1 / 29

SAPH School Funding Reform Consultation 2013/14

SAPH School Funding Reform Consultation 2013/14. 27 th September 2012. Background documents issued. Headteacher and Governor Awareness sessions 16 th & 19 th July (briefing pack with 5 handouts including draft consultation questionnaire)

battlea
Download Presentation

SAPH School Funding Reform Consultation 2013/14

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. SAPH School Funding Reform Consultation 2013/14 27th September 2012

  2. Background documents issued • Headteacher and Governor Awareness sessions 16th & 19th July (briefing pack with 5 handouts including draft consultation questionnaire) • Consultation Overview & Guidance document sent to Headteachers on 4th September with consultation questionnaire • Letter sent to all Headteachers 14th September showing the school data used and the financial impact of proposed formula changes on individual settings

  3. Today’s Event • Seek sector Headteachers’ consensus view on • A) Centrally retained budget proposals • B) Mainstream formula proposals • Feedback from today (and ASSSH, SASH & SRP’s) will shape proposals to go to the 9th October Schools Forum – please vote today! • The proposals (factors & indicative values) must then go to EFA for their review/approval by 31st October (Pupil numbers will be confirmed via October census, DSG & factor values finalised, budgets issued 15/03/13)

  4. A) Retained Budget proposals– Q1 central items

  5. A) Retained Budget proposals– Q2 to 5 central schools items

  6. A) Retained Budget proposals– Q6A De-delegation items

  7. A) Retained Budget proposals– Q6B Retained High Need Services The LA is not required to formally consult on levels of retained high needs funding but SBC has done so in recent years year’s and would welcome HT feedback

  8. A) Retained Budget Proposals- SENRAP Top up fees? • The proposed 2013/14 SENRAP budget of £1.2m is based on current levels of funding which has been £8 per hour for some years. • It would be possible to increase this and SASH were supportive of an increase to £12 per hour requiring an additional £0.6m • This would require an approximate 0.7% reduction to BPPE values - do SAPH support this?

  9. A) High Needs Support & the Notional SEN delegated budget • Schools currently receive delegated AWPU / EAL / Deprivation funding plus SEN/AEN funding to notionally meet the first 15 hours of additional support (£5,750) • From 2013/14 delegated SEN funding must be allocated based on prior attainment • All settings can continue to request “top up” fees from the LA SENRAP budget for SEN pupils whose annual costs exceed £10,000

  10. B) Proposed Mainstream Formula Changes • Guiding principles – maintaining stability • Lump sum - value • Deprivation – methodology & values • Low cost SEN – value • EAL – time period and value • Drove BME – continued funding • Gains and Losses – funding MFG

  11. B) Guiding Principles – Q7 Do you agree with the LA approach? • Harmonise methods of allocation for all factors • Harmonise per pupil funding rates for all factors • Adjust each sector’s BPPE (Basic Per Pupil Entitlement) values up or down to maintain each sector’s total funding (other than for pupil changes)

  12. B) Factors no longer allowed – Q8 Do you agree that the following funding should be initially moved into BPPE? • Cash flow interest (Abatement) • Recent LA delegations (maternity etc.) • Funding released from reduced Portage service

  13. B) Lump sum values – Q9 • Optional factor with maximum value of £200,000 • Do you agree the LA formula should include this optional factor? • Do you agree the amount should be £106,700? • Do you agree that sector BPPE rates should be adjusted as necessary (increased secondary and reduced primary)?

  14. B) PFI Affordability Gap – Q10 • Do you agree that the LA should continue to delegate funding to match each PFI school’s actual PFI affordability gap charge? NB - this is not funding that could be redistributed – the only other option is central retention

  15. B) Split Site Funding – Q11 • Do you agree that the LA should not retain an optional factor for split sites? NB - no SBC setting has received this for a number of years but Swindon Academy will receive its secondary funding based on the local 2013/14 formula. The Academy will receive two lump sums but will not receive split site funding unless the LA establishes this as a policy with a formula to determine values

  16. B) Social Deprivation – Q13 • Same methodology and per pupil values in each sector? • Neither FSM / FSM ever 6 or IDACI are perfect allocation methods – do you agree that a blend of 50% via FSM ever 6 and 50% via IDACI is appropriate? • Assuming 50% is allocated via FSM ever 6 the per pupil amount would be £868 – if FSM current is used the amount would be £1,301

  17. B) Social Deprivation (IDACI) – Q13 • We cannot use IMD or MOSAIC or any other method of allocation – only FSM or IDACI • IDACI scores are derived from IMD scores and are a refined measure of child level deprivation whereas IMD is a more general measure which includes pensions, morbidity, crime etc. • See following slides for further details

  18. B) Deprivation- IMD • Indices of Multiple Deprivation • Data captured in 2008 with 7 Indicators 1. Income (Families in receipt of Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance, Child Tax Credits & Asylum support) split into 3 measures: • Income Domain Numerator- Includes both Adults & Children • Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index- Children 0-15 years • Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI)- Adults +60 years • Employment (Claimants of jobseekers Allowance, Incapacity benefit, Disablement Allowance) • Health Deprivation & Disability Domain (range of indicators from morbidity to illness & disability ratios) • Education, Skills and Training Domain (not staying in/ entering higher education) • Barriers to Housing and Services Domain (Affordability, distance to a Post Office, food shop, GP and Primary) • Crime Domain • Living Environment Domain (Air Quality and Road Traffic Accidents)

  19. B) Deprivation- IDACI • Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index - ‘The percentage of children aged 0-15 living in income-deprived households’ • Data captured in 2007 • Measures Families who are dependent on certain means-tested benefits. The benefits included in the count are Income Support, Income Based Job Seekers Allowance, Pension Credit and Child Tax Credit, along with asylum seekers receiving support

  20. B) Deprivation- IDACI • DfE have used IDACI to provide an analysis of the % of each schools’ pupils as at October 2011 which fall into various IDACI bands • This is based on Lower Super Output areas (32,482 in England) which typically relate to areas of approx. 1,500 people which are smaller than post code areas. • Moving from IMD to IDACI causes funding changes

  21. B) IDACI – Q13 • Do you agree with the values per pupil proposed by the LA which provide greater funding as deprivation increases; • Band 1 £434 per pupil • Band 2 £529 per pupil • Band 3 £608 per pupil • Band 4 £781 per pupil • Band 5 £955 per pupil • Band 6 £1,215 per pupil

  22. B) Low Cost High incidence SEN – Q14 • Can only use prior attainment data • Do you agree that the rate per pupil should be £359 requiring an increase to secondary rates? • Do you agree that the LA should, if there is scope to increase funding, seek to enhance this area in particular to boost the delegated notional SEN budget?

  23. B) EAL Funding – Q15 • Should we recognise EAL for 1, 2 or 3 years? • Same funding rate or higher for secondary? • Should funding per pupil be; • Current primary £304 • Current secondary £89 • Current average £227 • Or should we retain the existing EAL pot and provide higher funding for a smaller number of pupils - £494 (at 3 years)?

  24. B) Drove BME funding – Q16 • Do you agree that the current funding of £124,000 should continue? • Do you agree that the effectiveness of the service should be annually reviewed by Schools Forum?

  25. B) Gains and Losses - MFG • Despite the LA’s attempts to minimise turbulence it is inevitable that some settings will gain and some will lose whenever formula changes are made • MFG protection must be applied but it is important to recognise that this limits reductions per pupil at 1.5% and not the overall school budget i.e. fewer pupils will still translate into lower funding

  26. B) Gains and Losses • Based on initial projections, assuming LA proposals are supported, substantial MFG funding will need to be paid in 2013/14 of £585,000; • Primary settings £534,000 • Secondary settings £51,000 • the current year figure is only £20,000! • The LA will not receive additional DSG to cover MFG - see summary of gains and losses

  27. B) Gains and Losses • (*) Where the losses exceed 2.1% per pupil these settings must receive MFG but this has to be funded from the local formula

  28. B) Gains and Losses The indicative cost of MFG is £586k which can be funded in a number of ways • A) Top slicing all gaining schools by a percentage (51.1%) of their gain • B) Limiting the maximum gain to 0.8% per pupil • See handout showing impact of these options on individual settings (NB it may be possible to part fund MFG from funding released from the retained budget)

  29. End of Presentation / ConsultationAny questions on any other aspects of the school funding reform programme?

More Related