Agenda item

Claire White introduced the report, which aimed to inform the Schools’ Forum about the current Government consultation on the proposed national funding formula for schools from 2018/19, and the proposed methodology for funding the high needs block from 2018/19. The closing date for responses to the consultation was 22 March 2017.

Page 53 of the report included the summary of the proposals and implications for West Berkshire Schools regarding the Schools National Funding Formula.

The basis for the consultation was so schools would be funded fairly, to help ensure children with similar characteristics and similar needs attracted similar levels of funding regardless of where they lived. There were currently significant differences in the levels of funding received by similar schools located in different parts of the country. London authorities in particular received more than double the amount of funding of the lowest funded schools.

The second stage of the consultation addressed how the funding would be weighted across the different factors. Implementation would be from April 2018 and September 2018 for Academies. From 2019/20 the national formula would be in place and there would be very little flexibility for schools through the Schools’ Forum.

For schools that gained funding, the maximum gain per pupil in 2018/19 would be 3% and a further 2.5% in 2019/20. For schools that lost funding, there would be a minimum funding guarantee of minus 1.5% per pupil year on year. There would also be a funding floor that would ensure no school would lose more than 3% per pupil overall.

Regarding the new funding formula, funding had been redistributed between the factors. This had taken away funding from the basic entitlement and lump sum and added funding to additional needs. The table under paragraph 2.8 of the report illustrated how schools across the country would be affected.

The DfE had not determined the basic entitlement and lump sum funding rates by applying a needs based approach. There had been no explanation as to why the Government had weighted the funding based on deprivation and there was concern over whether this was a fair approach. The point coming across in the press was that fair funding could not be reached without more money being added to the funding pot.

When comparing the total of all school formula allocations in 2016/17 to what the total would be using the proposed formula, West Berkshire was a loser. The loss however, in financial terms was very small (£218k).

The schools that gained overall were those with higher deprivation and/or high level of low prior attainment and/or small rural primary schools would qualify for sparsity funding. Due to the reduction in secondary sparsity rates, one secondary school in West Berkshire would lose.

Appendix A of the report repeated the consultation questions. Questions four and five were based on weighting and question 11 on the finding floor.

Other areas covered by the consultation included the Central Services Schools Block. Central services previously funded from the Schools’ Block would have a separate new funding block and formula based on a per pupil amount, plus a deprivation element The exemplification showed that West Berkshire would lose funding.

Paul Dick stated that he would be interested to see the Council’s position and therefore it was agreed the Council’s draft response would be forwarded to all schools.

The report on page 63 of the agenda pack included the summary and implications for West Berkshire Schools regarding the High Needs National Funding Formula. It also included a summary of the proposals.

High needs funding was currently based on a historical amount, which had only seen minimal increases over the last several years. The first stage of the consultation set out the case for reform and proposed methodology on which to operate a high needs formula. The second stage of the consultation set out the proposal for how funding would be weighted across different factors.

For local authorities that would lose funding, there would be no cash losers as a result of the new formula. The Government had not taken into account the number of children with high needs within an area.

Claire White reported that when running the formula there were winning and losing local authorities. 50% was based on what was being spent and the other 50% was based on proxy factors. The result of using the proxy factors reduced West Berkshire’s high needs funding block allocation by £2.6million or 15%. The funding floor ensured West Berkshire would not lose. So in essence the new funding formula was about distributing additional funding.

into the pot and it was confirmed that it was. Keith Watts asked which local authorities gained and Claire White confirmed those with high deprivation rates and low prior attainment would gain.

Reverend Mark Bennett commented that there could be a correlation between deprivation and children with high needs. He was concerned that there was not a sufficient population number to ensure robust averages. He also reported that Disability Living Allowance (DLA) was particularly difficult to apply for and support needed to be given to families when filling out the forms. Jane Seymour confirmed that services within the local authority did support families applying for DLA.

Graham Spellman expressed his scepticism of the Government and it seemed a number of local authorities would lose.

RESOLVED that a copy of the Local Authorities response to the consultation would be forwarded to all schools. 

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum noted the report and that all Members endeavour to respond to the consultations. It was agreed that this would provide more weight than one single response from the Schools’ Forum.