agree individual arrangements around the number of places and level of funding provided.

Members of the Schools’ Forum considered the elements of the proposed models which would apply to primary and secondary schools.

In considered the level of attainment at which to base the funding, it was noted that a child attaining 73 points or less was likely to be working just below age related expectations and was more likely to have been identified as having a special educational need and/or a disability, whereas a child attaining 78+ points may be considered to be working at age related expectations and as having reached a good level of development.  The members of the Schools Forum generally agreed that it would be most appropriate to base this measure at those attaining 73 points or less, although Richard Sammonds was concerned that these measures did not reward the school for the progress made by children as they progressed through the key stages.  Following a vote on whether to use the 73 points or less Foundation Stage Profile, 12 members were in favour and 1 member abstained.  It was therefore agreed to use this measure

In response to a query regarding how the figures for Deprivation/Attainment/English as an Additional Language had been derived, the Head of Schools Finance Support confirmed that the figures had been based on current total funding allocations and that work had been undertaken to find a lump sum that could be common to both the primary and the secondary sector to ensure a similar level of funding was available to children and young people with special educational needs.  Karen Raven highlighted the way the funding was split between the primary and secondary sector.  This split had been applied consistently throughout the modelling, however there was potential to revisit how the pools of Primary and Secondary funding were split to ensure levels of funding were appropriate across both sectors. 

Members of the Schools’ Forum then considered the level at which the lump sum should be set.  The modelling was based on three proposed lump sums of £125k, £150k and £180k, and members of the Forum noted that the lump sum agreed would be paid in the same amount to all schools.  Richard Sammonds highlighted the disparity in providing the same lump sum to all schools, regardless of number of pupils, and was concerned at the general low level of funding for larger schools in the proposed models.  The Head of Schools Finance Support confirmed that similar concerns were been identified for larger schools by other local authorities but that a Minimum Funding Guarantee would be in place for two years to ensure schools received an appropriate level of funding until the move to the National Funding formula in 2015/16.  The Vice-Chairman queried whether a lump sum of £0 could be provided.  The Head of Schools Finance Support confirmed that this could be agreed, however schools faced certain fixed costs, such as staffing which made it logical to provide a lump sum.  Another member of the Forum queried whether the use of different models for supporting small schools, such as federating, would reduce the need for a lump sum payment.

Members of the Forum discussed the number of models that should be provided to schools as part of the consultation.  A member of the Forum noted that by presenting fewer options, it would be easier to identify the preferred model.  The Vice-Chairman agreed that the results would be clearer with fewer models; however he also highlighted the need to provide a wide choice to schools within the consultation.  To support schools in understanding the implications of each model, Alison Regester asked that the impact of the Minimum Funding Guarantee be included with each model.

Following a vote on the number of models that should be provided to schools as part of the consultation, 9 members were in favour of 4 models (versions 6, 8, 10 and 12), 2 members were in favour of 2 models and 1 member abstained.  It was therefore agreed for 4 models to be included in the consultation.

The Head of Schools Finance Support confirmed that a briefing session would be provided for Head Teachers, Governors and Bursars on Thursday 27^th September 2012 at the Education Development Centre, and noted that the Chairman and some members of the Schools’ Forum would be in attendance.

RESOLVED that funding models 6, 8, 10 and 12 be released to schools as the next part of the formal consultation period.