proposals of north somerset council and the strategic...
TRANSCRIPT
- 1 -
Consultation on school funding arrangements for the 2018-19
financial year
Proposals of North Somerset Council and the Strategic Schools
Forum (SSF)
- 2 -
Index
SECTION DESCRIPTION
1 Introduction
2 Methodology
3 Executive Summary of recommendations
Details of proposals:
4 Implementation of the National Fair Funding Formula in North Somerset
5 De-delegations
6 Additional delegation of responsibility
7 Deprivation funding in Early Years
8 Additional allocations for schools with a disproportionate number of high needs pupils
9 Scheme for financing schools – restrictions on school balances
10 Statutory Services Charges for maintained schools
11 Next steps
- 3 -
1. Introduction About this consultation 1.1. This consultation covers changes to school funding arrangements as a result of
both national and local initiatives. 1.2. The proposals in this consultation could have significant impacts on the
distribution of resources in North Somerset. All stakeholders are recommended to read the consultation, attend the consultation briefing on 9th November and respond in full to the proposals. This will enable your views to be considered as decisions regarding implementation are made at the meeting of the Strategic Schools Forum on 6th December 2017.
1.3. If you have any questions about anything contained in this document then please
send them via email to [email protected].
- 4 -
2. Methodology 2.1. The Formula Review Working Group (FRWG) has undertaken the reviews identified
by the SSF. The group has produced written minutes of each meeting and updated the SSF with progress.
2.2. The current membership of the group is set out below and where members cannot
attend substitutions are allowed to ensure the group can carry out the work.
Alison Waite Headteacher Small Primary School Vacant Headteacher Medium Sized Primary School Adam Mathews Headteacher Bournville Primary School Tony Searle Principal Hans Price Academy Vacant Headteacher Secondary School Philippa Clark Headteacher Ravenswood Special School
Vacant Social Deprivation Representative Jonquil Brooks Governor St. Anne’s Primary School Karen Corfield Governor (substitute) Westhaven Special School Vacant Governor Secondary School Neil Foster RPTAs Joline Lewis Bursar Windwhistle Primary School Anne Clubb Business Manager Priory Community School Issy Johnson Bursar Baytree Special School Louise Malik Head of Education Transformation Emma Whitehead Education Funding & Traded Services Manager
Clare Pearce Schools Funding Finance Officer (Children)
2.3. The group have met twice in order to consider the proposals in this consultation. At each meeting the group have debated the implications of each issue using the options presented by the officers. From this, recommendations have been reported to the SSF and are included in this consultation document.
2.4. Please note that not all of the proposals in response to the national funding formula have been considered by the FRWG ahead of this consultation.
2.5. The consultation will be live from 31st October to 24th November. A consultation
briefing event will be held on 9th November 5:00 to 6:30 at Hans Price Academy. If you wish to attend the event please book your place via CPD online.
2.6. The SSF would like to encourage stakeholders to respond to the consultation to
ensure that their views are taken into consideration as part of the decision making process.
- 5 -
3. Executive Summary 3.1. A summary of all the recommendations from the SSF is provided in the
table below. It is recommended:
Section Description Recommendation 4 Implementation of the National
Fair Funding Formula in North Somerset
Recommendation no.4a – That two options are considered for the recovery of the DSG deficit:
Option 1 – that the full deficit of £1.575m is recovered from schools and early years providers in the 2018-19 financial year with adequate safeguards introduced to protect schools against significant losses (greater than -1.5% of their per pupil funding) (paragraph 4.50), Option 2 – the estimated deficit be recovered over the original term agreed by the SSF with a contribution of £393,817 from schools and early years providers required per annum over the remaining 4 years (paragraph 4.51). Recommendation no.4b - that the contribution towards recovery of the deficit from early years providers is top sliced from the early years top up funding budget, as was the case in the current financial year (paragraph 4.53). Recommendation no.4c - that the contribution towards recovery of the deficit from special schools and the PRU is generated by withholding the additional infrastructure place funding, agreed in 2017-18 as a result of the delegation of resources for the Learning Exchange (paragraph 4.54). Recommendation no.4d - that the contribution towards recovery of the deficit from mainstream schools is calculated 90% through a reduction in AWPU funding and 10% through reducing the lumps sums. Unless the proposed lower lump sum, detailed in the national funding formula, is introduced In 2018-19 when it is recommended that the whole contribution is recovered by reducing AWPU values (paragraph 4.55). Recommendation no.4e – That three options are considered to fund any additional demand in high needs budgets(paragraph 4.59):
Option 1 - Transfer funding from the schools block (this would require Secretary of State approval if over 0.5%
- 6 -
or not agreed by the SSF)
Option 2 - Reduce planned spending on high needs by reducing the availability of services to high need pupils.
Option 3 - Transfer responsibility for funding some high needs services to schools and offer the services as traded services rather than centrally provided services. Recommendation no.4f – That the options below are considered to top slice resources from schools to fund the estimated resources required in table v above (further detail in paragraph 4.64):
Option 1 - Reduce the minimum increase in per pupil funding to anywhere between 0% and 0.5%,
Option 2 – Reduce the value of factors within the formula such as AWPU or low prior attainment, for example,
Option 3 – Reduce the protection applied by the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) to a level anywhere between 0% (no per pupil loss) and -1.5% (maximum per pupil loss of 1.5%),
Option 4 – Reduce the cap on gains to any level between 0% (no per pupil gain) and 3% (maximum per pupil gain),
Option 5 - Not providing minimum per pupil funding levels of £3,300 and £4,600 in Primary and Secondary Schools respectively. Recommendation no.4g - that the structure of the national funding formula (the factors used for distributing resources) is introduced in the 2018-19 financial year (paragraph 4.72). Recommendation no.4h – That the options below are considered to determine the values that are applied to each of the factors in the North Somerset formula in 2018-19 (further detail in paragraph 4.74):
Option 1 - Introduce the factor values used within the national funding formula (apart from any reduction required to fund exceptional pupil growth, as detailed in paragraph 4.26, deficit recovery, as detailed in paragraph 4.47
- 7 -
or to fund a transfer to the high needs block, as detailed in paragraph 4.57,
Option 2 - Maintain the factor values that exist in the current North Somerset formula. In this option the additional funding provided by the national funding formula (after any of the reductions listed in 4.74.1 above) would still need to be allocated. This could either be allocated to provide additional resources equally to all children and young people e.g. by increasing AWPU or by targeting the increase to specific factors that are due to increase in the national funding formula, such as EAL or secondary age AWPU,
Option 3 - A mixture of both approaches to maintain things that are valued in North Somerset for as long as possible whilst accepting change in other areas. This could apply, for example, to maintaining the lump sum to support smaller schools, maintaining our existing AWPU ratios between primary and secondary schools or maintaining the current weighting amongst the most and least deprived areas. Recommendation no.4i - That the MFG is maintained for reductions in funding as a result of data changes with a maximum value of -1.5%. (paragraph 4.88). Recommendation no.4j – That capping continues to be used in North Somerset to ensure that the potential implementation of the national funding formula is affordable. Recommendation no.4k - That top up funding for pupils in resources bases will continue to be allocated using the appropriate universal band level less £10,000 place funding (paragraph 4.94). Recommendation no.4l - That an additional place funding allocation is made for each place in a resource base in the 2018-19 financial year. The value of the additional place funding will be determined by the average net decrease in funding per place across the schools with resource bases (paragraph 4.99).
- 8 -
5
De-delegations
Recommendation no.5a – that funding for insurance for schools continues to be de-delegated (paragraph 5.7). Recommendation no.5b - that no reimbursement of de-delegated resources is provided to a new academy beyond the DfE requirements detailed in paragraph 5.9. Recommendation no.5c – that if there is an underspend in the de-delegated insurance fund then this is prioritised to make a reimbursement to new academies to contribute, as far as possible to the additional insurance costs that they incur. (paragraph 5.14) Recommendation no.5d – that any overspend or underspend on de-delegated services overall is carried forward to the following financial year to be used, overall, for the same purpose but that if the SSF considers that the total level of over or under spending on de-delegated services is excessive that the contributing schools will be required to making an additional payment or receive a reimbursement of the appropriate value (paragraph 5.15).
6
Additional delegation of funding and responsibility
Recommendation no.6a - Views are sought for which of the services detailed in paragraph 6.6 above would be most appropriate for the responsibility to be transferred to schools and to be offered as a traded service rather than be provided centrally.
7
Deprivation funding in Early Years
Recommendation no.7a – that from 2018-19 deprivation funding is continued to be paid on both the universal (15) and extended (30) funded hours. (paragraph 7.8).
Recommendation no.7b – that from 2018-19 the deprivation funding for early years providers is allocated using the same IDACI bandings as schools (paragraph 7.9).
Recommendation no. 7c - that the rates paid for deprivation in 2018-19 are the same to Schools & PVIs (paragraph 7.13).
Recommendation no. 7d – that in 2019-20 all providers including childminders where applicable have the deprivation supplements applied (paragraph 7.14).
- 9 -
Recommendation no 7e – that deprivation continues to be funded on previous years data as a proxy indicator of the level of deprivation, so in 2018-19 the funding will be based on the children and data available from 2017-18, and that this is reconsidered for the 2019-20 financial year (paragraph 7.15).
8
Additional allocations for schools with a disproportionate number of high needs pupils
Recommendation no.8a – to continue to operate the process to automatically assess and allocate funding from the high needs block to those schools considered as having a disproportionate number of high needs pupils in 2018-19 as introduced in 2017-18 (paragraph 8.8). Recommendation no.8a – to review the process to automatically assess and allocate funding from the high needs block to those schools considered as having a disproportionate number of high needs pupils in 2018-19 for the 2019-20 financial year (paragraph 8.8).
9 Scheme for financing schools – restrictions on school balances
Recommendation no.9a - That the proposal to remove the control mechanism for surplus balances for maintained schools so that it does not apply to balances at the end of the 2017-18 financial year and beyond (paragraph 9.9.1).
10 Statutory Services Charges for maintained schools
Recommendation no.10a - That the proposed statutory services charge (SSC) of £10.84 per pupil/place is agreed for the 2018-19 financial year (paragraph 10.10). Recommendation no. 10b – That all maintained schools, where the LA is the employer and owner of the land and buildings, are required to purchase the core health and safety package from 1st April 2018 (paragraph 10.11.1).
- 10 -
4. Implementation of the National Fair Funding Formula in North Somerset
Background
4.1. This section details a range of proposals as a result of the Government’s
implementation of a national funding formula and the associated funding arrangements.
4.2. Details of the national funding formula can be accessed using the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-funding-formula-tables-for-schools-and-high-needs
4.3. This link provides access to a range of information including:
4.3.1. The calculation of the new blocks of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for each Local Authority
4.3.2. Technical notes for the operation of each of the blocks 4.3.3. Guidance on how schools can access their NFF illustrative
allocations on COLLECT 4.3.4. National Funding Formula Policy Paper 4.3.5. Equalities Impact Assessment 4.3.6. The government’s response to the consultations on the national
funding formula
4.4. The DfE also provides operational guidance on the distribution of funding to schools which provides useful information on the makeup of the formula: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pre-16-schools-funding-guidance-for-2018-to-2019
4.5. This section of the consultation document details each specific area of change and provides the background, the outcome of the national or local formula review considerations and the recommendations for each.
4.6. The specific areas of change detailed in this section are:
4.6.1. The National Funding Formula (paragraph 4.7) 4.6.2. Exceptional pupil growth (paragraph 4.26) 4.6.3. Movement from the schools block to other blocks – deficit
recovery (paragraph 4.47) 4.6.4. Movement from the schools block to other blocks - transfer to
meet demands in the High Needs Block (paragraph 4.57) 4.6.5. Removing funding from schools to fund exceptional pupil growth
and movements to other blocks (paragraph 4.61) 4.6.6. Formula factors and values (paragraph 4.66) 4.6.7. Level of the Minimum Funding Guarantee (paragraph 4.77) 4.6.8. Resource Base Funding(paragraph 4.90)
- 11 -
The National Funding Formula
4.7. On the 14 September the Secretary of State for Education provided a
statement to Parliament on schools funding. This is set out in detail in the link in paragraph 4.2.
4.8. The table below was produced by the DfE to summarise the final decisions on the national funding formulae to be implemented from 2018-19.
Schools national funding formula High needs national funding formula • In 2018-19 and 2019-20 funding will be allocated to local authorities based on the notional school allocations according to the national funding formula, while local authorities will continue to allocate funding based on their local formulae • The formula will consist of 4 building blocks: basic per-pupil funding; additional needs funding; school-led funding; and geographic funding • All schools will attract at least 0.5% more per pupil funding in 2018-19 and at least 1% more by 2019-20, compared to 2017-18 baselines • Gains in per pupil funding will be capped in both 2018-19 and 2019-20 at 3% on the previous year • Additionally, all primary schools will attract minimum per pupil funding of £3,300 in 2018-19 and £3,500 in 2019-20, and secondary schools of £4,600 in 2018-19 and £4,800 in 2019-20; this minimum will not be subject to the 3% cap on gains • The funding floor for new and growing schools will be calculated on an if-full basis • With agreement of their schools forums, in 2018-19 local authorities may transfer up to 0.5% of funds from the ring-fenced schools block for other purposes, e.g. to the high needs block
• A national funding formula for allocating high needs funding to local authorities will be introduced from 2018-19 • The formula will provide basic per pupil funding of £4,000 for pupils in special schools, and allocate the rest of the funding using historic spend and proxy factors • The following proxy factors will be used: population, deprivation, low attainment, health and disability • 50% of what local authorities are spending on high needs from their 2017-18 dedicated schools grant allocation will be allocated through the historic spend factor • Basic entitlement and proxy factors will be adjusted for the variations in area costs • All local authorities will receive at least 0.5% more funding per head in 2018-19 and at least 1% more per head of population by 2019-20, compared to their 2017-18 baselines • Local authorities will be able to gain up to 3% a year, in proportion to any increase in their 2-18 population, in 2018-19 and 2019-20
- 12 -
4.9. In addition, the new central school services block (CSSB) will be created to fund the ongoing duties local authorities hold for both maintained schools and academies. Funding will be allocated by the formula proposed in December 2016.
4.10. The additional £1.3 billion that is being invested in schools and high needs means that all local authorities will receive some increase in 2018-19, over the amount they plan to spend on schools in 2017-18. In the DfE modelling every school will attract a higher level of per-pupil funding than it would have done had the December 2016 proposals been adopted. Also, the DfE modelling means that no school will lose funding through the national funding formula in 2018-19 and 2019-20. However, these statements refer to the national allocation of funding to LAs through the DSG. The actual impact on individual schools in North Somerset will be determined locally by the decisions made about the proposals in this consultation document.
4.11. As a result of the additional investment in the high needs national funding formula, all local authorities will see an increase in funding per head.
4.12. It remains the government’s long-term intention that schools’ budgets should be set on the basis of a single, national formula (a ‘hard’ national funding formula) but they recognise that this represents a significant change, and the importance of stability for schools was a consistent theme during both stages of the consultation. For 2018-19 and 2019-20, at least, the schools formula will be a so called ‘soft’ approach. The ‘hard’ implementation of the national funding formula requires primary legislation and the DfE will not comment on the timescales on this any further than it will not be before 2020-21.
4.13. Under the ‘soft’ system, the DfE will use the national funding formula to set notional budgets for each school. These are aggregated to give the total schools block. You can see the notional budget for each school, and the aggregated schools block funding for each local authority using the link provided in paragraph 4.2. For the next two years, local authorities will continue to set a local formula to distribute their schools block funding, in consultation with their local schools and their schools forum. Each local area will therefore be funded on a fair and equitable basis, according to the national funding formula.
4.14. Local authorities will then distribute their schools block allocation between maintained schools and academies and, although it will be a local decision, the DfE are adjusting the rules governing the setting of local formulae so that the national formula can be more closely mirrored.
4.15. The schools block will be ring-fenced from 2018-19 which means that the vast majority of schools block funding allocated to local authorities must be passed directly to schools. Local authorities will have limited flexibility to transfer funding to other areas, such as high needs, where this best matches local circumstances. Such transfers are limited to 0.5% of
- 13 -
authorities’ total schools block, and can only be made with the agreement of the schools forum.
4.16. The repayment plan for the overspend on the DSG at the end of the 2016-17 financial year, that was agreed by the SSF over a five year period starting in 2017-18, has to form part of the limit on transfer of 0.5% detailed above.
4.17. Local Authorities can apply to the Secretary of State for Education to transfer an amount over 0.5% out of the schools block or to request a transfer of up to 0.5% if a request for this is rejected by the Schools Forum.
4.18. Pupil Premium plus - Stage one of the national funding formula consultation detailed how it would target support for looked after children and children who were previously looked after through the pupil premium plus, rather than include a looked after children factor in that national funding formula. The value of the total national amount spent through the looked after children (LAC) factors in local formulae in 2017-18 has been transferred from the DSG to the pupil premium. The pupil premium plus rate will increase in April 2018 to £2,300 (currently £1,900).
4.19. Comparison with December 2016 proposals - Compared to the DfE proposals in December 2016, and in the light of consultation responses, they have made a number of changes to the national funding formula which are listed below. However, during the period of ‘soft’ implementation of the national funding formula decisions on whether to adopt these elements of the national funding formula will be made by local authorities, in consultation with schools and their school forums:
4.19.1. Age-weighted pupil units are £35 higher for primary pupils, £66 higher for key stage 3 pupils and £74 higher for key stage 4 pupils;
4.19.2. There will be a minimum per-pupil funding level of £4,800 for secondary schools and £3,500 for primary schools in 2019-20 with transitional levels of £4,600 and £3,300 in 2018-19. These levels are not subject to the gains cap;
4.19.3. All schools will be allocated an increase of at least 0.5% per pupil in 2018-19, and at least 1% per pupil by 2019-20, compared to their baselines. This replaces the minus 3% per pupil floor originally proposed;
4.19.4. IDACI band C has been slightly increased so that it provides a higher funding rate than band D, with increases of £30 per eligible primary pupil and £45 per eligible secondary pupil;
4.19.5. The DfE have updated the area cost adjustment to take account of more recent data; and
4.19.6. The gains cap has been raised to 3% in 2019-20 4.19.7. The 2018-19 final schools block allocated to LAs will be
calculated using new Primary and Secondary units of funding (PUFs and SUFs). The provisional schools block allocated has been calculated using the national funding formula and data from
- 14 -
October 2016. The total funding generated for primary schools has been divided by the number of primary aged pupils as at October 2016 to create a PUF, and the same done for secondary schools. The PUF and SUF will be multiplied by the total primary and secondary aged pupils as at October 2017 to provide the final schools block allocation for 2018-19. Individual allocations to schools will be affected by the full range of data as at October 2017 such as deprivation and low prior attainment but these data changes, other than the pupil numbers, will not be reflected in the schools block funding allocation. This could have a positive or negative effect on the funding available in North Somerset depending on the other data changes and it is not possible to estimate the financial implication of this until the data is made available later in December 2017.
4.20. Table 4i below shows the change in the DSG between 2017-18 and the
provisional new blocks of the DSG according to the national funding formula, based on October 2016 data:
- 15 -
Table 4i North Somerset 2017-18 (based on Oct 16 data) North Somerset 2018-19 National Funding Formula (based on Oct 16 data) Change £ Change
%
Schools Block - Allocated in through formula factors £112,764,749
Provisional NFF funding through the NFF pupil-led and NFF school-led factors, with transitional protections applied at individual school level
£115,342,593
Schools Block - Allocated in to funding growth in pupil numbers £697,789 2018-19 NFF funding through the growth,
premises and mobility factors £1,929,326
Schools Block - Allocated in through premises factors £1,231,537
Total 2017-18 baseline for the schools block £114,694,075 Provisional funding in 2018-19 £117,271,919 £2,577,844 2.2%
High needs block baseline - elements which are used in funding floor and gains calculations £21,471,085
Elements of the high needs NFF 2018-19 allocations included in the gains calculation - these amounts are not subject to later changes
£21,718,514
High needs block - elements excluded from funding floor and gains calculations £1,510,150
Elements of the high needs NFF 2018-19 allocations which are excluded from the gains calculation and subject to later updates
£1,510,150
Total baseline for the high needs block £22,981,235 Provisional high needs NFF allocations for 2018-19 £23,228,664 £247,429 1.1%
Central Schools Services Block - Reported spend on ongoing functions in 2017-18 £865,366 Provisional amount NFF would allocate to
LAs for ongoing responsibilities £887,242
Central Schools Services Block - Reported spend on historic commitments in 2017-18 £1,190,893 Actual funding for historic commitments £1,190,893
Total reported spend in 2017-18 Central Schools Services Block £2,056,259 Provisional total CSSB NFF funding £2,078,135 £21,876 1.1%
Total allocations for schools, high needs and central school services £139,731,569
£142,578,718 £2,847,149 2.0%
- 16 -
4.21. Table 4i above demonstrates additional funding of £2,847,149 (2%) for North
Somerset as a result of the implementation of the National Funding Formula.
4.22. Table 4ii below compare the formula factors and values, as at 2017-18, for the current formula operated in North Somerset and the National Funding Formula. In the National funding Formula and area cost adjustment (ACA) is applied to the national factor values to reflect the specific cost base for each local authority. In North Somerset the ACA is 1.01433:
- 17 -
Table 4ii Primary Secondary With ACA @ 1.01433
NSC 2017-
18 DfE
proposed Diff
NSC 2017-18 DfE proposed Diff Primary Secondary
Basic per pupil funding
£2,660.28 £2,746.99 £86.71 KS3 £3,931.82 £3,862.65 £(69.17) £2,786.35 £3,918.00 KS4 £3,931.82 £4,385.81 £453.99 £0.00 £4,448.66
Deprivation FSM ever 6 £1,126.51 £540.00 £(586.51) £1,126.51 £785.00 £(341.51) £547.74 £796.25 Current FSM £0.00 £440.00 £440.00 £0.00 £440.00 £440.00 £446.31 £446.31 IDACI A £1,385.69 £575.00 £(810.69) £1,385.69 £810.00 £(575.69) £583.24 £821.61 IDACI B £520.95 £420.00 £(100.95) £520.95 £600.00 £79.05 £426.02 £608.60 IDACI C £87.45 £390.00 £302.55 £87.45 £560.00 £472.55 £395.59 £568.02 IDACI D £87.45 £360.00 £272.55 £87.45 £515.00 £427.55 £365.16 £522.38 IDACI E £0.00 £240.00 £240.00 £0.00 £390.00 £390.00 £243.44 £395.59 IDACI F £0.00 £200.00 £200.00 £0.00 £290.00 £290.00 £202.87 £294.16 Lower prior attainment £1,223.53 £1,050.00 £(173.53) £1,662.49 £1,550.00 £(112.49) £1,065.05 £1,572.21 EAL £0.00 £515.00 £515.00 £0.00 £1,385.00 £1,385.00 £522.38 £1,404.85 Lump Sum £125,018.02 £110,000.00 £(15,018.02) £125,018.02 £110,000.00 £(15,018.02) £111,576.30 £111,576.30
- 18 -
4.23. Whilst the national funding formula provides additional resources to
North Somerset, the impact varies for different types of schools. Were the national funding formula to be implemented fully in North Somerset the broad implications for various types of schools are provided below:
4.23.1. An overall increase in funding allocations to schools of £2,637,967 2.3%,
4.23.2. An overall increase for Primary schools of £934,853 1.5%,
4.23.3. An overall increase for Secondary schools of £1,703,113 3.4%,
4.23.4. £669,252 and £914,878 allocated respectively to 12 primary schools and 5 secondary schools to fund them at the minimum per pupil level. This tends to be schools which have historically attracted low levels of funding for additional needs such as deprivation, special educational needs and English as an additional language. In primary schools this additional funding averages at £55,771 per eligible school with the allocations ranging from £2,889 to £161,776. In secondary schools this additional funding averages at £182,976 per eligible school with the allocations ranging from £16,895 to £377,240,
4.23.5. £872,244 allocated to 30 primary schools to ensure they receive a minimum increase of 0.5% of their per pupil funding. This tends to be allocated as a protection mechanism to those schools that would otherwise lose funding as a result of the implementation of the national funding formula. This additional protection averages at £29,075 per eligible school with the allocations ranging from £172 to £265,098. Schools that lose through the national funding formula, and therefore receive protection, are generally smaller primary schools and primary school serving the most deprived areas. The inclusion of this increase in the national fair funding formula results in there being no requirement for a minimum funding guarantee (MFG) calculation and, therefore, the MFG is set at 0%,
4.23.6. £429,252 and £1,321,467 has been held back (capped) respectively from 10 primary schools and all of the secondary schools to restrict their gain to 3% per pupil. This again tend to apply to schools which have historically attracted lower levels of funding for additional needs such as deprivation, special educational needs and English as an additional language. In primary schools this cap averages at £42,925 per eligible school with the cap ranging from £2,241 to £113,400. In secondary schools this cap averages at £120,133 per eligible school with the cap ranging from £13,119 to £299,600,
- 19 -
4.23.7. Appendix A demonstrates the funding allocated to each school in North Somerset were the national funding formula to be implemented fully in North Somerset in 2018.
Implementation of the National Funding Formula in North Somerset
4.24. There are a number of decision that will need to be made regarding the
implementation of the national funding formula in North Somerset.
4.25. Each of these issues are covered in the sections below in order to seek views from stakeholders
Exceptional pupil growth funding Background 4.26. Funding has historically been topsliced from schools budgets in order to
provide additional funding for exceptional pupil growth in new or expanding schools.
4.27. This funding is required because funding for schools is calculated on a lagged basis (based on data as at the October preceding the financial year) and because any new schools, or schools with exceptional pupil growth, need funding within the financial year in which the increase occurs in order to appoint the necessary staff. This funding also provides some start up funding for new schools ahead of their opening.
4.28. The SSF maintains an exceptional pupil growth policy for new and expanding schools which determines the funding allocated and was agreed following consultation with all schools.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome
4.29. The new schools block contains funding to be allocated directly to
schools/academies and funding to be allocated for exceptional pupil growth in new and expanding schools. In the period of the ‘soft’ implementation of the national funding formula (2018-19 and 2019-20 at least) funding will be allocated for growth to LA’s on a lagged basis i.e. the amount allocated in one financial year will form the basis of the funding for the LA in the following financial year.
4.30. This is a positive step in the right direction as, to date, no specific funding has been made available to LAs with demand for additional school places.
4.31. In North Somerset the growth funding for the 2018-19 year has been provisionally calculated by the DfE at £697,789. If growth funding is required above this level it will need to be topsliced from school budgets. This is an example of why the national statement that all schools will not lose, or will gain a minimum of 0.5% increase in per pupil funding may not be possible at a local level.
- 20 -
4.32. Further work is required until a proposed exceptional pupil growth budget is considered as part of the 2018-19 budget setting process but it is considered likely that the demands on this budget will be greater than the funding provided and, therefore, that an additional topslice from school budgets is likely to be required.
4.33. If it is necessary to transfer funding from schools budgets to fund exceptional pupil growth, decisions will need to be made about how that funding is removed from schools budgets. Options for doing this are considered in paragraph 4.64.
Movement from the schools block to other blocks Background 4.34. The DSG has traditionally been allocated to LAs in three blocks: the
schools block, the early years block and the high needs block. These blocks have not been ring-fenced and LAs / School Forums have been able to plan spending for each of the blocks as they see fit.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome 4.35. From April 2018 the DSG will consist of four blocks of funding: the
schools block, central school services block, high needs block and early years block.
4.36. The schools block will be ring-fenced from 2018-19 onwards. This means that funding allocated in the schools block cannot be spent in the other blocks such as high needs or early years.
4.37. However, LAs will retain some limited flexibility which will enable a transfer up to 0.5% of schools block funding into another block, with the approval of the SSF, following consultation with schools.
4.38. The provisional schools block for 2018-19 is £117.272m. A transfer from the schools block of 0.5% would therefore amount to approximately £586k.
4.39. The repayment of the overspend on the DSG at the end of the 2016-17 financial year, that was agreed by the SSF over a five year period starting in 2017-18, has to form part of the limit on transfer of 0.5% above.
4.40. Local Authorities can apply to the Secretary of State for Education to transfer an amount over 0.5% out of the schools block or to request a transfer of up to 0.5% if a request for this is rejected by the Schools Forum.
4.41. The decision to move resources between the schools and the high needs block is always a difficult one, and one that the SSF have always given much consideration. It means striking a balance between ensuring that the needs of the most vulnerable children and young people are met and ensuring that universal funding can provide a good standard of education for all.
- 21 -
4.42. Table 4iii below shows the overspends on high needs budgets in recent
years and the movements between the school and high needs blocks that have been agreed. Table 4iii Financial year
Movement from Schools block to High Needs block
Overspend on high needs budgets
2015-16 £322,637 2016-17 £1,415,924 £1,150,633 2017-18 £822,183
4.43. Spending on high needs includes areas such as top up funding, specialist provision and specialist support services. Appendix B provides a breakdown of the specific budget pressures that have led to the requirement for the transfer over the last three years. The level of demand, spend and the budgets agreed have been scrutinised by the SSF. The SSF have also looked at strategies to improve the efficiency of processes, changes to funding arrangements and provision in order to manage the demand and spend as effectively as possible in accordance with need.
4.44. The LA and the SSF have also initiated a Specialist Provision Review. This review is looking at how current and future specialist provision needs can be met in order to ensure the best possible outcomes for children and young people with high needs within a sustainable budget. The review has involvement from all relevant stakeholders and the outcome for North Somerset will be shared with our neighbouring Local Authorities to enable a shared understanding and collaborative solutions wherever possible.
4.45. The outcome of this review will inform the need for any further movements from the schools budget to the high needs budget in 2018-19 and beyond. It is expected that, due to the ongoing demand for support for high needs students that a further movements of resources will be required in future years.
4.46. The draft schools budget, including any proposed transfer from the schools budget, will be considered by the SSF on the 6th December and the final budget agreed on 24th January. Papers for these meetings will be issued to all schools ahead of the meetings to enable schools to share their views with their SSF representatives and inform their decision making.
Deficit recovery 4.47. The repayment of the overspend on the DSG at the end of the 2016-17
financial year, that was agreed by the SSF over a five year period starting in 2017-18, has to form part of the limit on transfer from the schools block of 0.5% as detailed above. This will therefore require a transfer to be consulted upon and considered by the SSF.
- 22 -
4.48. At the time that the five year recovery period was agreed (January 2017) it was done on the basis of the information in table 4iv below: Table 4iv Estimated DSG overspend at the end of the 2016-17 financial year
£1,400,000
Value of recovery from schools and early years providers
2017-18 £280,000 (actual contribution £269,468)
2018-19 £280,000 2019-20 £280,000 2020-21 £280,000 2021-22 £280,000
4.49. The actual overspend at the end of the financial year, applicable for
recovery from schools and providers, was £1,601,900. In addition, the latest projection for the schools budget in the 2017-18 financial year estimates an additional in year overspend of £242,837. The amount to be considered for recovery is therefore £1,575,269 (£1,601,900 + £242,837 - £269,468).
4.50. This equates to 1.34% of the Schools block which exceeds the 0.5% limit that can be agreed by the SSF. Should this be proposed it would need the specific permission of the Secretary of State. It could be argued that, at a time when additional funding is being allocated to schools, recovering the full deficit of £1.575m would be appropriate as long as adequate safeguards are introduced to protect schools against significant losses.
4.51. However, it could also be argued that, whilst this is the first increase in schools funding in some time, it comes against a back drop of significant cost pressures. The institute of Fiscal Studies estimated that schools face a real terms cut of 6.5% in their budgets between 2015 and 2019. The additional £1.3b included in the national funding formula only reduces this real terms cut to an estimated 4.6%. On this basis it may be appropriate to continue to recover the deficit over the original term agreed by the SSF.
4.52. Were the estimated deficit to be recovered, over the original term agreed by the SSF, an annual contribution of £393,817 would be required over the remaining 4 years. Some of this funding would be provided by the high needs block (through special schools) and the early years block (through early years providers) with an estimated £315k to be recovered on an annual basis from mainstream schools and the schools block.
4.53. It is proposed that the contribution from early years providers is topsliced from the early years top up funding budget, as was the case in the current financial year.
4.54. It is proposed that the contribution from special schools and the PRU is generated by withholding the additional infrastructure place funding, agreed in 2017-18 as a result of the delegation of resources for the Learning Exchange.
- 23 -
4.55. In the current financial year the contribution towards the deficit from mainstream schools was calculated 90% through AWPU funding and 10% through reducing the lumps sums. In 2018-19 it is proposed that the whole contribution is recovered by reducing AWPU values, if the proposed lower lump sum, detailed in the national funding formula, is introduced.
4.56. It should be noted that the DfE have not yet provided any information about how deficits can be recovered once the ‘hard’ national funding formula is introduced. If this was at the earliest possible opportunity, of the 2020-21 financial year, then this would jeopardise the final two years of repayments.
Transfer to meet demands in the High Needs Block
4.57. In addition to recovering the deficit, a transfer from the schools block to the high needs block could be required to fund the estimated high needs expenditure during the 2018-19 financial year. The draft schools budget, including any proposed transfer from the schools budget, will be considered by the SSF on the 6th December and the requirement for a transfer to meet high needs demand will not be known until that point in time.
4.58. In the meantime, initial modelling on the schools budget for the 2018-19 financial year identifies that a transfer to the high needs block is highly likely with a current estimate of £350k. Please note that this figure could be subject to significant change.
4.59. There are three options on how any increased demand in the high needs block can be funded:
4.59.1. Transfer funding from the schools block (this would require Secretary of State approval if over 0.5% or not agreed by the SSF)
4.59.2. Reduce planned spending on high needs block by reducing the availability of services to high need pupils. This could include, for example, reducing funding for alternative provision or SEN equipment. However, these are relatively small budgets and, were a significant reduction to be required, it would be more likely to affect one of the larger high needs budgets such as top up funding
4.59.3. Transfer responsibility for funding some high needs services to schools and offer the services as traded services rather than centrally provided services. Examples of these are Preventative Psychology Services, Advisory Teachers for Learning, Language and Communication and Enhanced Provision for ASD
4.60. If it is decided to transfer funding from the schools block to the high needs block to meet the estimated high needs expenditure, decisions will need to be made about how that funding is removed from the schools block. Options for doing this are considered in paragraph 4.64.
- 24 -
Removing funding from schools to fund exceptional pupil growth or movements to other blocks
4.61. The sections above describe why there may be a need to remove
funding from schools to fund exceptional pupil growth, the deficit recovery plan, and high needs expenditure. These are examples of why the national statement that all schools will not lose, or will gain a minimum of 0.5% increase in per pupil funding may not be possible at a local level. This sections concentrates on options for how this could be achieved.
4.62. The draft schools budget will be considered by the SSF on the 6th December and the requirement for removing funding from schools will not be known until that point in time. However, in order to support meaningful consultation estimated values have been included in this consultation document. Please be aware that these values are for demonstratives purposes only and are subject to significant change.
4.63. Table v below includes the estimated resources that may need to be removed from schools budgets:
Table v Estimated removal from school budgets
Notes
Estimated additional requirement for exceptional pupil growth funding
£184,000
Transfer to other blocks (0.5% limit) Deficit recovery £315,000 0.57% of schools block so
would require approval of the Secretary of State
To meet estimated high needs expenditure
£350,000
Total estimated removal for demonstration purposes
£849,000
4.64. There are a number of ways that this can be achieved which will have a
differing impact on individual schools depending on their circumstances. Examples of these options are provided below, but please be aware that a number of these options could be implemented alongside each other:
4.64.1. The government has provided resources to enable schools to receive a minimum 0.5% per pupil increase. This minimum increase can be reduced to anywhere between 0% and 0.5% to fund the estimated resources required in table v above. This would remove funding from all schools except for those that are protected as they lose funding as a result of data changes or the implementation of the national funding formula,
4.64.2. The value of factors within the formula such as AWPU or low prior attainment, for example, could be reduced to fund the estimated resources required in table v above. The schools affected would be different depending on which factors were reduced i.e. reducing deprivation funding would have a greater impact on those schools with the highest levels of deprivation. Schools that lose funding as a result of data
- 25 -
changes or the implementation of the national funding formula would receive some protection against this reduction,
4.64.3. The protection applied by the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) could be reduced. The national funding formula allows for each schools to receive a minimum 0.5% per pupil increase. As such the MFG is set at 0% (schools are protected against any loss to their per pupil funding). The MFG can be set at any level between 0% and -1.5% meaning that the maximum per pupil loss in funding that can be incurred by a school is 1.5%. Allowing schools to lose funding would provide a resource to fund the estimated resources required in table v above. The schools affected would be those that lose as a result of data changes or the introduction of the national funding formula,
4.64.4. The national funding formula applies a cap so that a schools per pupil funding gains, as a result of changes in data or the implementation of the national funding formula, is no more than 3%. The cap can be set at any level between 0% and 3% meaning that the whole gain in per pupil funding by schools could be capped by applying a 0% cap. Not providing these gains in funding would provide a resource to fund the estimated resources required in table v above. The schools affected would be those that gain as a result of data changes or the introduction of the national funding formula,
4.64.5. The national funding formula sets minimum per pupil funding levels in 2018-19 of £3,300 in primary schools and £4,600 in secondary schools. Not allocating funding in order to provide these minimum funding levels would provide a resource to fund the estimated resources required in table v above. The schools affected would be mainly those schools that have historically attracted low levels of funding for additional needs such as deprivation, special educational needs and English as an additional language.
Recommendations
4.65. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.4a – That two options are considered for the
recovery of the DSG deficit: Option 1 – that the full deficit of £1.575m is recovered from schools and early years providers in the 2018-19 financial year with adequate safeguards introduced to protect schools against significant losses (greater than -1.5% of their per pupil funding) (paragraph 4.50),
Option 2 – the estimated deficit be recovered over the original term agreed by the SSF with a contribution of £393,817 from schools and early years providers required per annum over the remaining 4 years (paragraph 4.51).
- 26 -
• Recommendation no.4b - that the contribution towards recovery of the
deficit from early years providers is topsliced from the early years top up funding budget, as was the case in the current financial year (paragraph 4.53).
• Recommendation no.4c - that the contribution towards recovery of the deficit from special schools and the PRU is generated by withholding the additional infrastructure place funding, agreed in 2017-18 as a result of the delegation of resources for the Learning Exchange(paragraph 4.54).
• Recommendation no.4d - that the contribution towards recovery of the deficit from mainstream schools is calculated 90% through a reduction in AWPU funding and 10% through reducing the lumps sums. Unless the proposed lower lump sum, detailed in the national funding formula, is introduced In 2018-19 when it is recommended that the whole contribution is recovered by reducing AWPU values (paragraph 4.55).
• Recommendation no.4e – That three options are considered to fund any additional demand in high needs budgets (paragraph 4.59): Option 1 - Transfer funding from the schools block (this would require Secretary of State approval if over 0.5% or not agreed by the SSF) Option 2 - Reduce planned spending on high needs by reducing the availability of services to high need pupils. Option 3 - Transfer responsibility for funding some high needs services to schools and offer the services as traded services rather than centrally provided services.
• Recommendation no.4f – That the options below are considered to topslice resources from schools to fund the estimated resources required in table v above (further detail in paragraph 4.64): Option 1 - Reduce the minimum increase in per pupil funding to anywhere between 0% and 0.5%, Option 2 – Reduce the value of factors within the formula such as AWPU or low prior attainment, for example, Option 3 – Reduce the protection applied by the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) to a level anywhere between 0% (no per pupil loss) and -1.5% (maximum per pupil loss of 1.5%), Option 4 – Reduce the cap on gains to any level between 0% (no per pupil gain) and 3% (maximum per pupil gain), Option 5 - Not providing minimum per pupil funding levels of £3,300 and £4,600 in Primary and Secondary Schools respectively.
- 27 -
Formula factors and values
Background
4.66. The formula currently in place for distributing resources to schools has
developed locally over many years.
4.67. It was calculated using an activity led model that was devised in consultation with schools. Since this point in time many developments have taken place in education which have not necessarily be reflected in the activity led model.
4.68. In addition, over recent years the DfE have taken steps to standardise school funding formula, some of which has been in the anticipation of a national funding formula. This has meant moving away from some of the key foundations of the activity led model originally produced. The local formula is therefore less effective in reflecting an activity led model for North Somerset now than it has been in the past.
4.69. Having said this, the current formula has been developed with and on behalf of the education community in North Somerset, taking into consideration our demographics and specific circumstances.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome
4.70. The national funding formula has several key differences when
compared to the formula in North Somerset. These include:
4.70.1. A higher funding weighting for secondary schools in the national funding formula compared to our locally determined weighting. This applies to all factors in the formula but, as an example, in North Somerset the age weighted pupil unit (AWPU) factor allocates £1.47 to every secondary aged pupil for every £1.00 allocated to a primary aged pupil. In the national funding formula this ratio increases to £1.50 for every £1.00 respectively. This is one of the reasons why secondary schools in North Somerset gain more than primary schools as a result of the national funding formula.
4.70.2. Every mainstream school in North Somerset currently receives a lump sum of £125,018. This provides for a basic level of funding for all schools, regardless of size, to support the infrastructure required. In the national funding formula the lumps sum is £110,000 therefore providing a lower basic level of funding. This is one of the reasons why smaller schools in North Somerset are more likely to be eligible for financial protection as a result of the national funding formula.
4.70.3. A higher funding weighting for the lower levels of deprivation in the national funding formula compared to our locally determined weighting. In North Somerset we have deliberately targeted funding to the schools which attract pupils from the most deprived communities. In the national
- 28 -
funding formula a higher weighting is applied than in North Somerset to pupils from areas with lower levels of deprivation and a lower weighting applied to pupils from areas with the highest level of deprivation. This is one of the reasons why schools serving the most deprived areas in North Somerset are more likely to be eligible for financial protection as a result of the national funding formula.
4.70.4. The introduction of a factor that allocates funding based on the current proportion of children and young people registered as entitled to free school meals. The main implication of this is a transfer in funding to children currently registered as entitled from those that have been registered as entitled at any time during the last six years. It is difficult to assess the impact of this change but it is most likely to affect those schools where the level of deprivation has changed in recent years or whose free school meal numbers may have reduced due to factor such as the introduction on the universal infant free school meal.
4.70.5. A lower weighting has been applied in the national funding formula, when compare to the local funding formula for the low prior attainment factor. This factor uses low prior attainment data as a proxy indicator of the level of special educational needs within a school.
4.70.6. The introduction of a factor that allocates funding based on the proportion of children and young people with English as an additional language (EAL). To date this has not been a factor that has been used to allocated resources in North Somerset. Schools that have a significant number of pupils with EAL will be the main beneficiaries of this change.
4.71. A decision will need to be made about whether the current locally determined formula should remain in place until the ‘hard’ national funding formula is introduced. Or whether we should move immediately towards the national funding formula.
4.72. This decision should perhaps be considered in two parts. Firstly whether the structure of the national funding formula i.e. the factors used for distributing resources, should be introduced. In the main this has relatively minor implications as the majority of factors are already in use in the North Somerset formula. The exception to this are the current FSM factor and the EAL factor. It is proposed that the structure of the national funding formula is introduced in the 2018-19 financial year.
4.73. The second part of this decision has more significant implications and will determine the values that are applied to each of the factors in North Somerset.
- 29 -
4.74. There are a number of potential options for this decision including:
4.74.1. Introduce the factor values used within the national funding
formula (apart from any reduction required to fund exceptional pupil growth, as detailed in paragraph 4.26, deficit recovery, as detailed in paragraph 4.47 or to fund a transfer to the high needs block, as detailed in paragraph 4.57,
4.74.2. Maintain the factor values that exist in the current North Somerset formula. In this option the additional funding provided by the national funding formula (after any of the reductions listed in 4.74.1 above) would still need to be allocated. This could either be allocated to provide additional resources equally to all children and young people e.g. by increasing AWPU or by targeting the increase to specific factors that are due to increase in the national funding formula, such as EAL or secondary age AWPU,
4.74.3. A mixture of both approaches to maintain things that are valued in North Somerset for as long as possible whilst accepting change in other areas. This could apply, for example, to maintaining the lump sum to support smaller schools, maintaining the existing AWPU ratios between primary and secondary schools or maintaining the current weighting amongst the most and least deprived areas.
4.75. Where possible exemplifications are always provided to enable
stakeholders to understand the implications for individual and types of school and providers. However there are too many perceivable options to demonstrate here. Instead, therefore, this consultation will ask stakeholders to provide views on the options above and any others that they wish to be considered. A formula review working group meeting will be held in the week following the close of the consultation, on 24th November, for detailed options to be considered ahead of the SSF meeting on 6th December. This means that papers for the SSF meeting will not be able to be published to SSF members or to schools until the end of 4th December. It is recognised that this leaves little time for schools to review the recommendations to the SSF and to make representations to their SSF member.
Recommendations
4.76. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.4g - that the structure of the national funding
formula (the factors used for distributing resources) is introduced in the 2018-19 financial year (paragraph 4.72).
• Recommendation no.4h – That the options below are considered to determine the values that are applied to each of the factors in the North Somerset formula in 2018-19 (further detail in paragraph 4.74): Option 1 - Introduce the factor values used within the national
- 30 -
funding formula (apart from any reduction required to fund exceptional pupil growth, as detailed in paragraph 4.26, deficit recovery, as detailed in paragraph 4.47 or to fund a transfer to the high needs block, as detailed in paragraph 4.57,
Option 2 - Maintain the factor values that exist in the current North Somerset formula. In this option the additional funding provided by the national funding formula (after any of the reductions listed in 4.74.1 above) would still need to be allocated. This could either be allocated to provide additional resources equally to all children and young people e.g. by increasing AWPU or by targeting the increase to specific factors that are due to increase in the national funding formula, such as EAL or secondary age AWPU,
Option 3 - A mixture of both approaches to maintain things that are valued in North Somerset for as long as possible whilst accepting change in other areas. This could apply, for example, to maintaining the lump sum to support smaller schools, maintaining our existing AWPU ratios between primary and secondary schools or maintaining the current weighting amongst the most and least deprived areas.
Level of the Minimum Funding Guarantee Background 4.77. The DfE have confirmed that there will continue to be a pre-16
minimum funding guarantee (MFG) in local funding formulae. The MFG is designed to protect schools from excessive year on year changes in their per pupil funding level, whilst allowing changes such as falling pupil numbers to flow through.
4.78. In recent years the MFG has been set nationally at minus 1.5%. This means that a schools per pupil funding can only reduce by 1.5% from one year to the next. Any schools with a loss greater than this will receive MFG protection.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome 4.79. Greater flexibility for the MFG is being introduced for the 2018-19
financial year which will allow LAs to set an MFG between 0% and minus 1.5% per pupil.
4.80. With specific permission from the Secretary of State for Education an MFG 0f +0.5% can be applied to ensure that every school gains at least 0.5% of the per pupil in 2018-19.
4.81. It is not possible to quantify the MFG allocations for schools for 2018-19 until the budgets for the year have been calculated incorporating the October 2017 data such as % of pupils eligible for FSM etc.
4.82. The level of the MFG will also be affected by the way that the national funding formula is implemented in 2018-19 and views on this are being requested through this consultation.
- 31 -
4.83. However, there is a matter of principle about the use of the MFG, which
is can be seen as separate to the implementation of the minimum funding guarantee.
4.84. Schools funding has always been subject to changes in data and protection applied to limit losses in per pupil funding and to cap gains in per pupil funding.
4.85. If a schools pupil numbers reduce in the data used to calculate their funding allocation, they receive no financial protection (as their per pupil funding isn’t affected). However, if other data reduces (such as the number of children eligible for FSM, or with low prior attainment) this reduces their per pupil funding. Over recent years the per pupil funding for a school has been protected so that, whilst they do experience a loss in funding, it is restricted to a loss of no more than 1.5% when compared to the previous financial year.
4.86. Similarly, schools for whom other data increases will see an increase in their per pupil funding and this gain in funding has been restricted so that, whilst they do experience a gain in funding, it is capped at a certain point. This point is determined each year in order to ensure that enough resources are available to fund MFG protection for schools that are losing as a result of data changes.
4.87. As a matter of principle views are being requested on whether schools, who’s funding would reduce as a result of changes in data, should still experience some of that loss regardless of the implementation of the national funding formula and whether a loss of no more than 1.5% is still the right level.
4.88. It is recommended that a MFG is maintained for reductions in funding as a result of data changes with a maximum value of -1.5%. The actual value of the MFG will be determined at the SSF meeting on 6th December and will be influenced by the outcome of this consultation.
Recommendations 4.89. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.4i - That the MFG is maintained for reductions in
funding as a result of data changes with a maximum value of -1.5%. (paragraph 4.88).
• Recommendation no.4j – That capping continues to be used in North Somerset to ensure that the potential implementation of the national funding formula is affordable.
- 32 -
Resource Base Funding Background 4.90. Schools with SEN units or resource bases in mainstream schools,
academies and free schools are currently funded at £10,000 per place based on the number of places funded. When calculating the mainstream funding for schools with a resource base (such as the AWPU element of the formula), the number of funded places are deducted from the pupil numbers to avoid double funding.
4.91. Top up funding for pupils in resource bases is allocated to schools using the appropriate universal band value less the £10,000 place funding.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome
4.92. From April 2018, schools with a resource base will receive their per
pupil funding in the formula on the basis of their total pupil numbers including the pupils in the resource base. The place funding that they will receive will be £6,000 rather than the current £10,000.
4.93. Pupils who are in receipt of top funding currently receive the value of the universal band value less the appropriate place funding value. For schools with a resource base place funding is currently £10,000 and from April 2018 will be £6,000. However, if we deduct £6,000 from the universal band value to calculate the top up funding, the school is potentially being double funded through top up funding as the school will also receive funding via AWPU, deprivation and low prior attainment funding for the pupils in the resource base as they will be included in the total pupil numbers used to calculate the formula. Table 4vi demonstrates how this overfunding could occur:
Table 4vi Example funding for a pupil in a resource base if adjusting top up funding for the reduction in place funding
Pupil led funding (AWPU,
deprivation, SEN)
Top Up funding applicable for Resource base (Universal band value less £10k place
funding in 2017-18 and less £6k place funding
in 2018-19)
Place Funding
Total Funding
2017-18 £0 £2,405 £10,000 £12,405 2018-19 £3,500 £6,405 £6,000 £15,905
4.94. This would generate overfunding of £3,500 per place/pupil. To avoid
this potential overfunding it is proposed that the value of the deduction from the universal band should remain at £10,000. This is demonstrated in table 4vii below:
Table 4vii Example funding for a pupil in a resource base if continuing to deduct £10k place funding from the top
Pupil led funding (AWPU,
deprivation, SEN)
Top Up funding applicable for Resource base (Universal band value less £10k place
funding in 2017-18 and less £6k place funding
Place Funding
Total Funding
- 33 -
up universal band value
in 2018-19)
2017-18 £0 £2,405 £10,000 £12,405 2018-19 £3,500 £2,405 £6,000 £11,905
4.95. Whilst the proposal demonstrated in table 4vii above removes the
potential double funding it does result in a loss of funding for resource bases. This is because the loss in place funding of £4,000 per place is greater than the amount gained through the pupil led formula factors which, in this example, is £3,500. This impact will be different for every school with a resource base across the country.
4.96. In North Somerset there are two schools with resource bases: Castle Batch Primary School and Mendip Green Primary School. The financial impact of this change for these schools, based on 2017-18 data, is demonstrated in table 4viii below:
Table 4viii School
Reduction in place funding
Increase in per pupil funding
Net decrease in funding per
place/pupil
Number of places
Financial Impact
Castle Batch £4,000 £3,207 £793 20 £15,852 Mendip Green £4,000 £3,340 £660 8 £5,283
4.97. This is a significant change for schools with a resource base. In May
2017 the SSF agreed the following position statement on specialist provision: “The Council’s Commissioning Strategy for Education Provision in North Somerset supports the principle of working actively to provide ‘Local Schools for Local Children’ and, whilst it is accepted that there will always be some children with very specific needs for whom the Council will need to commission external provision, it is part of this strategy to return to North Somerset as many local pupils as possible. As the numbers of homes across the district continues to rise, and demand for SEND provision is also potentially growing due to medical advances in paediatric care, the need for extra specialist provision is also increasing. The Strategic Schools Forum in North Somerset are not in a position to give a long term guarantee of the number of places that will be commissioned from specialist providers. However, given the principles of the Commissioning Strategy and the increasing demand for specialist provision the SSF are confident that, overall, the number of specialist places commissioned in North Somerset is likely to need to increase. To support this the SSF will work to enable the development of local specialist provision for children and young people in North Somerset wherever possible.”
4.98. With this in mind, and ahead of receiving recommendations from the
Specialist Provision Review, which is currently underway, it may be counterproductive to reduce funding to resources bases at this point in time.
4.99. It is proposed, therefore, that an additional place funding allocation is made for each place in a resource base in the 2018-19 financial year. It is proposed that the value of the additional place funding will be determined by the average net decrease in funding per place across
- 34 -
the schools with resource bases once the formula for 2018-19 has been agreed. The value of this cannot be confirmed yet at is will be determined at the SSF meeting on 6th December and informed by the outcome of this consultation. If however, it were based on the information in table 4viii above the additional place funding could equate to £755 per place giving a total allocation of £21,134.
Recommendations 4.100. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.4k - That top up funding for pupils in
resources bases will continue to be allocated using the appropriate universal band level less £10,000 place funding (paragraph 4.94).
• Recommendation no.4l - That an additional place funding allocation is made for each place in a resource base in the 2018-19 financial year. The value of the additional place funding will be determined by the average net decrease in funding per place across the schools with resource bases (paragraph 4.99).
- 35 -
5. De-delegations Background
5.1. De-delegation allows the funding for particular areas to be pooled from
maintained mainstream schools in order to provide a more effective use of resources and reduce the risks to individual schools budgets.
5.2. Funds cannot be de-delegated from academies, special schools or PRU’s. Academies, special schools and PRU’s have to take decisions as individual schools about how to support these areas of expenditure within their budgets.
5.3. For maintained primary schools their representatives on the SSF will make a decision that will apply to all of the maintained primary schools. This consultation provides an important opportunity to ensure that the representatives on the forum can take an informed decision about what services their constituent schools, on the whole, want to be de-delegated.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome
5.4. The de-delegations that are permitted in 2018-19 are the same as those permitted in 2017-18. Each individual area is subject to the approval of the SSF on an annual basis.
5.5. Table 5i shows which areas of funding can be de-delegated:
Table 5i Allowable de-delegations
De-delegation permitted
De-delegated in NS in 2017-18
Additional school improvement services Yes No Support for ethnic minority groups Yes De-delegation ended
31st August 2017 Behaviour support services (SS4L)
Yes
For Primary Schools de-delegation ended
31st August 2017
Secondary Schools voted not to de-
delegate in 2016-17 Future schools Yes De-delegation ended
31st March 2017 Schools central funds (maternity etc) Yes De-delegation ended
31st March 2017 Support for schools in financial difficulty Yes No Insurance Yes Yes RPTA’s Yes De-delegation ended
31st March 2017 FSM eligibility Yes De-delegation ended
31st August 2017 Contingencies Yes De-delegation ended
31st August 2017
- 36 -
5.6. As detailed in the table above significant changes were made to de-
delegations in 2017-18. This was agreed in order to be consistent with other changes being proposed and to align with the increasing number of conversions to academy status.
5.7. As a continuation of the arrangements put in place in 2017-18, the only de-delegation that is proposed for 2018-19 is Insurance.
5.8. The value of the de-delegation for insurance in 2017-18 was £27.05 per pupil. The value for 2018-19 will be set when the schools budget is set in January 2018.
5.9. When a school converts to academy status what happens to the de-delegated resources is determined by the date of conversion, as detailed below:
5.9.1. If a school converts on or between 2nd April and 1st September the LA retains 5/12ths (reflecting the April to August period) of the de-delegated resources and returns the rest to the school
5.9.2. If a school converts on or between 2nd September and 31st March the LA retains the full de-delegated resource for the financial year
5.10. If asked, the LA should continue to provide the service to new
academies for the period when the LA retains the de-delegated resources.
5.11. However, in the case of insurance it is illegal for the LA to continue to provide insurance cover for a school that has converted to academy status. A new academy will therefore be in the position of having to fund its own insurance whilst continuing, for a time at least, to have de-delegated resources retained by the LA.
5.12. Where an LA is unable to provide a requested service to a new academy, such as insurance, the DfE expects the LA and academy to come to an arrangement to give some of the de-delegated resource back to the academy.
5.13. The LA does not receive an in year reduction to the insurance premium when a school converts to academy status. Any agreement to give de-delegated funds for insurance back to an academy will result in an overspend in the de-delegated fund. It is proposed, therefore, that no reimbursement of de-delegated resources is automatically provided to a new academy beyond the requirements detailed in paragraph 5.9.
5.14. However, if there is an underspend in the de-delegated insurance fund then it is recommended that this is prioritised to make a reimbursement to new academies to contribute, as far as possible to the additional costs that they incur.
- 37 -
5.15. Any overspend or underspend on de-delegated services overall can be
carried forward to the following financial year to be used, overall, for the same purpose. This ensures that any over or underspends on these resources are ring fenced to those schools that contributed towards the fund through de-delegation from their formula budget share. It is proposed that these arrangements remain in place in but if the SSF considers that the total level of over or underspending on de-delegated services is excessive that the contributing schools will be required to making an additional payment or receive a reimbursement of the appropriate value.
Recommendations 5.16. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.5a – that funding for insurance for schools
continues to be de-delegated (paragraph 5.7).
• Recommendation no.5b - that no reimbursement of de-delegated resources is provided to a new academy beyond the DfE requirements detailed in paragraph 5.9.
• Recommendation no.5c – that if there is an underspend in the de-delegated insurance fund then this is prioritised to make a reimbursement to new academies to contribute, as far as possible to the additional insurance costs that they incur (paragraph 5.14).
• Recommendation no.5d – that any overspend or underspend on de-delegated services overall is carried forward to the following financial year to be used, overall, for the same purpose but that if the SSF considers that the total level of over or under spending on de-delegated services is excessive that the contributing schools will be required to making an additional payment or receive a reimbursement of the appropriate value (paragraph 5.15).
- 38 -
6. Additional delegation of responsibility Background 6.1. The Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) consulted with schools on whether to
delegate funds to schools in 2017-18 for some of the services that have historically been centrally funded by the schools budget. The services included in this consultation were: 6.1.1. Preventative Psychology (incorporating targeted mental health) 6.1.2. Advisory Teachers Learning, Language and Communication 6.1.3. Commissioned Resource Bases (Enhanced provision)
6.2. Following consultation feedback, and discussion at FRWG, the SSF agreed that these resources would be retained centrally during the 2017-18 financial year but that delegation of these resources should be considered again ahead of the next traded services contract period in September 2018.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome 6.3. The delegation of additional resources to schools for these services is
no longer an issue for consideration given the implementation of the national funding formula and the ring fence around the schools block.
6.4. However, as described in section 4, it may be necessary to consider how to find any additional resources required to fund estimated high needs expenditure during the 2018-19 financial year.
6.5. One of the options considered suggested to meet any shortfall in high needs funding (in paragraph 4.59) is to transfer responsibility for funding some high needs services to schools and offer the services as traded services rather than centrally provided services. Examples of these are Preventative Psychology Services, Advisory Teachers for Learning, Language and Communication and Enhanced Provision for ASD.
6.6. Information is provided below about each of these services:
6.6.1. Preventative Psychology (£152,239 in 2017-18) – Educational Psychologists undertake a wide range of preventative work, in accordance with the SEND Code of Practice. This work involves the application of psychological skills, understanding and knowledge to help children and young people make progress. This is achieved through consultation, assessment, intervention, research and training at the individual, group and systemic level. In addition, Educational Psychologists provide a statutory contribution to Education Health and Care Needs Assessments.
6.6.2. Support to schools from the centrally retained budget is mainly allocated on a formulaic basis. This includes data such as pupil numbers, low prior attainment and deprivation.
- 39 -
6.6.3. Advisory Teachers Learning, Language and Communication (£290,021 in 2017-18) – The advisory teachers provide specialist advice, guidance and training to staff in schools, building the capacity of these settings to meet the needs of children with SEN and disability in the areas of learning, language and communication.
6.6.4. Support to schools from the centrally retained budget is mainly allocated on a formulaic basis. This includes data such as pupil numbers, low prior attainment and deprivation.
6.6.5. Enhanced Provision for Autism and Social Communication (£90,909 in 2017-18) – enhanced provision supports those children and young people with Autism and Social Communication Difficulties with the highest level of need in mainstream schools and on transition into special school provision. Typically the children and young people that receive this support are in receipt of top up funding but this is not a criteria for involvement as sometimes situations deteriorate rapidly or a child will arrive at a school without this in place.
6.7. It could be agreed that all or part of any shortfall in high needs funding will be met by transfer responsibility for funding some high needs services to schools and to offer the services as traded services rather than centrally provided services as detailed in paragraph 4.59. Views from stakeholder are sought on, were this to be the case, which of the services detailed in paragraph 6.6 above would be most appropriate.
Recommendations 6.8. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.6a - Views are sought for which of the services detailed in paragraph 6.6 above would be most appropriate for the responsibility to be transferred to schools and to be offered as a traded service rather than be provided centrally.
- 40 -
7. Early Years Funding Background
7.1. Early Years funding in 2018-19 will be entering the second year of using
its initial national formula. This means that the move to the compulsory single funding rate continues and the arrangements for level 2 and level 3 qualified childminders remain in place for the second and final year (the hourly rates will be £3.38 and *£4.56 respectively). *£4.61 was printed in error until 11am on 23/11/17
7.2. The sector is also in the early days of the extension to 30 hours funded childcare provision. There may therefore be further announcements from the Government before the end of the financial year but there are no further known changes at present.
Deprivation Funding Background 7.3. Deprivation funding has formed part of the needs led Early Years
Formula since its inception in 2008. Due to the move to a single hourly funding rate for providers the need to review deprivation funding is required.
7.4. Deprivation is being paid on all hours where it is applicable. It is paid on both the Funded Universal (up to 15 hours per week) and the Funded Extended (up to 30 hours per week) hours as applicable.
7.5. The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) deprivation bands used in early years currently differ from those in the schools formula.
7.6. At present there are separate rates for early years deprivation funding for schools and PVI’s (Private, Voluntary and Independent providers). Childminders do not receive an extra payment currently as it is included within their higher hourly rate. With the move to a single funding rate for all, it is important that deprivation is considered equitably for all providers.
7.7. Currently, deprivation funding is calculated using the previous years data of children accessing their universal funding entitlement within the IDACI bands and the current rates applied. This means it is a proxy indicator of the level of deprivation for the children attending the setting and provides some funding to enable the setting to put the necessary support/infrastructure in place. It doesn’t move with the current children in settings.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome
7.8. The FRWG recommended that for 2018-19 that deprivation should be
paid on both the Funded Universal (15 hours) and Funded Extended (30 hours) for 3 and 4 year olds, where applicable. This is because the uptake and impact of the Funded Extended hours is not yet known. It is also due to the fact that it is thought that children that would attract a deprivation funding are not likely to be entitled to the Funded Extended entitlement due to the criteria that need to be met.
- 41 -
7.9. The FRWG agreed that the bands used in early years should be the
same as those in the schools formula as detailed in table 7i below:
Table 7i Early years IDACI Bands 2017-18 School IDACI Bands 2017-18 lower score upper score band lower score upper score band
0.000 0.200 0 0.00 0.200 G 0.200 0.250 1 0.200 0.250 F 0.251 0.300 2 0.251 0.300 E 0.301 0.400 3 0.301 0.350 D 0.401 0.500 4 0.351 0.400 C 0.501 0.600 5 0.400 0.500 B 0.601 1.00 6 0.500 1.00 A
7.10. Had this change been implemented 2017-18 it would have meant that, if
the budget was unlimited, an additional £126,021 of funding would have been distributed. As the funding is limited the funding rates would have to be changed to remain within the allocated budget. Table 7ii shows the impact before the capping of funding rates to remain within the allocated budget:
Table 7ii2017-18 Current RatesHours by band 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Original Schools 160,110.50 14,412.00 7,574.00 6,612.40 35,046.00 24,183.00 13,825.00 261,762.90Original PVs 1,023,285.25 59,815.50 54,526.46 77,131.60 61,228.50 6,663.00 5,174.00 1,287,824.31Total 1,183,395.75 74,227.50 62,100.46 83,744.00 96,274.50 30,846.00 18,999.00 1,549,587.21
Band 0 1 2 3 4 5 6School rates £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.13 £0.76 £1.62 £1.99 Total PV rates £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £1.00 £2.00 £3.05 £5.15Original Schools £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £844.40 £26,708.44 £39,116.81 £27,458.67 £94,128.32Original PVs £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £77,131.60 £122,457.00 £20,322.15 £26,646.10 £246,556.85Total £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £77,976.00 £149,165.44 £59,438.96 £54,104.77 £340,685.17
Updated 2017-18 to reflect bandsHours by band 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Revised Schools 160,110.50 14,412.00 7,574.00 5,532.40 1,080.00 35,046.00 38,008.00 261,762.90Revised PVs 1,023,285.25 59,815.50 54,526.46 68,971.60 8,160.00 61,228.50 11,837.00 1,287,824.31Revised Total 1,183,395.75 74,227.50 62,100.46 74,504.00 9,240.00 96,274.50 49,845.00 1,549,587.21Inc /dec 0 0 0 -9,240.00 -87,034.50 65,428.50 30,846.00 0CMs 62,482.45 7,498.00 2,870.00 8,280.00 600 6,846.00 2,593.00 91,169.45
Band 0 1 2 3 4 5 6School rates £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.13 £0.76 £1.62 £1.99 Total PV rates £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £1.00 £2.00 £3.05 £5.15Revised Schools £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £706.49 £823.06 £56,688.06 £75,490.01 £133,707.62Revised PVs £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £68,971.60 £16,320.00 £186,746.93 £60,960.55 £332,999.08Total £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £69,678.09 £17,143.06 £243,434.99 £136,450.56 £466,706.70Inc /dec £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 -£8,297.92 -£132,022.37 £183,996.03 £82,345.79 £126,021.53CMs £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £8,280.00 £1,200.00 £20,880.30 £13,353.95 £43,714.25
Total inc CMs £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £77,958.09 £18,343.06 £264,315.29 £149,804.51 £510,420.95
7.11. The FRWG briefly considered if there should just be one flat rate paid for children from deprived areas, regardless of IDACI bands (i.e. regardless of level of deprivation) as we believe some other LA’s have in place. However, it was agreed the whole idea of using indicators and bandings to identify the level of need meant that having a single rate of circa 22 pence an hour would not be appropriate.
- 42 -
7.12. The FRWG however are in agreement that the rates paid for deprivation
in 2018-19 should be the same regardless of the setting type, as is the case for the basic hourly rate funding. The impact of using the school rates would be that the hourly supplement applied would be between the current rates paid to schools and that which paid to PVIs as detailed in table 7iii.
Table 7iii IDACI BAND SCH £ PV £
D 3 0.13 1.00 C 4 0.76 2.00 B 5 1.62 3.05 A 6 1.99 5.15
7.13. The impact if the above rates for schools were used for all in 2017-18,
would be that there would be £168,991 available to add to the deprivation rates that are paid to all providers.
7.14. The FRWG are also in agreement that Childminders from 2019-20 where applicable receiving a deprivation supplement. From 2019-20 Childminders will be paid at the same standard hourly rate as all other providers.
7.15. Another element considered at length by the FRWG is that of the deprivation supplement being applied to the actual children receiving funding in “real time” as opposed to it providing a proxy indicator of the level of deprivation by being based on the previous years data. Analysis to date has shown that the impact of this is unclear and therefore the recommendation is to continue using the previous years data to provide a proxy indicator for deprivation funding with reconsideration of changing this for 2019-20.
Recommendations 7.16. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.7a – that from 2018-19 deprivation funding is
continued to be paid on both the universal (15) and extended (30) funded hours (paragraph 7.8).
• Recommendation no.7b – that from 2018-19 the deprivation funding for early years providers is allocated using the same IDACI bandings as schools (paragraph 7.9).
• Recommendation no. 7c - that the rates paid for deprivation in 2018-19 are the same to Schools & PVIs (paragraph 7.13).
• Recommendation no. 7d – that in 2019-20 all providers including childminders where applicable have the deprivation supplements applied (paragraph 7.14).
• Recommendation no 7e – that deprivation continues to be funded on previous years data as a proxy indicator of the level of deprivation, so in
- 43 -
2018-19 the funding will be based on the children and data available from 2017-18, and that this is reconsidered for the 2019-20 financial year (paragraph 7.15).
- 44 -
8. Additional allocations for schools with a disproportionate number of high needs pupils
Background
8.1. The Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) agreed, following consultation with schools,
to introduce a process in the 2017-18 financial year to automatically assess and allocate funding from the high needs block to those schools considered as having a disproportionate number of high needs pupils.
8.2. Local Authorities are able to allocate additional resources, calculated on a formulaic basis to schools that have a disproportionate number of high needs pupils. This is to provide support to such schools in funding up to the first £6,000 of support for pupils with special education needs.
8.3. Following consultation feedback, and discussion at FRWG, the SSF agreed that schools would receive an increase in funding if their notional SEN funding falls below £1,200 per notional SEN pupil after having taken into consideration a £6,000 contribution for each pupil in receipt of top up funding. The number of children in receipt of top up funding is calculated as at September during the financial year to create a composite of number of children across the year.
8.4. However, these arrangements are not as effective and robust as is desired as they do not recognise if a school has a lot of pupils which require additional support but where this does not amount the full £6,000 per pupil and the pupils are not in receipt of top up funding.
8.5. The SSF agreed, therefore, that there is further work required to improve the agreed mechanism and asked for this to be completed during 2017-18 ready for use in 2018-19 if appropriate and following further consultation.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome 8.6. The Formula Review working group have therefore reviewed the need
for this arrangement.
8.7. The group agree that this arrangement is required but that it would be better to review the mechanism once the national funding formula is understood and implemented.
8.8. It is recommended therefore to continue to operate the mechanism in 2018-18 as introduced in 2017-18 and to review again for 2019-20.
8.9. Attached as Appendix C are the estimated allocations for the current
financial year using estimated data. This data will be updated as at September for the final allocations.
Recommendations 8.10. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.8a – to continue to operate the process to
automatically assess and allocate funding from the high needs block to those schools considered as having a disproportionate number of high needs pupils in 2018-19 as introduced in 2017-18 (paragraph 8.8),
- 45 -
• Recommendation no.8a – to review the process to automatically assess
and allocate funding from the high needs block to those schools considered as having a disproportionate number of high needs pupils in 2018-19 for the 2019-20 financial year (paragraph 8.8).
- 46 -
9. Scheme for financing schools – restrictions on school balances Background
9.1. The Scheme for Financing Schools contains provisions to apply
restrictions on excessive school balances for maintained schools. 9.2. Appendix D provides details of the existing scheme for controlling
surplus school balances. 9.3. At the SSF meeting in January 2017 it was agreed that the control
mechanisms for surplus school balances should be reviewed in light of the pressure being faced by schools budgets and the increasing number of conversions to academy status.
9.4. In March 2017 the SSF agreed to consult schools on a proposal to
remove the control mechanism for surplus balances for maintained schools and not, therefore, apply the control to balances at the end of the 2017-18 financial year and beyond.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome 9.5. Table 9i shows the value of balances that have been clawed back from
maintained schools over the last four years through this mechanism.
Table 9i Financial year
No. of schools Value of balances clawed back
2016-17 1 £8,778 * 2015-16 1 £12,363 2014-15 1 £27,447 2013-14 2 £6,432 * The SSF subsequently agreed for the school to retain this balances due to exceptional circumstances
9.6. Table 9ii shows the overall level of maintained school balances at the
end of the last four financial years.
Table 9ii Financial year
Overall School balances Balance as a % of in year allocations
2016-17 £3,080,582 5.24% 2015-16 £5,099,463 6.18 % 2014-15 £5,584,029 6.74 % 2013-14 £4,831,045 6.14 % * please note that the level of school balance will also have been impacted by the removal of balances for schools that have converted to academy status
9.7. There are a number of reasons to review this control mechanism.
These include:
9.7.1. The increased financial pressure on school budgets, 9.7.2. The reducing number of schools that the control mechanism
applies to. The mechanism only applies to maintained schools,
9.7.3. The relatively low level of clawbacks over the last four years,
- 47 -
9.7.4. The increased complexity of additional funding streams such as Teaching Schools,
9.7.5. The level of maintained school balances as a % of in year
funding is reducing.
9.8. Whilst the reasons above support the need to review these arrangements, schools are reminded that the control mechanism has been maintained in order to ensure a reasonable balance between retaining resources in a planned way to meet future demands and maximising the resources available to be spent on provision for children and young people on roll in the year in which the funding is provided.
9.9. Schools are asked to consider the following options:
9.9.1. That the control mechanism for surplus balances for
maintained schools is removed and not, therefore, applied to balances at the end of the 2017-18 financial year and beyond – this is the recommended option, or
9.9.2. That the control mechanism for surplus balances for
maintained schools is retained but that limits within the scheme are relaxed before being applied to balances at the end of the 2017-18 financial year and beyond. The proposed changes to the limits within the scheme are provided in Appendix E. The implications of the proposed change in limits for individual maintained schools is provided in Appendix F. This includes schools that remain maintained as at the date of the launch of this consultation and is based on data for the 2016-17 financial year.
Recommendations 9.10. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.9a - That the proposal to remove the control
mechanism for surplus balances for maintained schools so that it does not apply to balances at the end of the 2017-18 financial year and beyond (paragraph 9.9.1).
- 48 -
10. Statutory Services Charges for maintained schools Background
10.1. Up until April 2017 Local Authorities received a grant called the
Education Services Grant (ESG). The ESG was made up of two rates that funded two different groups of services:
10.1.1. The retained duties rate was allocated to local authorities to
fund services they provide for all children and young people regardless of the type of school they attend
10.1.2. The general duties rate was allocated to both local
authorities and academies to fund services authorities provide to maintained schools but which academies must provide themselves
10.2. The funding previously allocated through the ESG retained duties rate
(£15 per pupil) was transferred into the schools block of the Dedicated Schools Grant from April 2017. The SSF agreed that this funding could continue to be used to fund the central services previously funded from this grant. This funding is used to meet the following responsibilities:
10.2.1. Ensuring every child has a school place 10.2.2. Ensuring the needs of vulnerable pupils are met 10.2.3. Acting as a champion for all parents and families
10.3. From 2017-18 the funding previously allocated through the ESG
general duties rate ceased. 10.4. Local authorities are able to fund services previously funded within the
general duties rate (for maintained schools only) by top slicing funding from maintained school budgets shares with the agreement of maintained school members of the schools forum. In North Somerset we call this top slice the Statutory Services Charge (SSC).
10.5. Local authorities should set a single rate per pupil for the statutory
service charge (excluding early years and post 16) for all mainstream maintained schools (both primary and secondary). Local authorities may choose to establish differential rates for special schools and PRUs if the cost of fulfilling the duty is substantially different for these schools. The rate would be expressed per place rather than per pupil for special schools and PRU.
10.6. In North Somerset it was been agreed that the Statutory Service
Charge (SSC) will operate like a de-delegation. The value of the charge was £6.32 per pupil for 2017-18 for the period September 2017 to March 2018. This was because the DfE provided an ESG transitional funding grant for the period April to August 2017. The full year effect of the SSC would therefore have been £10.84 per pupil/place.
10.7. Table 10i below shows the breakdown on the SSC charge for the 2017-
18 financial year:
- 49 -
Table 10i Elements of Statutory Service Charge (SSC) for 2017-18
Cost of services for the 2017-18 financial year
Transitional ESG funding for April to
August Period
Income to be recovered in 2017-18 from maintained
schools through the
SCC for Sept to Mar Period
Health & Safety £35,532 £14,805 £20,727 Governor Services £10,246 £4,269 £5,977 Internal Audit £18,800 £7,833 £10,967 S151 Responsibilities £13,597 £5,665 £7,932 Complaints e.g. anti bullying £8,366 £3,486 £4,880 Property & Asset Management - valuations £36,764 £15,318 £21,446
Business support £542 £226 £316 Total £123,847 £51,602 £72,245 Pupil/Place Numbers in Maintained Schools at April 17
11,423 11,423
Statutory Service Charge per pupil/place £10.84 £6.32
10.8. If a school converts to academy status, the amount retained for that
school (that was topsliced from the schools budget) will be recouped from the local authority’s DSG for the remaining months of the financial year that the school is an academy. The academy will be reimbursed in its monthly general annual grant (GAG) payment from the point of conversion. Unlike for de-delegated services there will be no phased transfer of funding following conversion so there will be immediate recoupment of this part of the budget. For example, if a school converts on 1 January 2019, 3/12ths of the retained amount relating to that school will be recouped from the LAs DSG and reimbursed to the academy.
- 50 -
National / Local Formula Review Outcome 10.9. The calculation of the SSC has been reviewed ahead of the 2018-19
financial year.
10.10. The proposed SSC for 2018-19 is provided in table 10ii below:
Table 10ii Proposed Elements of Statutory Service Charge (SSC) for 2018-19
Fully year equivalent
SSC 2017-18 – per
pupil/place
Proposed SSC 2018-19
– per pupil/place
Difference – per
pupil/place
Health & Safety £3.11 £3.11 £0.00 Governor Services £0.90 £0.90 £0.00 Internal Audit £1.65 £1.65 £0.00 S151 Responsibilities £1.19 £1.19 £0.00 Complaints e.g. anti bullying £0.73 £0.73 £0.00 Property & Asset Management - valuations £3.22
£3.22
£0.00
Business support £0.05 £0.05 £0.00 Schools HR Advisory Service £0.00 £1.00 £1.00 Total £10.84 £11.84 £11.84
10.11. Details of the proposed changes detailed above are provided below:
10.11.1. Health and Safety – The statutory services charge has to apply
to all maintained schools. However, the LAs responsibilities for health and safety are only for maintained schools where the LA remains the employer and the owner of the land and buildings. Because of this the SSC for health and safety is lower for an individual school than the cost of providing the core service but between the SSC and the traded core service overall the correct level of resource is recovered from schools. A number of maintained schools, where the LA is the employer and the owner of the land and buildings, have chosen not to buy the core health and safety service. This means that these schools are receiving the same service at a lower costs than their equivalent schools that have chosen to buy the core service. We could increase the SSC to fully cover the cost of the core health and safety service but this would financially penalise those maintained schools for whom the LA is not the employer or the owner of the land and buildings. It is proposed therefore to maintain the SCC at its current level but to require all maintained schools where the LA is the employer and owner of the land and buildings to purchase the core health and safety package. This change is proposed from 1st April 2018.
10.11.2. Schools HR Advisory Service – Traditionally all of the HR professional services have been funded through the traded services. There are however an increasing number of maintained schools that are choosing not to buy the HR
- 51 -
professional service. In these schools the LA would still have a responsibility to support or act on behalf of the LA in certain circumstances such as investigations into misconduct, pensions liaison and representing the LA, as the employer, at a tribunal. It is in appropriate therefore for this activity to be funded by schools that do choose to buy the Schools HR Advisory Service package. It is proposed that instead all school contribute to these statutory functions via the statutory services charge. The charges for the Schools HR Advisory traded service will be able to reduce to reflect the funding received through the statutory services charge.
Recommendations 10.12. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.10a - That the proposed statutory services charge
(SSC) of £11.84 per pupil/place is agreed for the 2018-19 financial year (paragraph 10.10),
• Recommendation no. 10b – That all maintained schools, where the LA is the employer and owner of the land and buildings, are required to purchase the core health and safety package from 1st April 2018 (paragraph 10.11.1).
- 52 -
11. Next steps Background 11.1. This section sets out the key next steps towards implementation in of
the proposals in this document from April 2017. The timetable for the implementation is provided in table 12 below:
Table 11i Timetable for implementation 31st October to 24th November Consultation period 1st November Noticeboard article containing link to
consultation published 9th November Heads and Governor representative briefing at
Hans Price Academy (reserve your place via cpd online).
27th & 28th November Consultation responses analysed and incorporated in proposals
29th November Proposals considered by the Formula Review Working Group (FRWG)
30th November to 4th December Finance proposals to the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) completed
4th December Paper on proposals issued to the SSF and schools through noticeboard
6th December Meeting of the Strategic Schools Forum to set the initial budget and provisional schools funding for 2018-19
Late December
EFA confirms DSG allocations for 2018-19 (prior to recoupment of funding for academies)
December/January Formula funding for schools updated to reflect on October 2017data set and 2018-19 DSG
24th January The SSF finalise formula and budget for 2018-19. The single proforma sent to the EFA detailing structure of formula and unit values
By 28th February Delegated budget shares for 2018-19 issued to schools
By 31st March Early years and high needs allocations issued
- 53 -
Appendix D
The existing scheme for controlling surplus school balances
4.2 THE CONTROL OF SURPLUS BALANCES 4.2.1 Surplus balances held by schools as permitted under this Scheme are subject to the
following restrictions:
a) North Somerset Council shall calculate by 31 May each year the surplus balance, if any, held by each school as at the preceding 31 March. For this purpose the balance will be total revenue recurrent balance category as defined in Consistent Financial Reporting Framework;
b) North Somerset Council shall deduct from the surplus balance any amounts which the
governing body of the school declares to be assigned for specific purposes as permitted by North Somerset Council listed at paragraph 4.2.5 of the Scheme and which the authority is satisfied are properly assigned. To qualify as properly assigned, amounts must not be retained beyond the period stipulated for the purpose in question, without the written consent of the authority; and
c) If the result of steps (a) and (b) is a sum greater than whichever is the greater of 10%
of the budget share or £55,000, then the authority shall deduct from the following year's budget share an amount equal to the excess.
4.2.2 Balances deriving from sources other than the authority will be included in this
calculation if paid into the budget share account of the school, whether under provisions in this Scheme or not.
4.2.3 Balances held in relation to a school’s exercise of powers under section 27 of the
Education Act 2002 (community facilities) will not be taken into account unless added to the budget share surplus by the school permitted by North Somerset Council.
- 54 -
4.2.4 The total of any amounts deducted from schools budget shares by North Somerset
Council under this provision are to be applied to the schools budget of the authority. 4.2.5 Set out below are the specific purposes for which a school can retain an excess
balance (see paragraph 4.2.1 (b)) together with the period the school is allowed to carry forward such sums. Further details for specific purposes and evidence requirements are included in the ‘Information Source’ for schools:
Specific Purpose Period Maximum Amount
per year * Nominated Capital Project – (including high cost equipment and premises projects included in the agreed premises maintenance and development plan between the LA and school) * Falling rolls greater than 5% * Increasing rolls greater than 2% subject to pupil growth criteria
Maximum 3 years Maximum 1 year Maximum 1 year
£20,000 Primary and Special Schools, £75,000 Secondary Schools. Value of difference in pupil numbers in October during the current financial year and October in the previous financial year multiplied by 5/12ths of the current year AWPU value with a proportionate value for social deprivation and SEN factors. 2% subject to pupil growth criteria
- 55 -
Appendix E
The proposed changes to the limits within the scheme for controlling surplus school balances, if the scheme is retained
4.2 THE CONTROL OF SURPLUS BALANCES 4.2.1 Surplus balances held by schools as permitted under this Scheme are subject to the
following restrictions:
a) North Somerset Council shall calculate by 31 May each year the surplus balance, if any, held by each school as at the preceding 31 March. For this purpose the balance will be total revenue recurrent balance category as defined in Consistent Financial Reporting Framework;
b) North Somerset Council shall deduct from the surplus balance any amounts which the
governing body of the school declares to be assigned for specific purposes as permitted by North Somerset Council listed at paragraph 4.2.5 of the Scheme and which the authority is satisfied are properly assigned. To qualify as properly assigned, amounts must not be retained beyond the period stipulated for the purpose in question, without the written consent of the authority; and
c) If the result of steps (a) and (b) is a sum greater than whichever is the greater of 10%
12% of the budget share or £55,000 £70,000, then the authority shall deduct from the following year's budget share an amount equal to the excess.
4.22 Balances deriving from sources other than the authority will be included in this
calculation if paid into the budget share account of the school, whether under provisions in this Scheme or not.
4.23 Balances held in relation to a school’s exercise of powers under section 27 of the
Education Act 2002 (community facilities) will not be taken into account unless added to the budget share surplus by the school permitted by North Somerset Council.
4.24 The total of any amounts deducted from schools budget shares by North Somerset
Council under this provision are to be applied to the schools budget of the authority. 4.25 Set out below are the specific purposes for which a school can retain an excess
balance (see paragraph 4.2.1 (b)) together with the period the school is allowed to carry forward such sums. Further details for specific purposes and evidence requirements are included in the ‘Information Source’ for schools:
Specific Purpose Period Maximum Amount
per year * Nominated Capital Project – (including high cost equipment and premises projects included in the agreed premises maintenance and development plan between the LA and school) * Falling rolls greater than 5%
Maximum 3 years Maximum 1 year
£20,000 £30,000 Primary and Special Schools, £75,000 £100,000 Secondary Schools. Value of difference in pupil numbers in October during the current financial year
- 56 -
* Increasing rolls greater than 2% subject to pupil growth criteria
Maximum 1 year
and October in the previous financial year multiplied by 5/12ths of the current year AWPU value with a proportionate value for social deprivation and SEN factors. 2% subject to pupil growth criteria
Appendix A
23/11/2017 Appendix A NFF
National Fair Funding (NFF) detailing NFF calculated by the Department for Education (DfE) for 2018-19 - in the first year of the NFF local authorities (LAs) will continue to determine funding locally.
DfE Number School Name
Total Number on
Roll
Funding Floor Baseline 2017-
18 - total funding less lump sums
plus area cost adjustment (ACA) and premises
Add 0.5% to funding floor baseline (for transitional protection)
NFF awpu, deprivation,
prior attainment,
(includes ACA)
minimum funding level
where per pupil is lower than
£3,500
Total NFF before
transitional protection/cappi
ng
transitional protection
lump sums plus ACA
Total NFF Funding before
capping
% change between
baseline and total NFF
before transitional
protection/capping
capping
minimum funding per
pupil adjustment to capping
£3,300
Total capping applied
Total NFF with capping
Premises - includes rates,
exceptional factor and split site
Total NFF Funding
2017-18 Total Funding including Minimum Funding
Guarantee (MFG)
% change comparing NFF to 2017-18 total
funding
a a x (100% +0.5%) = b c d c + d = e if e <b, b-e,
if e>b, 0 = f g e + f + g = h (e-a)/a = iif i > 3% a x (i-3%), if i <3%,
0 = jk j + k = l h + l = m n m + n = o p (o - p) / p = q
3122 All Saints East Clevedon 114 £349,328 £351,074 £345,204 £0 £345,204 £5,870 £111,576 £462,651 -1.18% £0 £0 £0 £462,651 £11,737 £474,387 £472,641 0.37%2277 Ashcombe 568 £1,902,674 £1,912,187 £1,953,957 £0 £1,953,957 £0 £111,576 £2,065,533 2.70% £0 £0 £0 £2,065,533 75,481 £2,141,014 £2,089,731 2.45%3075 Backwell 231 £686,608 £690,041 £698,470 £0 £698,470 £0 £111,576 £810,047 1.73% £0 £0 £0 £810,047 12,350 £822,397 £810,534 1.46%2271 Banwell 194 £677,178 £680,564 £677,846 £0 £677,846 £2,717 £111,576 £792,140 0.10% £0 £0 £0 £792,140 16,885 £809,025 £805,639 0.42%2319 Becket, Worle 208 £814,463 £818,535 £782,100 £0 £782,100 £36,435 £111,576 £930,111 -3.97% £0 £0 £0 £930,111 21,914 £952,026 £947,953 0.43%2262 Birdwell 373 £1,131,219 £1,136,875 £1,142,654 £51,269 £1,193,924 £0 £111,576 £1,305,500 5.54% (£28,768) £0 (£28,768) £1,276,732 8,862 £1,285,594 £1,251,658 2.71%2272 Blagdon 111 £346,898 £348,633 £341,708 £0 £341,708 £6,925 £111,576 £460,209 -1.50% £0 £0 £0 £460,209 19,394 £479,603 £477,869 0.36%3455 Bournville 417 £2,044,134 £2,054,355 £1,789,257 £0 £1,789,257 £265,098 £111,576 £2,165,931 -12.47% £0 £0 £0 £2,165,931 20,178 £2,186,108 £2,175,888 0.47%3351 Burrington 76 £231,396 £232,553 £227,679 £0 £227,679 £4,874 £111,576 £344,130 -1.61% £0 £0 £0 £344,130 7,282 £351,411 £350,254 0.33%2332 Castle Batch, Worle 439 £1,410,673 £1,417,727 £1,433,186 £0 £1,433,186 £0 £111,576 £1,544,762 1.60% £0 £0 £0 £1,544,762 28,261 £1,573,023 £1,550,510 1.45%3117 Christ Church, Weston 201 £759,756 £763,555 £765,815 £0 £765,815 £0 £111,576 £877,391 0.80% £0 £0 £0 £877,391 2,171 £879,561 £873,503 0.69%3113 Churchill 202 £609,189 £612,235 £624,806 £0 £624,806 £0 £111,576 £736,382 2.56% £0 £0 £0 £736,382 21,914 £758,296 £742,680 2.10%3354 Corpus Christi 210 £714,391 £717,963 £730,190 £0 £730,190 £0 £111,576 £841,766 2.21% £0 £0 £0 £841,766 3,383 £845,150 £829,351 1.90%3121 Court de Wyck 129 £423,114 £425,230 £404,934 £0 £404,934 £20,295 £111,576 £536,806 -4.30% £0 £0 £0 £536,806 1,615 £538,421 £536,305 0.39%3130 Crockerne C of E 295 £972,189 £977,050 £991,585 £0 £991,585 £0 £111,576 £1,103,161 2.00% £0 £0 £0 £1,103,161 2,136 £1,105,297 £1,085,901 1.79%2004 Dundry 82 £316,020 £317,600 £288,688 £0 £288,688 £28,911 £111,576 £429,176 -8.65% £0 £0 £0 £429,176 809 £429,985 £428,405 0.37%3091 Flax Bourton 132 £412,389 £414,451 £395,769 £0 £395,769 £18,682 £111,576 £526,027 -4.03% £0 £0 £0 £526,027 14,949 £540,977 £538,915 0.38%2295 Golden Valley 411 £1,251,120 £1,257,376 £1,273,072 £53,852 £1,326,924 £0 £111,576 £1,438,500 6.06% (£38,270) £0 (£38,270) £1,400,230 24,973 £1,425,202 £1,387,669 2.70%2261 Grove 253 £757,823 £761,612 £776,426 £0 £776,426 £0 £111,576 £888,003 2.45% £0 £0 £0 £888,003 18,770 £906,772 £888,169 2.09%2268 Hannah Moore 157 £483,558 £485,976 £485,804 £0 £485,804 £172 £111,576 £597,552 0.46% £0 £0 £0 £597,552 12,347 £609,899 £607,481 0.40%2001 Haywood Village 68 £232,867 £234,032 £223,438 £0 £223,438 £10,594 £111,576 £345,608 -4.05% £0 £0 £0 £345,608 9,867 £355,475 £354,311 0.33%3451 Herons Moor 418 £1,341,108 £1,347,814 £1,359,747 £0 £1,359,747 £0 £111,576 £1,471,323 1.39% £0 £0 £0 £1,471,323 13,340 £1,484,663 £1,466,024 1.27%2254 High Down, Portishead 284 £853,027 £857,292 £858,945 £23,479 £882,424 £0 £111,576 £994,000 3.45% (£3,806) £0 (£3,806) £990,194 1,986 £992,180 £966,589 2.65%2263 High Down, Portishead 385 £1,166,213 £1,172,044 £1,182,332 £53,592 £1,235,924 £0 £111,576 £1,347,500 5.98% (£34,724) £0 (£34,724) £1,312,776 3,232 £1,316,008 £1,281,022 2.73%3116 Hutton 208 £686,006 £689,436 £683,433 £0 £683,433 £6,002 £111,576 £801,012 -0.37% £0 £0 £0 £801,012 17,364 £818,376 £814,946 0.42%2273 Kewstoke 90 £311,353 £312,910 £304,875 £0 £304,875 £8,035 £111,576 £424,486 -2.08% £0 £0 £0 £424,486 4,665 £429,151 £427,595 0.36%2000 Kingshill 127 £453,754 £456,023 £425,190 £0 £425,190 £30,833 £111,576 £567,599 -6.30% £0 £0 £0 £567,599 1,984 £569,583 £567,315 0.40%2286 Locking 388 £1,234,403 £1,240,575 £1,243,534 £2,889 £1,246,424 £0 £111,576 £1,358,000 0.97% £0 £0 £0 £1,358,000 18,447 £1,376,447 £1,364,426 0.88%9999 Locking Parklands 3 £17,253 £17,339 £9,694 £0 £9,694 £7,646 £65,086 £82,425 -43.81% £0 £0 £0 £82,080 5,731 £87,811 £88,070 -0.29%2310 Mary Elton 415 £1,271,828 £1,278,187 £1,287,792 £53,132 £1,340,924 £0 £111,576 £1,452,500 5.43% (£30,941) £0 (£30,941) £1,421,559 7,712 £1,429,271 £1,391,116 2.74%2305 Mead Vale 412 £1,383,017 £1,389,932 £1,400,224 £0 £1,400,224 £0 £111,576 £1,511,800 1.24% £0 £0 £0 £1,511,800 26,722 £1,538,522 £1,521,316 1.13%2285 Mendip Green 632 £2,118,726 £2,129,320 £2,145,480 £0 £2,145,480 £0 £111,576 £2,257,056 1.26% £0 £0 £0 £2,257,056 44,068 £2,301,124 £2,274,370 1.18%3454 Milton Park 395 £1,487,184 £1,494,620 £1,431,532 £0 £1,431,532 £63,088 £111,576 £1,606,197 -3.74% £0 £0 £0 £1,606,197 4,340 £1,610,537 £1,603,101 0.46%3095 Northleaze 206 £607,873 £610,913 £620,107 £0 £620,107 £0 £111,576 £731,683 2.01% £0 £0 £0 £731,683 27,424 £759,107 £746,873 1.64%2287 Oldmixon 206 £881,705 £886,113 £820,605 £0 £820,605 £65,508 £111,576 £997,690 -6.93% £0 £0 £0 £997,690 4,574 £1,002,264 £997,856 0.44%2252 Portishead 476 £1,403,458 £1,410,476 £1,431,551 £122,873 £1,554,424 £0 £111,576 £1,666,000 10.76% (£108,862) £13,662 (£95,200) £1,570,800 9,137 £1,579,937 £1,524,172 3.66%2283 Sandford 142 £441,547 £443,754 £439,076 £0 £439,076 £4,678 £111,576 £555,331 -0.56% £0 £0 £0 £555,331 15,089 £570,419 £568,211 0.39%3114 St Andrew's, Congresbury 251 £843,530 £847,748 £864,953 £0 £864,953 £0 £111,576 £976,529 2.54% £0 £0 £0 £976,529 24,357 £1,000,886 £979,463 2.19%3115 St Anne's, Hewish 295 £917,049 £921,635 £924,077 £0 £924,077 £0 £111,576 £1,035,653 0.77% £0 £0 £0 £1,035,653 57,790 £1,093,443 £1,086,416 0.65%3350 St Francis 189 £545,601 £548,329 £554,925 £0 £554,925 £0 £111,576 £666,502 1.71% £0 £0 £0 £666,502 3,062 £669,563 £660,239 1.41%2005 St Georges 208 £675,115 £678,491 £671,357 £0 £671,357 £7,133 £111,576 £790,067 -0.56% £0 £0 £0 £790,067 6,460 £796,527 £793,151 0.43%3450 St John the Evangelist 305 £939,345 £944,042 £949,520 £6,403 £955,924 £0 £111,576 £1,067,500 1.76% £0 £0 £0 £1,067,500 5,866 £1,073,366 £1,056,787 1.57%3349 St Joseph's, Portishead 210 £632,589 £635,752 £646,443 £0 £646,443 £0 £111,576 £758,019 2.19% £0 £0 £0 £758,019 1,682 £759,702 £745,847 1.86%3447 St Mark's, Worle 417 £1,362,409 £1,369,221 £1,382,801 £0 £1,382,801 £0 £111,576 £1,494,377 1.50% £0 £0 £0 £1,494,377 7,472 £1,501,850 £1,481,458 1.38%3118 St Martin's 537 £1,798,634 £1,807,627 £1,820,857 £0 £1,820,857 £0 £111,576 £1,932,433 1.24% £0 £0 £0 £1,932,433 30,962 £1,963,394 £1,941,172 1.14%3446 St Mary's, Portbury 93 £290,773 £292,227 £284,885 £0 £284,885 £7,342 £111,576 £403,803 -2.03% £0 £0 £0 £403,803 2,287 £406,090 £404,636 0.36%3129 St Nicholas Chantry 376 £1,136,890 £1,142,575 £1,156,745 £47,679 £1,204,424 £0 £111,576 £1,316,000 5.94% (£33,427) £0 (£33,427) £1,282,573 30,896 £1,313,469 £1,279,362 2.67%3099 St Peter's C of E 567 £1,679,379 £1,687,776 £1,711,148 £161,776 £1,872,924 £0 £111,576 £1,984,500 11.52% (£143,163) £29,763 (£113,400) £1,871,100 11,783 £1,882,883 £1,802,739 4.45%2003 Tickenham 85 £261,893 £263,202 £257,353 £0 £257,353 £5,849 £111,576 £374,778 -1.73% £0 £0 £0 £374,778 767 £375,545 £374,236 0.35%3452 Trinity 444 £1,353,348 £1,360,115 £1,363,678 £78,745 £1,442,424 £0 £111,576 £1,554,000 6.58% (£48,475) £0 (£48,475) £1,505,525 11,209 £1,516,734 £1,476,133 2.75%2276 Uphill 307 £1,006,242 £1,011,273 £1,014,252 £0 £1,014,252 £0 £111,576 £1,125,828 0.80% £0 £0 £0 £1,125,828 19,040 £1,144,869 £1,136,858 0.70%2316 Walliscote 287 £1,153,270 £1,159,036 £1,167,729 £0 £1,167,729 £0 £111,576 £1,279,306 1.25% £0 £0 £0 £1,279,306 3,377 £1,282,683 £1,268,224 1.14%2264 West Leigh 168 £515,715 £518,293 £509,023 £0 £509,023 £9,270 £111,576 £629,869 -1.30% £0 £0 £0 £629,869 8,943 £638,813 £636,234 0.41%2280 Windwhistle 389 £1,897,505 £1,906,993 £1,686,088 £0 £1,686,088 £220,905 £111,576 £2,018,569 -11.14% £0 £0 £0 £2,018,569 9,138 £2,027,707 £2,018,220 0.47%3108 Winford 157 £504,094 £506,615 £503,071 £0 £503,071 £3,543 £111,576 £618,191 -0.20% £0 £0 £0 £618,191 25,737 £643,928 £641,408 0.39%2284 Winscombe 199 £628,015 £631,156 £625,962 £0 £625,962 £5,194 £111,576 £742,732 -0.33% £0 £0 £0 £742,732 18,815 £761,547 £758,407 0.41%3352 Worlebury 210 £640,956 £644,161 £649,817 £0 £649,817 £0 £111,576 £761,394 1.38% £0 £0 £0 £761,394 2,874 £764,268 £755,406 1.17%2292 Worle Village 207 £676,432 £679,814 £673,186 £0 £673,186 £6,629 £111,576 £791,391 -0.48% £0 £0 £0 £791,391 10,299 £801,689 £798,307 0.42%3348 Wraxall 95 £308,915 £310,459 £296,338 £0 £296,338 £14,121 £111,576 £422,035 -4.07% £0 £0 £0 £422,035 1,037 £423,072 £421,528 0.37%3119 Wrington 199 £608,089 £611,130 £609,762 £0 £609,762 £1,368 £111,576 £722,706 0.28% £0 £0 £0 £722,706 7,257 £729,963 £726,923 0.42%3120 Yatton 245 £750,112 £753,862 £753,269 £0 £753,269 £593 £111,576 £865,439 0.42% £0 £0 £0 £865,439 15,318 £880,756 £877,006 0.43%3111 Yatton 331 £1,014,255 £1,019,326 £1,033,361 £13,563 £1,046,924 £0 £111,576 £1,158,500 3.22% (£2,241) £0 (£2,241) £1,156,259 14,380 £1,170,639 £1,140,211 2.67%2002 Yeo Moor 371 £1,219,978 £1,226,078 £1,222,147 £0 £1,222,147 £3,932 £111,576 £1,337,655 0.18% £0 £0 £0 £1,337,655 5,254 £1,342,909 £1,336,809 0.46%
16,799 £55,545,578 £55,329,452 £669,252 £55,998,704 £872,244 £6,982,817 £63,853,765 (£472,676) £43,425 (£429,252) £63,424,168 £877,153 £64,301,321 £63,405,547 1.41%Total Primary
Appendix A
23/11/2017 Appendix A NFF
National Fair Funding (NFF) detailing NFF calculated by the Department for Education (DfE) for 2018-19 - in the first year of the NFF local authorities (LAs) will continue to determine funding locally.
DfE No School NameTotal
Number on Roll
Funding Floor Baseline 2017-
18 - total funding less lump sums
plus area cost adjustment (ACA) and premises
Add 0.5% to funding floor baseline (for transitional protection)
NFF awpu, deprivation,
prior attainment,
(includes ACA)
minimum funding level
where per pupil is lower than
£3,500
Total NFF before
transitional protection/cappi
ng
transitional protection
lump sums plus ACA
Total NFF Funding before
capping
% change between
baseline and total NFF
before transitional
protection/capping
capping
minimum funding per
pupil adjustment to capping
£4,600
Total capping applied
Total NFF with capping
Premises - includes rates,
exceptional factor and split site
Total NFF Funding
2017-18 Total Funding including Minimum Funding
Guarantee (MFG)
% change comparing NFF to 2017-18 total
funding
a a x (100% +0.5%) = b c d c + d = e if e <b, b-e,
if e>b, 0 = f g e + f + g = h (e-a)/a = iif i > 3% a x (i-3%), if i <3%,
0 = jk j + k = l h + l = m n m + n = o p (o - p) / p = q
4129 Backwell 1,401.00 £6,016,606 £6,046,689 £6,235,984 £377,240 £6,613,224 £0 £111,576 £6,724,800 9.92% (£416,120) £135,920 (£280,200) £6,444,600 33,770 £6,478,370 £6,161,952 5.14%4142 Broadoak 895.00 £4,605,158 £4,628,184 £4,760,614 £0 £4,760,614 £0 £111,576 £4,872,191 3.38% (£17,302) £0 (£17,302) £4,854,889 33,770 £4,888,659 £4,750,504 2.91%4139 Churchill 1,187.00 £5,198,507 £5,224,500 £5,446,336 £139,687 £5,586,024 £0 £111,576 £5,697,600 7.45% (£231,561) £0 (£231,561) £5,466,039 19,831 £5,485,870 £5,329,914 2.93%4136 Clevedon 987.00 £4,393,602 £4,415,570 £4,564,187 £61,837 £4,626,024 £0 £111,576 £4,737,600 5.29% (£100,614) £0 (£100,614) £4,636,986 34,009 £4,670,995 £4,539,187 2.90%4135 Gordano 1,498.00 £6,492,324 £6,524,786 £6,759,605 £319,218 £7,078,824 £0 £111,576 £7,190,400 9.03% (£391,730) £92,130 (£299,600) £6,890,800 40,782 £6,931,582 £6,644,682 4.32%4145 Hans Price 580.00 £3,149,877 £3,165,626 £3,257,492 £0 £3,257,492 £0 £111,576 £3,369,069 3.42% (£13,119) £0 (£13,119) £3,355,949 41,673 £3,397,622 £3,303,126 2.86%4137 Nailsea 748.00 £3,318,984 £3,335,579 £3,461,928 £16,895 £3,478,824 £0 £111,576 £3,590,400 4.82% (£60,270) £0 (£60,270) £3,530,130 17,434 £3,547,564 £3,447,994 2.89%4000 Nsetc 105.00 £507,446 £509,983 £559,060 £0 £559,060 £0 £111,576 £670,636 10.17% (£36,390) £0 (£36,390) £634,246 38,512 £672,758 £657,534 2.32%4143 Priory 1,267.00 £5,905,857 £5,935,386 £6,140,493 £0 £6,140,493 £0 £111,576 £6,252,070 3.97% (£57,461) £0 (£57,461) £6,194,609 34,249 £6,228,858 £6,051,682 2.93%4144 St Katherines 655.00 £3,037,660 £3,052,848 £3,260,803 £0 £3,260,803 £0 £111,576 £3,372,379 7.35% (£132,013) £0 (£132,013) £3,240,366 26,824 £3,267,190 £3,176,060 2.87%4001 Worle 1,389.00 £6,542,661 £6,575,374 £6,831,877 £0 £6,831,877 £0 £111,576 £6,943,454 4.42% (£92,937) £0 (£92,937) £6,850,517 33,530 £6,884,047 £6,687,767 2.93%
10,712 £49,168,681 £51,278,381 £914,878 £52,193,258 £0 £1,227,339 £53,420,598 (£1,549,517) £228,050 (£1,321,467) £52,099,130 £354,384 £52,453,514 £50,750,401 3.36%
27,511 £104,714,259 £106,607,833 £1,584,129 £108,191,962 £872,244 £8,210,156 £117,274,362 (£2,022,193) £271,475 (£1,750,719) £115,523,298 £1,231,537 £116,754,835 £114,155,948 2.28%Total all schools
Total Secondary
Appendix A
23/11/2017 Excel Appendices
National Fair Funding (NFF) detailing NFF calculated by the Department for Education (DfE) for 2018-19 - in the first year of the NFF local authorities (LAs) will continue to determine funding locally.
DfE Number School Name
Total Number on
Roll
Funding Floor Baseline 2017-
18 - total funding less lump sums
plus area cost adjustment (ACA) and premises
Add 0.5% to funding floor baseline (for transitional protection)
NFF awpu, deprivation,
prior attainment,
(includes ACA)
minimum funding level
where per pupil is lower than
£3,500
Total NFF before
transitional protection/cappi
ng
transitional protection
lump sums plus ACA
Total NFF Funding before
capping
% change between
baseline and total NFF
before transitional
protection/capping
capping
minimum funding per
pupil adjustment to capping
£3,300
Total capping applied
Total NFF with capping
Premises - includes rates,
exceptional factor and split site
Total NFF Funding
2017-18 Total Funding including Minimum Funding
Guarantee (MFG)
% change comparing NFF to 2017-18 total
funding
a a x (100% +0.5%) = b c d c + d = e if e <b, b-e,
if e>b, 0 = f g e + f + g = h (e-a)/a = iif i > 3% a x (i-3%), if i <3%,
0 = jk j + k = l h + l = m n m + n = o p (o - p) / p = q
3122 All Saints East Clevedon 114 £349,328 £351,074 £345,204 £0 £345,204 £5,870 £111,576 £462,651 -1.18% £0 £0 £0 £462,651 £11,737 £474,387 £472,641 0.37%2277 Ashcombe 568 £1,902,674 £1,912,187 £1,953,957 £0 £1,953,957 £0 £111,576 £2,065,533 2.70% £0 £0 £0 £2,065,533 75,481 £2,141,014 £2,089,731 2.45%3075 Backwell 231 £686,608 £690,041 £698,470 £0 £698,470 £0 £111,576 £810,047 1.73% £0 £0 £0 £810,047 12,350 £822,397 £810,534 1.46%2271 Banwell 194 £677,178 £680,564 £677,846 £0 £677,846 £2,717 £111,576 £792,140 0.10% £0 £0 £0 £792,140 16,885 £809,025 £805,639 0.42%2319 Becket, Worle 208 £814,463 £818,535 £782,100 £0 £782,100 £36,435 £111,576 £930,111 -3.97% £0 £0 £0 £930,111 21,914 £952,026 £947,953 0.43%2262 Birdwell 373 £1,131,219 £1,136,875 £1,142,654 £51,269 £1,193,924 £0 £111,576 £1,305,500 5.54% (£28,768) £0 (£28,768) £1,276,732 8,862 £1,285,594 £1,251,658 2.71%2272 Blagdon 111 £346,898 £348,633 £341,708 £0 £341,708 £6,925 £111,576 £460,209 -1.50% £0 £0 £0 £460,209 19,394 £479,603 £477,869 0.36%3455 Bournville 417 £2,044,134 £2,054,355 £1,789,257 £0 £1,789,257 £265,098 £111,576 £2,165,931 -12.47% £0 £0 £0 £2,165,931 20,178 £2,186,108 £2,175,888 0.47%3351 Burrington 76 £231,396 £232,553 £227,679 £0 £227,679 £4,874 £111,576 £344,130 -1.61% £0 £0 £0 £344,130 7,282 £351,411 £350,254 0.33%2332 Castle Batch, Worle 439 £1,410,673 £1,417,727 £1,433,186 £0 £1,433,186 £0 £111,576 £1,544,762 1.60% £0 £0 £0 £1,544,762 28,261 £1,573,023 £1,550,510 1.45%3117 Christ Church, Weston 201 £759,756 £763,555 £765,815 £0 £765,815 £0 £111,576 £877,391 0.80% £0 £0 £0 £877,391 2,171 £879,561 £873,503 0.69%3113 Churchill 202 £609,189 £612,235 £624,806 £0 £624,806 £0 £111,576 £736,382 2.56% £0 £0 £0 £736,382 21,914 £758,296 £742,680 2.10%3354 Corpus Christi 210 £714,391 £717,963 £730,190 £0 £730,190 £0 £111,576 £841,766 2.21% £0 £0 £0 £841,766 3,383 £845,150 £829,351 1.90%3121 Court de Wyck 129 £423,114 £425,230 £404,934 £0 £404,934 £20,295 £111,576 £536,806 -4.30% £0 £0 £0 £536,806 1,615 £538,421 £536,305 0.39%3130 Crockerne C of E 295 £972,189 £977,050 £991,585 £0 £991,585 £0 £111,576 £1,103,161 2.00% £0 £0 £0 £1,103,161 2,136 £1,105,297 £1,085,901 1.79%2004 Dundry 82 £316,020 £317,600 £288,688 £0 £288,688 £28,911 £111,576 £429,176 -8.65% £0 £0 £0 £429,176 809 £429,985 £428,405 0.37%3091 Flax Bourton 132 £412,389 £414,451 £395,769 £0 £395,769 £18,682 £111,576 £526,027 -4.03% £0 £0 £0 £526,027 14,949 £540,977 £538,915 0.38%2295 Golden Valley 411 £1,251,120 £1,257,376 £1,273,072 £53,852 £1,326,924 £0 £111,576 £1,438,500 6.06% (£38,270) £0 (£38,270) £1,400,230 24,973 £1,425,202 £1,387,669 2.70%2261 Grove 253 £757,823 £761,612 £776,426 £0 £776,426 £0 £111,576 £888,003 2.45% £0 £0 £0 £888,003 18,770 £906,772 £888,169 2.09%2268 Hannah Moore 157 £483,558 £485,976 £485,804 £0 £485,804 £172 £111,576 £597,552 0.46% £0 £0 £0 £597,552 12,347 £609,899 £607,481 0.40%2001 Haywood Village 68 £232,867 £234,032 £223,438 £0 £223,438 £10,594 £111,576 £345,608 -4.05% £0 £0 £0 £345,608 9,867 £355,475 £354,311 0.33%3451 Herons Moor 418 £1,341,108 £1,347,814 £1,359,747 £0 £1,359,747 £0 £111,576 £1,471,323 1.39% £0 £0 £0 £1,471,323 13,340 £1,484,663 £1,466,024 1.27%2254 High Down, Portishead 284 £853,027 £857,292 £858,945 £23,479 £882,424 £0 £111,576 £994,000 3.45% (£3,806) £0 (£3,806) £990,194 1,986 £992,180 £966,589 2.65%2263 High Down, Portishead 385 £1,166,213 £1,172,044 £1,182,332 £53,592 £1,235,924 £0 £111,576 £1,347,500 5.98% (£34,724) £0 (£34,724) £1,312,776 3,232 £1,316,008 £1,281,022 2.73%3116 Hutton 208 £686,006 £689,436 £683,433 £0 £683,433 £6,002 £111,576 £801,012 -0.37% £0 £0 £0 £801,012 17,364 £818,376 £814,946 0.42%2273 Kewstoke 90 £311,353 £312,910 £304,875 £0 £304,875 £8,035 £111,576 £424,486 -2.08% £0 £0 £0 £424,486 4,665 £429,151 £427,595 0.36%2000 Kingshill 127 £453,754 £456,023 £425,190 £0 £425,190 £30,833 £111,576 £567,599 -6.30% £0 £0 £0 £567,599 1,984 £569,583 £567,315 0.40%2286 Locking 388 £1,234,403 £1,240,575 £1,243,534 £2,889 £1,246,424 £0 £111,576 £1,358,000 0.97% £0 £0 £0 £1,358,000 18,447 £1,376,447 £1,364,426 0.88%9999 Locking Parklands 3 £17,253 £17,339 £9,694 £0 £9,694 £7,646 £65,086 £82,425 -43.81% £0 £0 £0 £82,080 5,731 £87,811 £88,070 -0.29%2310 Mary Elton 415 £1,271,828 £1,278,187 £1,287,792 £53,132 £1,340,924 £0 £111,576 £1,452,500 5.43% (£30,941) £0 (£30,941) £1,421,559 7,712 £1,429,271 £1,391,116 2.74%2305 Mead Vale 412 £1,383,017 £1,389,932 £1,400,224 £0 £1,400,224 £0 £111,576 £1,511,800 1.24% £0 £0 £0 £1,511,800 26,722 £1,538,522 £1,521,316 1.13%2285 Mendip Green 632 £2,118,726 £2,129,320 £2,145,480 £0 £2,145,480 £0 £111,576 £2,257,056 1.26% £0 £0 £0 £2,257,056 44,068 £2,301,124 £2,274,370 1.18%3454 Milton Park 395 £1,487,184 £1,494,620 £1,431,532 £0 £1,431,532 £63,088 £111,576 £1,606,197 -3.74% £0 £0 £0 £1,606,197 4,340 £1,610,537 £1,603,101 0.46%3095 Northleaze 206 £607,873 £610,913 £620,107 £0 £620,107 £0 £111,576 £731,683 2.01% £0 £0 £0 £731,683 27,424 £759,107 £746,873 1.64%2287 Oldmixon 206 £881,705 £886,113 £820,605 £0 £820,605 £65,508 £111,576 £997,690 -6.93% £0 £0 £0 £997,690 4,574 £1,002,264 £997,856 0.44%2252 Portishead 476 £1,403,458 £1,410,476 £1,431,551 £122,873 £1,554,424 £0 £111,576 £1,666,000 10.76% (£108,862) £13,662 (£95,200) £1,570,800 9,137 £1,579,937 £1,524,172 3.66%2283 Sandford 142 £441,547 £443,754 £439,076 £0 £439,076 £4,678 £111,576 £555,331 -0.56% £0 £0 £0 £555,331 15,089 £570,419 £568,211 0.39%3114 St Andrew's, Congresbury 251 £843,530 £847,748 £864,953 £0 £864,953 £0 £111,576 £976,529 2.54% £0 £0 £0 £976,529 24,357 £1,000,886 £979,463 2.19%3115 St Anne's, Hewish 295 £917,049 £921,635 £924,077 £0 £924,077 £0 £111,576 £1,035,653 0.77% £0 £0 £0 £1,035,653 57,790 £1,093,443 £1,086,416 0.65%3350 St Francis 189 £545,601 £548,329 £554,925 £0 £554,925 £0 £111,576 £666,502 1.71% £0 £0 £0 £666,502 3,062 £669,563 £660,239 1.41%2005 St Georges 208 £675,115 £678,491 £671,357 £0 £671,357 £7,133 £111,576 £790,067 -0.56% £0 £0 £0 £790,067 6,460 £796,527 £793,151 0.43%3450 St John the Evangelist 305 £939,345 £944,042 £949,520 £6,403 £955,924 £0 £111,576 £1,067,500 1.76% £0 £0 £0 £1,067,500 5,866 £1,073,366 £1,056,787 1.57%3349 St Joseph's, Portishead 210 £632,589 £635,752 £646,443 £0 £646,443 £0 £111,576 £758,019 2.19% £0 £0 £0 £758,019 1,682 £759,702 £745,847 1.86%3447 St Mark's, Worle 417 £1,362,409 £1,369,221 £1,382,801 £0 £1,382,801 £0 £111,576 £1,494,377 1.50% £0 £0 £0 £1,494,377 7,472 £1,501,850 £1,481,458 1.38%3118 St Martin's 537 £1,798,634 £1,807,627 £1,820,857 £0 £1,820,857 £0 £111,576 £1,932,433 1.24% £0 £0 £0 £1,932,433 30,962 £1,963,394 £1,941,172 1.14%3446 St Mary's, Portbury 93 £290,773 £292,227 £284,885 £0 £284,885 £7,342 £111,576 £403,803 -2.03% £0 £0 £0 £403,803 2,287 £406,090 £404,636 0.36%3129 St Nicholas Chantry 376 £1,136,890 £1,142,575 £1,156,745 £47,679 £1,204,424 £0 £111,576 £1,316,000 5.94% (£33,427) £0 (£33,427) £1,282,573 30,896 £1,313,469 £1,279,362 2.67%3099 St Peter's C of E 567 £1,679,379 £1,687,776 £1,711,148 £161,776 £1,872,924 £0 £111,576 £1,984,500 11.52% (£143,163) £29,763 (£113,400) £1,871,100 11,783 £1,882,883 £1,802,739 4.45%2003 Tickenham 85 £261,893 £263,202 £257,353 £0 £257,353 £5,849 £111,576 £374,778 -1.73% £0 £0 £0 £374,778 767 £375,545 £374,236 0.35%3452 Trinity 444 £1,353,348 £1,360,115 £1,363,678 £78,745 £1,442,424 £0 £111,576 £1,554,000 6.58% (£48,475) £0 (£48,475) £1,505,525 11,209 £1,516,734 £1,476,133 2.75%2276 Uphill 307 £1,006,242 £1,011,273 £1,014,252 £0 £1,014,252 £0 £111,576 £1,125,828 0.80% £0 £0 £0 £1,125,828 19,040 £1,144,869 £1,136,858 0.70%2316 Walliscote 287 £1,153,270 £1,159,036 £1,167,729 £0 £1,167,729 £0 £111,576 £1,279,306 1.25% £0 £0 £0 £1,279,306 3,377 £1,282,683 £1,268,224 1.14%2264 West Leigh 168 £515,715 £518,293 £509,023 £0 £509,023 £9,270 £111,576 £629,869 -1.30% £0 £0 £0 £629,869 8,943 £638,813 £636,234 0.41%2280 Windwhistle 389 £1,897,505 £1,906,993 £1,686,088 £0 £1,686,088 £220,905 £111,576 £2,018,569 -11.14% £0 £0 £0 £2,018,569 9,138 £2,027,707 £2,018,220 0.47%3108 Winford 157 £504,094 £506,615 £503,071 £0 £503,071 £3,543 £111,576 £618,191 -0.20% £0 £0 £0 £618,191 25,737 £643,928 £641,408 0.39%2284 Winscombe 199 £628,015 £631,156 £625,962 £0 £625,962 £5,194 £111,576 £742,732 -0.33% £0 £0 £0 £742,732 18,815 £761,547 £758,407 0.41%3352 Worlebury 210 £640,956 £644,161 £649,817 £0 £649,817 £0 £111,576 £761,394 1.38% £0 £0 £0 £761,394 2,874 £764,268 £755,406 1.17%2292 Worle Village 207 £676,432 £679,814 £673,186 £0 £673,186 £6,629 £111,576 £791,391 -0.48% £0 £0 £0 £791,391 10,299 £801,689 £798,307 0.42%3348 Wraxall 95 £308,915 £310,459 £296,338 £0 £296,338 £14,121 £111,576 £422,035 -4.07% £0 £0 £0 £422,035 1,037 £423,072 £421,528 0.37%3119 Wrington 199 £608,089 £611,130 £609,762 £0 £609,762 £1,368 £111,576 £722,706 0.28% £0 £0 £0 £722,706 7,257 £729,963 £726,923 0.42%3120 Yatton 245 £750,112 £753,862 £753,269 £0 £753,269 £593 £111,576 £865,439 0.42% £0 £0 £0 £865,439 15,318 £880,756 £877,006 0.43%3111 Yatton 331 £1,014,255 £1,019,326 £1,033,361 £13,563 £1,046,924 £0 £111,576 £1,158,500 3.22% (£2,241) £0 (£2,241) £1,156,259 14,380 £1,170,639 £1,140,211 2.67%2002 Yeo Moor 371 £1,219,978 £1,226,078 £1,222,147 £0 £1,222,147 £3,932 £111,576 £1,337,655 0.18% £0 £0 £0 £1,337,655 5,254 £1,342,909 £1,336,809 0.46%
16,799 £55,545,578 £55,329,452 £669,252 £55,998,704 £872,244 £6,982,817 £63,853,765 (£472,676) £43,425 (£429,252) £63,424,168 £877,153 £64,301,321 £63,405,547 1.41%Total Primary
Appendix A
23/11/2017 Excel Appendices
National Fair Funding (NFF) detailing NFF calculated by the Department for Education (DfE) for 2018-19 - in the first year of the NFF local authorities (LAs) will continue to determine funding locally.
DfE No School NameTotal
Number on Roll
Funding Floor Baseline 2017-
18 - total funding less lump sums
plus area cost adjustment (ACA) and premises
Add 0.5% to funding floor baseline (for transitional protection)
NFF awpu, deprivation,
prior attainment,
(includes ACA)
minimum funding level
where per pupil is lower than
£3,500
Total NFF before
transitional protection/cappi
ng
transitional protection
lump sums plus ACA
Total NFF Funding before
capping
% change between
baseline and total NFF
before transitional
protection/capping
capping
minimum funding per
pupil adjustment to capping
£4,600
Total capping applied
Total NFF with capping
Premises - includes rates,
exceptional factor and split site
Total NFF Funding
2017-18 Total Funding including Minimum Funding
Guarantee (MFG)
% change comparing NFF to 2017-18 total
funding
a a x (100% +0.5%) = b c d c + d = e if e <b, b-e,
if e>b, 0 = f g e + f + g = h (e-a)/a = iif i > 3% a x (i-3%), if i <3%,
0 = jk j + k = l h + l = m n m + n = o p (o - p) / p = q
4129 Backwell 1,401.00 £6,016,606 £6,046,689 £6,235,984 £377,240 £6,613,224 £0 £111,576 £6,724,800 9.92% (£416,120) £135,920 (£280,200) £6,444,600 33,770 £6,478,370 £6,161,952 5.14%4142 Broadoak 895.00 £4,605,158 £4,628,184 £4,760,614 £0 £4,760,614 £0 £111,576 £4,872,191 3.38% (£17,302) £0 (£17,302) £4,854,889 33,770 £4,888,659 £4,750,504 2.91%4139 Churchill 1,187.00 £5,198,507 £5,224,500 £5,446,336 £139,687 £5,586,024 £0 £111,576 £5,697,600 7.45% (£231,561) £0 (£231,561) £5,466,039 19,831 £5,485,870 £5,329,914 2.93%4136 Clevedon 987.00 £4,393,602 £4,415,570 £4,564,187 £61,837 £4,626,024 £0 £111,576 £4,737,600 5.29% (£100,614) £0 (£100,614) £4,636,986 34,009 £4,670,995 £4,539,187 2.90%4135 Gordano 1,498.00 £6,492,324 £6,524,786 £6,759,605 £319,218 £7,078,824 £0 £111,576 £7,190,400 9.03% (£391,730) £92,130 (£299,600) £6,890,800 40,782 £6,931,582 £6,644,682 4.32%4145 Hans Price 580.00 £3,149,877 £3,165,626 £3,257,492 £0 £3,257,492 £0 £111,576 £3,369,069 3.42% (£13,119) £0 (£13,119) £3,355,949 41,673 £3,397,622 £3,303,126 2.86%4137 Nailsea 748.00 £3,318,984 £3,335,579 £3,461,928 £16,895 £3,478,824 £0 £111,576 £3,590,400 4.82% (£60,270) £0 (£60,270) £3,530,130 17,434 £3,547,564 £3,447,994 2.89%4000 Nsetc 105.00 £507,446 £509,983 £559,060 £0 £559,060 £0 £111,576 £670,636 10.17% (£36,390) £0 (£36,390) £634,246 38,512 £672,758 £657,534 2.32%4143 Priory 1,267.00 £5,905,857 £5,935,386 £6,140,493 £0 £6,140,493 £0 £111,576 £6,252,070 3.97% (£57,461) £0 (£57,461) £6,194,609 34,249 £6,228,858 £6,051,682 2.93%4144 St Katherines 655.00 £3,037,660 £3,052,848 £3,260,803 £0 £3,260,803 £0 £111,576 £3,372,379 7.35% (£132,013) £0 (£132,013) £3,240,366 26,824 £3,267,190 £3,176,060 2.87%4001 Worle 1,389.00 £6,542,661 £6,575,374 £6,831,877 £0 £6,831,877 £0 £111,576 £6,943,454 4.42% (£92,937) £0 (£92,937) £6,850,517 33,530 £6,884,047 £6,687,767 2.93%
10,712 £49,168,681 £51,278,381 £914,878 £52,193,258 £0 £1,227,339 £53,420,598 (£1,549,517) £228,050 (£1,321,467) £52,099,130 £354,384 £52,453,514 £50,750,401 3.36%
27,511 £104,714,259 £106,607,833 £1,584,129 £108,191,962 £872,244 £8,210,156 £117,274,362 (£2,022,193) £271,475 (£1,750,719) £115,523,298 £1,231,537 £116,754,835 £114,155,948 2.28%Total all schools
Total Secondary
Appendix B
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Budget HeadingBudget incl use of c/fwd
£Outturn £ Variance
£ Budget HeadingBudget incl use of c/fwd
£Outturn £ Variance
£ Budget HeadingBudget incl use of c/fwd
£
Total Vulnerable learners service 1,384,589 1,364,299 (20,290) 1,339,101 1,284,998 (54,103) 1,335,103
Delegated Place Funding 3,686,667 3,639,500 (47,167) Delegated Place
Funding 3,580,833 3,582,667 1,834 Delegated Place Funding 3,539,167
Commissioned enterprise Initiative 25,000 25,000 0
SEN equipment & Other costs 125,000 181,990 56,990 SEN equipment &
Other costs 165,833 310,708 144,875 SEN equipment & Other costs 165,833
Out of Authority Placements 2,979,748 3,137,363 157,615 Out of Authority
Placements 3,278,661 3,864,266 585,605 Out of Authority Placements 3,967,085
Early Years Commissioned Services
43,438 34,691 (8,747)Early Years Commissioned Services
43,438 35,001 (8,437)Early Years Commissioned Services
183,481
Top-up Funding 9,187,200 9,425,401 238,201 Top-up Funding 9,074,835 9,563,940 489,105 Top-up Funding 9,540,218Pathways (Ex Westhaven Horizons) 147,506
Assessment and Intervention hub (Westhaven Pheonix)
180,000 180,000 0School Placement Support Team (Ex Westhaven Phoenix)
141,112
Elective home educated children 26,110 26,110 0 Elective home
educated children 26,110 26,110 0 Elective home educated children 26,110
Family support provided through the Community Families Service
217,500 217,500 0
Family support provided through the Community Families Service
101,667 101,667 0
Family support provided through the Community Families Service
0
Out of school Panel for CME 100,000
Commissioned students - no school place
70,000 70,000 0Commissioned students - no school place
120,000
Prevention and re-engagement 11,550 11,550 0 Prevention and re-
engagement 19,800
Administration of placement protocol 11,666 11,666 0 Administration of
placement protocol 20,000
Business Rates for AP 45,000Commissioned tuition service 470,791 478,879 8,088 Commissioned tuition
service 470,791 470,791 0 Commissioned tuition service 500,000
Commissioned Resource bases 150,000 87,947 (62,053) Commissioned
Resource bases 140,000 131,784 (8,216) Commissioned Resource bases 90,909
Total Other Intensive Support for vulnerable learners
16,911,454 17,254,381 342,927 17,155,384 18,360,150 1,204,766 18,606,220
Total Intensive Support for vulnerable learners
18,296,043 18,618,680 322,637 18,494,485 19,645,148 1,150,663 19,941,323
INTENSIVE SUPPORT FOR VULNERABLE LEARNERSVULNERABLE LEARNERS SERVICE
OTHER INTENSIVE SUPPORT FOR VULNERABLE LEARNERS
Appendix C
Options for a process to automatically assess and allocate funding from the high needs block to those schools considered as having a disproportionate number of high needs pupils
DfE No School Name
Total Number on Roll October
2016
Notional SEN (uses
prior attainment
data October 2016)
SEN Notional Budget
Top Up Funded
pupils FTE 2017-18 includes
moderation to June 2017
Top Up Funded
pupils FTE x £6,000
Notional SEN Budget
remaining after £6,000 contribution
Notional SEN
Pupils as % of
Number on Roll
Top Up funded
pupils FTE as %
Number on Roll
Amount per notional
SEN pupil
Amount per notional
SEN pupil after £6,000 contribution
Top up funding
Increase in funding per
notional SEN pupil to meet threshold of
£1,200
Additional Funding to
allocate
a b c d d x £6,000 = e c - e = f b / a = g d / a = h c / b = i f / b = j
(£1,200 - j) where j is > £1,200 = l
b x l
3122 All Saints East Clevedon VC P 114 22.33 £52,522 2 £14,500 £38,022 20% 2% £2,352 £1,703 £0 £02277 Ashcombe CO P 568 105.38 £235,085 11 £68,100 £166,985 19% 2% £2,231 £1,585 £0 £03075 Backwell VC J 231 34.35 £85,056 1 £8,500 £76,556 15% 1% £2,476 £2,228 £0 £02271 Banwell CO P 194 55.51 £111,300 7 £40,500 £70,800 29% 3% £2,005 £1,275 £0 £02319 Becket, Worle CO P 208 87.92 £156,255 3 £18,000 £138,255 42% 1% £1,777 £1,573 £0 £02262 Birdwell CO A 373 71.30 £150,360 6 £34,500 £115,860 19% 2% £2,109 £1,625 £0 £02272 Blagdon CO P 111 23.13 £53,935 0 £0 £53,935 21% 0% £2,332 £2,332 £0 £03455 Bournville CO P 417 225.25 £373,771 22 £134,000 £239,771 54% 5% £1,659 £1,064 £136 £30,5233351 Burrington VA P 76 10.93 £33,479 0 £0 £33,479 14% 0% £3,064 £3,064 £0 £02332 Castle Batch, Worle CO P 419 129.72 £231,159 7 £40,500 £190,659 31% 2% £1,782 £1,470 £0 £03117 Christ Church, Weston VA P 201 66.78 £128,805 2 £12,000 £116,805 33% 1% £1,929 £1,749 £0 £03113 Churchill VC P 202 41.42 £89,227 5 £29,000 £60,227 21% 2% £2,154 £1,454 £0 £03354 Corpus Christi VA P 210 51.25 £103,367 5 £28,500 £74,867 24% 2% £2,017 £1,461 £0 £03121 Court de Wyck VC A 129 25.53 £60,565 3 £18,000 £42,565 20% 2% £2,372 £1,667 £0 £03130 Crockerne C of E VC P 295 90.77 £167,116 2 £9,500 £157,616 31% 1% £1,841 £1,736 £0 £02004 Dundry VC A 82 26.22 £54,720 1 £6,000 £48,720 32% 1% £2,087 £1,858 £0 £03091 Flax Bourton VC P 132 20.07 £52,796 1 £8,500 £44,296 15% 1% £2,631 £2,207 £0 £02295 Golden Valley CO P 411 94.22 £182,071 8 £46,000 £136,071 23% 2% £1,932 £1,444 £0 £02261 Grove CO J 253 42.20 £99,544 4 £21,500 £78,044 17% 1% £2,359 £1,850 £0 £02268 Hannah Moore CO I 157 34.89 £74,264 2 £9,500 £64,764 22% 1% £2,129 £1,856 £0 £02001 Haywood Village A 68 19.60 £44,395 1 £7,000 £37,395 29% 2% £2,265 £1,908 £0 £03451 Herons Moor CO A 418 100.50 £197,402 8 £47,500 £149,902 24% 2% £1,964 £1,492 £0 £02254 High Down, Portishead CO I 284 41.18 £101,408 6 £34,500 £66,908 15% 2% £2,463 £1,625 £0 £02263 High Down, Portishead CO J 385 61.35 £143,070 2 £12,000 £131,070 16% 1% £2,332 £2,136 £0 £03116 Hutton VC P 208 59.13 £112,917 4 £21,500 £91,417 28% 2% £1,910 £1,546 £0 £02273 Kewstoke CO P 90 25.78 £56,265 1 £6,000 £50,265 29% 1% £2,183 £1,950 £0 £02000 Kingshill VC A 127 28.93 £69,326 1 £3,500 £65,826 23% 0% £2,396 £2,275 £0 £02286 Locking CO P 388 88.94 £177,865 9 £52,500 £125,365 23% 2% £2,000 £1,410 £0 £02310 Mary Elton CO P 415 99.71 £189,821 7 £42,000 £147,821 24% 2% £1,904 £1,482 £0 £02305 Mead Vale CO P 412 132.18 £236,073 13 £79,000 £157,073 32% 3% £1,786 £1,188 £12 £1,5462285 Mendip Green CO P 624 191.50 £345,209 19 £111,500 £233,709 31% 3% £1,803 £1,220 £0 £03454 Milton Park CO P 395 146.24 £257,123 8 £45,500 £211,623 37% 2% £1,758 £1,447 £0 £03095 Northleaze VC P 206 40.19 £86,425 4 £24,000 £62,425 20% 2% £2,150 £1,553 £0 £02287 Oldmixon CO P 206 71.89 £140,227 6 £33,000 £107,227 35% 3% £1,950 £1,491 £0 £02252 Portishead CO P 476 70.74 £162,952 5 £30,000 £132,952 15% 1% £2,304 £1,879 £0 £02283 Sandford CO P 142 26.21 £62,960 3 £16,900 £46,060 18% 2% £2,403 £1,758 £0 £03114 St Andrew's, Congresbury VC P 251 80.34 £149,095 3 £20,500 £128,595 32% 1% £1,856 £1,601 £0 £03115 St Anne's, Hewish VC P 295 53.29 £119,751 5 £31,000 £88,751 18% 2% £2,247 £1,666 £0 £03350 St Francis VA P 189 18.90 £58,313 2 £12,000 £46,313 10% 1% £3,086 £2,451 £0 £02005 St Georges VA P 208 46.74 £100,655 3 £15,500 £85,155 22% 1% £2,153 £1,822 £0 £03450 St John the Evangelist VA P 305 64.39 £132,875 1 £6,000 £126,875 21% 0% £2,064 £1,971 £0 £03349 St Joseph's, Portishead VA P 210 41.46 £89,653 2 £12,000 £77,653 20% 1% £2,162 £1,873 £0 £03447 St Mark's, Worle VA P 417 131.18 £232,278 2 £13,000 £219,278 31% 1% £1,771 £1,672 £0 £03118 St Martin's VC P 537 140.31 £269,416 6 £37,000 £232,416 26% 1% £1,920 £1,656 £0 £03446 St Mary's, Portbury VA P 93 13.01 £39,475 2 £9,500 £29,975 14% 2% £3,034 £2,304 £0 £03129 St Nicholas Chantry VC P 376 78.04 £157,702 1 £7,000 £150,702 21% 0% £2,021 £1,931 £0 £03099 St Peter's C of E VC P 567 78.24 £185,935 8 £45,500 £140,435 14% 1% £2,377 £1,795 £0 £02003 Tickenham VA A 85 13.03 £37,768 2 £13,000 £24,768 15% 3% £2,898 £1,901 £0 £03452 Trinity VA P 444 99.54 £192,397 5 £30,000 £162,397 22% 1% £1,933 £1,631 £0 £02276 Uphill CO P 307 73.47 £145,352 5 £32,000 £113,352 24% 2% £1,978 £1,543 £0 £02316 Walliscote CO P 287 130.95 £228,154 7 £40,500 £187,654 46% 2% £1,742 £1,433 £0 £02264 West Leigh CO I 168 28.53 £67,376 1 £6,000 £61,376 17% 1% £2,362 £2,151 £0 £02280 Windwhistle CO P 389 224.05 £367,423 19 £113,000 £254,423 58% 5% £1,640 £1,136 £64 £14,4373108 Winford VC P 157 48.87 £92,495 5 £32,500 £59,995 31% 3% £1,893 £1,228 £0 £02284 Winscombe CO P 199 41.77 £90,766 1 £8,500 £82,266 21% 1% £2,173 £1,970 £0 £03352 Worlebury VA P 210 38.03 £86,378 0 £0 £86,378 18% 0% £2,271 £2,271 £0 £02292 Worle Village CO P 207 44.47 £98,088 6 £33,500 £64,588 21% 3% £2,206 £1,452 £0 £03348 Wraxall VA P 95 22.12 £50,941 0 £0 £50,941 23% 0% £2,303 £2,303 £0 £03119 Wrington VC P 199 39.52 £86,292 0 £0 £86,292 20% 0% £2,183 £2,183 £0 £03120 Yatton VC I 245 46.23 £101,867 5 £30,000 £71,867 19% 2% £2,204 £1,555 £0 £03111 Yatton VC J 331 63.62 £139,386 7 £39,500 £99,886 19% 2% £2,191 £1,570 £0 £02002 Yeo Moor CO A 371 103.26 £194,941 4 £24,000 £170,941 28% 1% £1,888 £1,655 £0 £0
Total/Average Primary 61 16,769 4,226.58 £8,393,604 5 £6,668,604 24% 2% £2,151 £1,747 £212 £46,506
DfE No School Name
Total Number on Roll October
2016
Notional SEN (uses
prior attainment
data October 2016)
SEN Notional Budget
Top Up Funded
pupils FTE 2015-16
Top Up Funded
pupils FTE x £6,000
Notional SEN Budget
remaining after £6,000 contribution
Notional SEN
Pupils as % of
Number on Roll
Top Up funded
pupils FTE as %
Number on Roll
Amount per notional
SEN pupil
Amount per notional
SEN pupil after £6,000 contribution
Top up funding
Minimum funding per
notional SEN Pupil £1,100
Additional Funding to
allocate
a b c d d x £6,000 = e c - e = f b / a = g d / a = h c / b = i f / b = j
4129 Backwell Academy N 1,401 195.31 £475,466 5 £29,500 £445,966 14% 0% £2,434 £2,283 £0 £04142 Broadoak Academy Y 895 205.59 £478,657 13 £80,500 £398,157 23% 1% £2,328 £1,937 £0 £04139 Churchill Academy N 1,187 165.40 £414,032 4 £23,000 £391,032 14% 0% £2,503 £2,364 £0 £04136 Clevedon Academy N 987 203.97 £453,728 9 £53,000 £400,728 21% 1% £2,225 £1,965 £0 £04135 Gordano Academy N 1,498 239.46 £559,148 6 £35,400 £523,748 16% 0% £2,335 £2,187 £0 £04145 Hans Price Academy 580 182.37 £407,346 10 £57,000 £350,346 31% 2% £2,234 £1,921 £0 £04137 Nailsea Academy 748 147.26 £333,594 5 £30,000 £303,594 20% 1% £2,265 £2,062 £0 £04000 Nsetc Academy N 105 25.20 £66,762 0 £0 £66,762 24% 0% £2,649 £2,649 £0 £04143 Priory Academy Y 1,267 317.63 £689,722 5 £30,000 £659,722 25% 0% £2,171 £2,077 £0 £04144 St Katherines CO N 655 121.16 £292,300 3 £18,000 £274,300 18% 0% £2,412 £2,264 £0 £04001 Worle CO Y 1,389 337.45 £746,168 11 £66,500 £679,668 24% 1% £2,211 £2,014 £0 £0
Total/Average Secondary 11 10,712 2,140.80 £4,916,924 6 4,494,024 21% 1% £2,343 £2,157 £0 £0
Total all schools 72 27,481 6,367 £13,310,528 £212 £46,506
Appendix F
Current arrangements Proposed limits if scheme retained
DfE School Type
In Year allocation less items excluded
Allowed c/fwd 10% of in year
income
Maximum allowed balance
10% of in year income or
£55,000
Allowed c/fwd 12% of in year
income
Maximum allowed balance
12% of in year income or
£70,000 3122 All Saints Primary 517,581 51,758 55,000 62,110 70,0003075 Backwell Junior 819,401 81,940 81,940 98,328 98,3282271 Banwell Primary 955,231 95,523 95,523 114,628 114,6282272 Blagdon Primary 508,140 50,814 55,000 60,977 70,0003351 Burrington Primary 380,565 38,056 55,000 45,668 70,0002332 Castle Batch Primary 1,860,729 186,073 186,073 223,288 223,2883113 Churchill Primary 812,781 81,278 81,278 97,534 97,5343354 Corpus Christi Primary 869,194 86,919 86,919 104,303 104,3033091 Flax Bourton Primary 564,723 56,472 56,472 67,767 70,0002295 Golden Valley Primary 1,516,773 151,677 151,677 182,013 182,0132261 Grove Junior 943,827 94,383 94,383 113,259 113,2592268 Hannah More Infant 701,323 70,132 70,132 84,159 84,1592273 Kewstoke Primary 490,100 49,010 55,000 58,812 70,0002305 Mead Vale Primary 1,735,708 173,571 173,571 208,285 208,2852285 Mendip Green Primary 2,609,189 260,919 260,919 313,103 313,1033095 Northleaze Primary 768,134 76,813 76,813 92,176 92,1762283 Sandford Primary 635,485 63,549 63,549 76,258 76,2583114 St Andrew's Primary 1,096,027 109,603 109,603 131,523 131,5233115 St Anne's Primary 1,111,935 111,193 111,193 133,432 133,4323350 St Francis' Primary 687,176 68,718 68,718 82,461 82,4613349 St Joseph's Primary 797,276 79,728 79,728 95,673 95,6733129 St Nicholas Chantry Primary 1,295,197 129,520 129,520 155,424 155,4242276 Uphill Primary 1,224,279 122,428 122,428 146,913 146,9132264 West Leigh Infant 701,704 70,170 70,170 84,204 84,2043108 Winford Primary 660,054 66,005 66,005 79,207 79,2072284 Winscombe Primary 842,534 84,253 84,253 101,104 101,1043352 Worlebury St Pauls Primary 798,721 79,872 79,872 95,847 95,8473348 Wraxall Primary 465,617 46,562 55,000 55,874 70,0003119 Wrington Primary 781,576 78,158 78,158 93,789 93,7893120 Yatton Infant 1,008,108 100,811 100,811 120,973 120,9733111 Yatton Junior 1,226,685 122,668 122,668 147,202 147,2027039 Baytree Special 1,609,757 160,976 160,976 193,171 193,1717037 Ravenswood Special 1,838,819 183,882 183,882 220,658 220,6587036 Westhaven Special 1,965,319 196,532 196,532 235,838 235,8381102 Voyage Learning Campus PRU 2,230,880 223,088 223,088 267,706 267,706
Total 37,030,546 3,703,055 3,741,854 4,443,665 4,512,458
Impact of proposed changes to the scheme for restricting on school balances, if the scheme is retained (based on 2016-17 data)