Agenda item

Report attached.

 

The Forum had been advised that on the 7^th March 2016 the Department for Education had launched 2 consultations as follows:

 

1.    A National Funding Forum formula for schools; and

2.    A High Needs formula and other reforms.

 

The closing date for responses on both consultations was 17^th April 2016.

 

DA had informed the Forum that he had attended a briefing given by the DFE Funding Policy Unit which had covered the detail of the two consultations.

 

1.    Proposals for a schools national funding formula.

 

The purpose behind the proposals was to develop a funding system that supported every child to achieve their potential, whatever their background. This system should:

·         Be fair;

·         Be efficient;

·         Get funding straight to schools;

·         Be transparent;

·         Be simple; and

·         Be predictable.

 

The proposals were:

·         To move to a school level (‘hard’) national funding formula from 2019-20;

·         To use the ‘hard’ national funding formula to determine local authorities schools block allocations in 2017/18 and 2018/19, but leave them to set formulae locally ( a ‘soft’ formula);

·         To ‘re-baseline’ local authorities’ DSG blocks to reflect current practice . Ring-fence the schools block from 2017/18 onwards so that all schools block funding goes to schools;

·         To introduce a new ‘central schools block’ so the Dedicated Schools Grant will have four blocks in total (schools, central schools, high needs and early years.

·         Alongside these changes, the pupil premium would remain as a separate grant.

 

The DFE’s starting point for the school national funding formula was those factors currently allowed in local formulae. To be included in the formula, the DFE believed a factor should:

 

·         Be linked to significant costs in schools – not necessarily costs faced by every school, but things that were commonly recognised as significant drivers of cost at national level;

·         Make a significant difference to the distribution of funding between schools;

·         Be based on data which was accurate at school-level, up to date and appropriately quality-assured, with no perverse incentive to increase funding; and

·         Be clearly tied to pupil characteristics, as far as possible.

 

DA had prepared answers to the 25 questions posed in the consultation document and all were discussed by the Forum. After much discussion the main point of contention remained question 16

 

‘a) do you agree that we should include an area cost adjustment?

 

b)   Which methodology for the area cost adjustment do you support?

·         General labour market methodology

·         Hybrid methodology.’

 

MD had concerns that neither methodology appeared to recognise the difference between Inner and Outer London, indeed was there still a distinction? DA explained that salary costs for Inner and Outer London boroughs demonstrated a clear distinction.

 

JW felt that the fact that Havering had an Essex post code did not help. Havering was the third largest London Borough and this was not always recognised. In recent years the changes which had affected Havering with the rapid influx of families from Inner London boroughs had not been recognised.

 

The Forum had asked DA to undertake some more research around this issue.

 

The Forum had noted that response which will be submitted on behave of the Council and agreed that subject to clarification on question 16 a similar response be submitted on behalf of the Forum.

 

2.    High Needs Funding Formula and other reforms.

 

DA had advised that this consultation had built on the 2013 reforms, and would be supplemented by a further review of alternative provision.

 

A key factor for the Forum was the fact that Havering was the lowest funded local authority in London.

 

The DFE had commissioned the Isos Partnership to review high needs funding and they had made 17 recommendations. The DFE had concluded that in order to support the improvement of outcomes for children and young people with SEN and those in alternative provision, further change to high needs funding should be made including:

o   A distribution of high needs funding from central to local government that was more formula-driven;

o   Other improvements to the current funding arrangements at local level.

 

The DFE had been proposing a high needs formula based on the following factors:

 

·         Low attainment factors: pupils not achieving level 2 in reading at the end of KS2, and pupils not achieving 5 A*-G GCSE at KS4, or equivalent standards as changes were made;

·         Health and Disability: use of “children not in good health” population census data and disability living allowance data as indicators:

·         Deprivation: use of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM), and the IDACI measure currently used in local schools formulae;

·         Population factor: use of ONS data – estimated number of children and young people in the 2 to 18 range. Increases in population will be reflected in increased allocations to local authorities;

·         Basic entitlement for pupils/students in special schools and post 16 institutions: to provide a basic per pupil/student entitlement (e.g. £4k per pupil/student) for each child or young person in a special school, special academy or specil post 16 institution (SPI);

o   Funding for maintained special schools and academies would go to the local authority, and for non-maintained special schools and SPIs to the EFA;

·         Area cost adjustment: general labour market data or taking account of the relative costs of teachers pay in different areas.

 

Alternative provision funding would be dealt with as follows:

 

·         Areas with higher proportions of pupils eligible for FSM, and the most deprived areas according to the IDACI measure, are more likely to have higher proportions of excluded pupils;

·         The DFE therefore proposed to use the population and deprivation factors in the allocation of funding for alternative provision;

·         The DFE did not have specific proposals on hospital education yet, but were currently working with sector representatives to develop a way forward;

·         The DFE had proposed to continue distributing hospital education funding on information about local authorities and academies current spend.

 

The intention was to include an element of 2016/17 planned spending on SEN and AP in the national formula for at least the next five years to give local authorities time to plan and implement changes, and so they don’t have to disrupt current placements and provision. They would shortly be collecting information from local authorities on their 2016/17 high needs budgets to use for this formula factor;

 

It had been intended to set an overall minimum funding guarantee that would not reduce local authorities’ high needs funding by more than a specified percentage in each year (paid for as necessary by capping/damping gains. They also propose to help local authorities control their high needs spend.

 

The Forum agreed that a case should be made for an immediate change in Havering.

 

The Forum had expressed their support for proposals to provide more capital funding for the creation of new special schools through the free school programme, in addition to making available capital funding for the expansion of existing SEN provision – at least £200m would be made available.

 

The consultation proposed changes to the way high needs funding supports schools. It had been proposed to:

 

·         Simplify the mainstream schools formula by including pupils in special units within the school’s pupil count so that they attract the per pupil amounts due to the school, plus per place funding of £6,000. Schools should not lose out from the adjustment;

·         Give those independent special schools on the section 41 list the opportunity to receive place funding directly from the EFA, at the rate of £10,000 per place, with the balance in the form of top up funding from the local authority.

 

The Forum were of the firm opinion that this change would be to the detriment of the primary sector in Havering and this point needed to be made forcefully in the Forum and Council’s responses.

 

The consultation went on to discuss plans for Early Years provision. It had proposed that local authorities should be clear how early years providers who catered for young children with SEN and disabilities could access the support they need.

 

There would be further consultation later in 2016 on:

 

·         How the DFE intend to help improve early years provision for young children with SEN and disabilities – those with both lower level and higher level needs – through changes to funding arrangements;

·         How the overall system should work to ensure they were given the best start in education.

 

Until the additional consultation was issued it was difficult to comment on this point, there was need for more clarity of any changes and on the funding.

 

JW did explain the difficulties the PVI sector faced, first in obtaining EHCPs for under 5’s. This should be seen as a priority to ensure young children have the right package in place once they start in Reception.

 

At the Early Years stage staff have an advantage with a 1 to 8 ratio compared to 1 to 30 in Reception. But to make the most of this the right funding and support needs to be in place.

 

The Forum had requested DA to prepare a draft response to the consultation and circulate it to members of the Forum for comment and have authorised the Chair and Vice Chair to agree the final response.

 

·