SCHOOL FUNDING 2013/14 Consultation with Schools Questionnaire

Question 1 Key Stage Funding (Page 7) Do you agree that there should be separate Key Stage Funding rates for Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4? (Only to be answered by Secondary Schools and Governors)

Yes
Comments

No

No Opinion X

As a primary school, we will not express an opinion on this question.

Question 2 Lump Sum (Page 8) Do you agree with the Authoritys proposal to set the lump sum at 150,000?

Yes X
Comments

No

No Opinion

We estimate the fixed costs of running our school, independent of pupil numbers, to be in the region of 160,000. Moreover, we have spoken to small schools across Essex, which report similar figures, with a mean in the region of 150k. Thus a lump sum of 150,000 is of the approximate value to required in order to ensure that a similar level of per pupil disposable income is available to children across Essex. Any significantly smaller figure would prejudice the education of children in small schools. Any significantly larger figure would prejudice the education of children in large schools.

Question 3 Deprivation (Page 9) a). The Authority proposes to use both free school meals and IDACI data to distribute deprivation funding. Would you prefer?

FSM
Comments

IDACI

Both X

We prefer a mixed measure. FSM has been shown to be a reasonable predictor for educational attainment (see, for example, http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/1311633/Schoolfunding-and-deprivation.html). Nevertheless, we are anecdotally aware of pockets of deprivation in Essex where FSM data is low due to lack of awareness or registration, or where FSM eligibility criteria interfere with the quality of the data as a proxy for deprivation.

b).

If your answer to a) above was Both do you agree that FSM and IDACI remains at the same proportion as in 2012/13?

Yes
Comments

No X

No Opinion

Given the far stronger correlation that appears to exist in national data between attainment and FSM, we propose a rebalancing of expenditure, putting the majority of deprivation funding into FSM with an IDACI top-up. We understand that the current funding scheme puts more weight on IDACI, through the AEN formula, and we believe this is misplaced. c). Do you agree to the proposed weightings of IDACI?

Yes
Comments

No

No Opinion X

We believe that there is not enough evidence to justify the IDACI band weighting proposed. We would urge that the LA consider an evidence based approach, for example using the boundary discontinuities methodology of Gibbons, McNally, and Viarengo, Does Additional Spending Help Urban Schools?, Centre for Economics of Education, 2011. We note that the move towards a unified IDACIbanding scheme nationally this year should enable such a study to be implemented for 2014/15.

Question 4 Low Cost, High Incidence SEN (Page 10) a). Do Primary Schools agree that the Authority does not use the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile assessment to fund Low Cost, High Incidence SEN but instead allocates the funding through the deprivation factor based on IDACI, with any changes on this basis limited to 5000 per school (subject to final DfE regulations)?

Yes
Comments We strongly disagree with this proposal.

No X

No Opinion

We understand that the concern is that there is a disincentive for schools to improve EYFSP results if doing so negatively affects their funding. However, we believe that this merely highlights the need for a robust moderation process in EYFS. We note that the existing Essex funding formula also uses EYFS results and KS1 results as prior attainment funding measures. Nevertheless, if the LA decides not to include a prior attainment factor for primary schools, then we strongly believe that the existing AEN prior attainment funding should be distributed to all schools via the per pupil entitlement, not simply shifted into schools in areas of high deprivation, as is the proposal. The DfE has been clear that low-cost high-incidence SEN funding is made up of 3 elements: a proportion of per pupil entitlement, a prior attainment element, and a proportion of deprivation funding. If the LA decides to remove the prior attainment factor, then the proportion of per pupil element should be increased accordingly. Without this change, the net result of this proposal would be a severe underfunding of genuine SEN in areas of low deprivation across Essex.

b).

Do Secondary Schools agree that the Authority has a funding factor for Low Cost, High Incidence SEN?

Yes
Comments

No

No Opinion X

As a primary school, we are not responding to this question

Question 5 English as an Additional Language (Page 10) a). Do you agree that the funding currently retained for EAL is distributed through the formula to follow targeted pupils in all schools?

Yes X
Comments

No

No Opinion

We believe this is necessary, in order to ensure that EAL funding for academies is targeted where it is needed. The alternative would be a retained contingency for EAL, but this would only be beneficial for maintained schools.

5b).

Do you agree that funding is re-focused to funding only the first year?

Yes
Comments

No

No Opinion X

We do not believe that sufficiently robust evidence has been presented to either support or refute the claim that refocusing EAL funding to Year 1 would be educationally beneficial.

Question 6 Rates (Page 11) a). Do you agree that additional funding for Waste Water Treatment Works be added to the rates allocation for relevant schools to fund the additional costs incurred?

Yes X
Comments: None.

No

No Opinion

b).

Do you agree that additional funding for Joint Use should be added to the rates allocation for relevant schools to fund the additional costs incurred?

Yes X

No

No Opinion

Question 7 Unchanged Factors (Page 11) Do you agree with the proposals to not change the existing arrangements for split sites, London weighting (subject to DfE clarification) and PFI?

Yes X
Comments: None

No

No Opinion

Question 8 Looked After Children, Pupil Mobility and DSG funded Post 16 (Page 11) Do you agree that the Authority does not have the following funding factors? Yes Looked After Children Pupil Mobility DSG funded post 16 provision Comments We do not believe that sufficiently robust evidence has been presented to either support or refute the proposal to not include these formula elements. No No Opinion X X X

Question 9 Removed Formula Factors (Page 12) Do you agree with the proposals on distributing the funding for the formula factors removed from the current formula for funding schools?

Yes
Comments

No X

No Opinion

We generally agree with the plans for these factors, but disagree with the proposal that KS1 class size funding is deemed subsumed within the lump sum. Spilling over the statutory maximum KS1 class size is a significant financial burden for primary schools, especially smaller schools who may only have one or two classes covering both KS1 and EYFS. We welcome the plan to retain a contingency for KS1 class size, but would propose that the size of this contingency increases by the 2012/13 budget expenditure on KS1 class size formula element. Question 10 Centrally Retained Schools Block (Pages 13 14) a). Do you agree that the following contingencies are retained centrally within Exception 1 for maintained schools? Yes Opening, Closing & Reorganising Schools Salary Protection Rates Adjustments Key Stage 1 Class Size Contingency Comments We believe that it is important to retain all these contingencies. Each one is potentially very costly for a small number of schools each year, and we believe that maintained schools are better off pooling these costs via the LA. X X X X No No Opinion

b).

Are maintained schools interested in pooling funding for any of the contingencies below? Yes No No Opinion X

Advanced Skills Teachers Gifted and Talented One to One Tuition Extended Schools (funding for LDGs) Comments

X X X

We believe that Essex-wide pooling of G&T funding may be beneficial if it is used to provide a coordinated G&T strategy in the County. It makes more sense, in our view, to distribute existing one-to-one tuition funding through the per pupil element, allowing schools to decide how best to make use of this funding. c). Do you agree to the Authority retaining the funding within Exception 1 for maintained schools? Yes Behaviour Support Services 14 16 more practical learning options Support to under performing ethnic minority and bilingual learners School meals / milk Free school meals eligibility Licences / Subscriptions Schools Broadband Staff Costs supply cover Comments The consultation document does not make clear what FSM eligibility covers, so we are assuming that this refers to administrative checks of eligibility. Retained funding for Behaviour Support Services seems reasonable as an insurance policy for schools. It certainly makes sense to negotiate many licences and subscriptions at countywide level. We believe that the county broadband service is overpriced. X X X X X X X X No No Opinion

d). Do you agree that the Authority retains funding under Exception 2 for maintained schools? Yes Contribution to Combined Budgets Termination of employment costs Prudential borrowing costs Comments The consultation document does not make clear what Contribution to Combined Budgets or Prudential borrowing costs cover. X X No X No Opinion

Other Comments Do you have any other comments you wish to make? Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary. We would urge the LA to retain a contingency for under-funded formulaic SEN, to operate in a similar manner to that distributed in 2012/13.

Thank you for contributing to this consultation