Mainstream School Funding Reform Stage 2 Consultations 2014/15

SASH 7th November 12.00 to 14.00 at Nova Hreod

1

Today’s Agenda1. Overview to Section 106 of the Town &

Country Planning Act 1990 – Paddy2. Review of the LAs use of the Looked after

Children Pupil Premium – Paddy / Caroline3. Trade Union Release time any SASH interest

in pooling options – Anne4. Updates on key 2014/15 DSG issues - Steve5. Mainstream Funding Options and modelling

(consensus views of SASH needed) - Steve

2

Section 106 Overview

3

4

Looked After Children Pupil Premium

5

LAC PP Funding Rates

• Pupil Premium was introduced in 2011/12• LAC funding rates;– 2011/12 £488– 2012/13 £600– 2013/14 £900 (£74.0k received - £39.8k retained)– 2014/15 £1,900

• 2013/14 secondary element partially retained to fund LACES team (£39,800) balance allocated to schools each term (approx. £400 per LAC)

6

LAC PP Usage

• The retained PP for LAC has funded 2 mentors at an annual cost of £38,900.

• A evaluation of the work of the 2 mentors for this 2 year period has been tabled today.

• Feedback shows that the work is valued highly by pupils, designated teachers, social workers and foster carers alike.

7

Key data 2011-2013• Direct support totalled 3698 hours of 1:1• 43 LAC were supported (62% of Sec. LAC) • All secondary schools inc St Lukes and Crowdys

Hill received support (Not Uplands)• 11 LAC were at risk of permanent exclusion• FTEs dropped by over 63% to 50 days (from

136) from the date of mentor involvement.• Assaults on staff and/or pupils dropped by 64%,

from 44 to 16 within the same group8

Trade Union Release Time Cost Pooling

9

Trade Union Release Time• All central funding (£23,000) has been delegated in

2013/14 but Schools Forum agreed that the LA could continue to fund existing release arrangements from the DSG balance this year only.

• New pooling funding arrangements are needed from 1st April 2014 or individual schools and academies can make local arrangements

• Maintained schools (by sector) can elect for de-delegation (automatic pooling) or can individually pool funding via a Traded Services agreement

• Academies must individually enter into a Traded Services agreement

10

If a new arrangement is required;• Which unions should be included?• Levels of release time?• Which schools and/or Academies wish to join the

scheme and pool funding? • De-delegate funding (i.e. If all maintained secondary or

primary schools agree) otherwise set up individual traded services charges.

• If all settings (28,000 pupils) bought in at current costs of £23,000 = 0.82p per pupil

• Arrangements to ensure that TU activity is confined to those schools/Academies funding the scheme.

11

Interest in new arrangements?

• SASH interest?–Maintained schools?–Academies?

12

DSG 2014/14 Key Updates

13

Key Updates

• Changes to the scope of Swindon’s DSG – SASH to note

• Some policy areas need clarifying to gain Schools Forum support – SASH view required

• Post 16 High Needs strategy to meet any shortfall - SASH to note

• Spending choices arising from October Schools Forum to consider in January – SASH view required

14

Changes to scope of Swindon’s DSG responsibilities – Swindon Academy

• DfE are removing “part recoupment” academy arrangements – this means SBC will calculate a full funding allocation for Swindon Academy from 2014/15

• Good news - providing we receive additional DSG to at least match the additional costs to the local formula but method of calculation is unclear – part recoupment issues have caused problems for us and the Academy

• Difficult for us to model without historic funding information e.g. MFG therefore excluded today

15

Changes to scope of Swindon’s DSG responsibilities - Croft

• Croft school will not be treated as a basic need academy and will be funded entirely outside Swindon’s DSG

• Good news as we have allocated £77,140 of trigger funding in 2013/14 and £86,392 in 2014/15 and future years

• This has been a flip flop decision and is a return to original DfE policy regarding SBC’s financial commitments regarding Croft – TBC?

16

Changes to scope of Swindon’s DSG responsibilities – Tadpole Lane

• We were fully expecting to need to allocate pre start up (£100,000) and BPPE based trigger funding (£92,563) for this school which is scheduled to open September 2014

• DfE advise we must allocate a part year budget which covers all funding elements – lump sum, notional SEN, deprivation, EAL etc. = cost in 2014/15 of approx. £167k v £93k estimate.

• New Town centre primary school likely to be an expansion therefore only Trigger Funding payable

17

Pupil Growth Policy – Infrastructure set up costs

• Schools Forum agreed the principle of paying £35,000 one-off funding per additional 1FE for infrastructure costs (above £11,500 per class) but sought clarity on when this would be paid

• Revised proposal is to pay this to all permanently expanding schools – including Even Swindon and Orchid Vale which increases proposed spending by £70,000– see revised costings at handout A - SASH views?

18

Pupil Growth Policy -Classroom set up costs

• Schools Forum agreed the payment of £11,500 per primary class for furniture, equipment and curriculum resources

• LA set retained budget on the basis of funding being allocated each year but some schools have asked if funding can be paid up front

• Easier to manage DSG if costs are spread over future years but we could fund from DSG balance to release pressure on 2014/15 and future DSG – see handout A for options

• SASH views?

19

Pupil Growth Policy -Trigger Funding

• Schools Forum agreed policy for allocation of part year BPPE trigger funding for LA requested expanding schools

• However concerns raised that where pupil intakes are lower than forecast an expanding school may have additional staffing and operating costs which exceed the funding allocated

• For example in the current year Haydonleigh TF was based on LA estimate of 31 pupils but the actual number was only 10 – loss of £32,397

20

Pupil Growth Policy -Trigger Funding

• LA asked to look at alternative models which provided guaranteed funding for expanding schools to ensure at least a break even position i.e. additional costs matched by funding

• LA estimates are that a primary school would need to have at least 19 pupils to provide sufficient funding to match costs - see handout B - SASH views?

21

Trigger Funding (TF)Options1) Retain the existing policy – pay TF based on the actual net

pupil increase between October PLASC dates 2) Allocate TF based on planned number of places for the

relevant intake (i.e. always fund a class of 30 pupils)3) Allocate TF based on the actual number of pupils for the

relevant intake (e.g. Haydonleigh would receive funding for the 18 reception pupils rather than the net increase across the school roll)

4) Allocate TF regardless of numbers of pupils to cover inescapable teaching costs (therefore no winners or losers) based on a minimum of 19 pupils

5) Allocate TF based on actual pupils but with a minimum of 19 so that no school receives lower funding than costs incurred

22

Post 16 High Needs Funding Update

• LA officers and Chair of Schools Forum met with EFA and post 16 providers on 24th October– National budget not yet confirmed– 23rd December 2013 deadline for LA submission of

planned pre and post 16 high need places– DSG High Needs Block funding for 2014/15 to be

confirmed in March• For 2013/14 the full year gap between costs of meeting

new responsibilities and funding allocated = £1m• Fortuitous use of 2 year old surplus (£1m) in 2013/14

enabled this gap to be covered but not repeatable

23

Post 16 High Needs Funding Update• FE providers maintain that they have HN students which

the LA will not recognise for HN funding (EFA support LA stance)

• Historic level of funding paid by EFA to Swindon College (£17k) is the main issue as the cash shortfall is primarily due to the introduction of a national formula (£12k).

• We also have levels of demand above our capped learner numbers in 2013/14.

• EFA say door is open for LAs to submit bids for special cases – we asked for £1m this year and received only £0.350m

• SBC strategy – early years & pre 16 funding cannot and should not be reduced to meet 2014/15 post 16 HN shortfall

24

Overall High Needs Funding Position

• For 2014/15 we will not know how much the High Needs DSG block will be until March therefore to enable early years and mainstream funding to be set we will assume;– Pre 16 Special School and SRP funding will be

contained within existing levels of funding– Post 16 Special School and mainstream Sixth forms,

FE Colleges, ISP’s will be contained within the full year equivalent (3 terms) of existing levels of funding

• All funding to be reviewed in light of actual DSG

25

DSG Spending Choices?

• Given uncertainty over DSG funding levels the LA has tried to identify all optional spend that could more easily be curtailed in order to set overall 2014/15 budgets within the funding available

• We still have a DSG balance of at least £1.16m carried forward from 2012/13 but an expectation that primary BPPE rates will absorb £0.9m (benchmarking supports this)

• Many other pressure areas e.g. Low Prior Attainment

26

DSG Spending Choices – SASH view?Item Annual cost

Disadvantaged 2 year old nursery funding – do not pay the 40p per hour retrospective supplement on top of the £4.95 hourly rate to any early years providers

£150,000

Introduction of deferred reception uplift funding to provide BPPE and other pupil led funding for primary schools where reception numbers in January are higher than October (the base PLASC for annual funding) – approx. 30 pupils in 18 schools

£102,000

Cease or reduce the primary BPPE enhancement of £54.77 per pupil introduced in 2013/14 (funded from the DSG balance) based on regional benchmarking

£900,000

Introduce revised trigger funding policy which provides guaranteed levels of funding to expanding schools regardless of actual pupils joining the expanded classes

£???

NB Schools Forum voted to introduce sparsity funding at a cost of approx. £95,000 but this will replace MFG which is already protecting the two eligible primary schools

27

2014/15 Mainstream Funding Options and

Modelling

28

Scope of Modelling• We don’t have reliable October 2013 pupils details and are

required to model formula changes based on October 2012• The figures presented show the impact of different options

had they been implemented for the current 2013/14 year• Schools and Academies will receive MFG protection to

prevent year on year losses of funding per pupil from exceeding 1.5%

• No protection for falling rolls although there is scope to introduce a temporary falling rolls fund for certain schools in certain circumstances beyond 2014/15.

• We don’t have anything to model Swindon Academy secondary funding yet

29

Existing Secondary Funding• Although all schools and academies are funded using

the same factors, funding varies according to;– Different pupil characteristics – LPA, FSM, IDACI,

EAL– NNDR charges vary per school and Academies

charges are 80% reduced after conversion– PFI schools receive extra funding to match their

contribution to affordability costs• A schedule summarising existing funding across

secondary schools is attached at handout D

30

Modelling Undertaken – for information

Schedule produced to show impact of formula changes already agreed as follows

1. Increased secondary delegations re Riverside top ups

2. Increase secondary lump sum with corresponding BPPE reductions

NB - PFI Affordability gap centralisation not allowed

See handout E for breakdown by school

31

Modelling Undertaken – options for consultation

• Low Prior Attainment – big increase in eligibility (DfE) plus low funding per pupil compared to region

• Modelling done to show impact of increased scope of LPA funding with corresponding BPPE reductions and impact of also increasing the LPA funding rate (Alternative showing FSM reductions also provided)

• EAL - no changes to eligibility but benchmarking suggests SBC provides low funding therefore modelling done to show impact of EAL increase / BPPE reduction

32

Low Prior Attainment BPPE KS3 BPPE KS4 LPA

Current funding rates £3,662 £4,467 £702

New BPPE funding rates after agreed changes £3,640 £4,431

Current LPA eligibility funds 1,040 pupils – cost £0.729m

New LPA eligibility will fund 2,340 pupils - cost £1.641m

Impact on BPPE rates to maintain LPA @ £701.57 £3,558 £4,332 £702

- Additional LPA cost / BPPE saving required £0.912m

Impact on BPPE rates to increase LPA to £1,000 £3,495 £4,255 £1,000

- Additional LPA cost / BPPE saving required £1.611m

Impact on BPPE rates to increase LPA to £1,500 £3,390 £4,127 £1,500

- Additional LPA cost / BPPE saving required £2.781m

Impact on BPPE rates to increase LPA to £2,000 £3,285 £3,999 £2,000

- Additional LPA cost / BPPE saving required £3.951m

NB – 2013/14 Regional Benchmark BPPE’s although may need to be adjusted to fund LPA?

£3,710 £4,362 £2,065

33

Low Prior Attainment

• Handout F shows how funding would be redistributed across secondary schools as LPA funding increases with corresponding BPPE reductions

• Handout G shows similar LPA funding increases but with 50% of the cost coming from BPPE reductions and 50% coming from FSM deprivation reductions (current rate is £858.86) - this smooth’s out changes

34

Low Prior Attainment

Consensus view of SASH?1.Preferred BPPE funding rate in 2014/15?2.Are increased costs to be met from reduced BPPE or reduced BPPE and FSM deprivation?

35

Secondary EAL Funding• Current SBC secondary EAL funding rate is £574.11

compared to regional average of £850• Approx. 242 eligible secondary pupils attract funding

totalling £139,096• Increasing EAL funding rate– to £700 would cost an extra £30,499 – To £850 would cost an extra £66,838

• BPPE rates would need to reduce to fund the increase – see handout H for breakdown across schools.

36

Secondary EAL Funding

Consensus view of SASH?1.Preferred EAL funding rate in 2014/15 - £575, £700, £850?2.Are increased costs to be met from reduced BPPE or other factors?

37

End of Presentation

• We will finalise 2014/15 mainstream funding allocations reflecting October 2013 PLASC and the agreed formula values and will issue indicative budgets as soon after Christmas as possible

• Any residual questions?• Any further information required?

38