Welcome from David Kidney MP, chair of f40 |
||
| National conference a huge success The national conference held in Bedfordshire on the 10 May was a great success. |
more | |
| DSG Review - Dugald Sandeman, Director Schools Resources Group, DCSF Précis of Dugald’s presentation to the f40 National Conference on 10 May. |
more | |
| F40 and the DSG Formula Review The review is progressing and f40 is actively involved. |
more | |
LSC activity-led formula can be successfully adapted for basic entitlement in |
more | |
| Area Cost Adjustment F40’s financial consultant, Lindsey Wharmby, has prepared a draft report on the issues stemming from Area Cost Adjustment. |
more | |
| More authorities encouraged to join the f40 Group Members of f40’s Executive Committee feel it is extremely important that all of the poorest-funded authorities should be in membership of the Group. |
more | |
| Gloucestershire Schools Forum offer a best practice idea Here's an excellent idea for School Forums to consider. |
more | |
| Bedfordshire County Council acknowledge f40 role in winning increased funding The 2008-09 national DSG settlement included £40.9m for local authorities that have significant pockets of deprivation, in otherwise relatively affluent areas. |
more | |
| Further information Contact details for f40 |
more | |
Welcome to this new e-newsletter issued by f40, the group that campaigns for fairer funding of education. F40 represents authorities that are the poorest funded – those at the bottom of the funding league table. We are looking for fairer funding without detrimental impact on other authorities.
This group has been actively arguing for improvements to the existing funding formula for many years and we have had some significant successes, particularly in terms of achieving greater transparency and simplicity. We also played a crucial part in persuading the government to deal with pockets of deprivation, which resulted in significant new funding for many authorities.
We have been successful because we are widely drawn from across the country – shires, metropolitans and unitaries – and have adopted a professional approach, with dedicated individuals fighting for justice.
The group is still seeking funding equity and we see the current DSG Funding Review as our best chance of achieving our goals. Our task is to influence the review by providing evidence and considered arguments to support our case.
This is a crucial time for f40 authorities and for those authorities that also suffer the injustice of unfair funding. Together I believe we can achieve real and significant change in this review which will ensure that the children in our schools get the levels of funding they deserve.
F40 is busily working to influence the review’s outcomes and we have employed education specialist, Lindsey Wharmby, to research and present evidence that supports our case. Some of our current work is referred to in this newsletter and you can check out more comprehensive reports on our website.
F40’s Executive Committee is eager to ensure that you are kept abreast of our activities and this newsletter is intended to help in that connection. If you have any queries please get in touch with f40’s Secretariat: the contact details are shown at the end of the newsletter.
The national conference held in Bedfordshire on the 10 May was a great success, says David Kidney MP, chair of the f40 Group. More than fifty delegates, including councillors, school forum chairs, trade union representatives, governors and officers from across the country gave up their Saturday to hear the latest on the DSG Formula Review.
The delegates heard about the government’s aims and objectives, and all the latest news about the review from Dugald Sandeman, Director Schools Resources Group at the DCSF.
Dugald’s PowerPoint presentation, plus those of the other key speakers, are available for viewing or downloading on f40’s website – www.f40.org.uk - alongside a report of the conference proceedings.
It was generally agreed that the conference went extremely well and that f40 is in a very good position to influence the way in which the DSG review proceeds.
At an f40 Executive Committee meeting immediately following the conference it was agreed that f40’s ongoing objectives will be to influence the government’s review of funding by:
- Arguing for the best possible settlement for all
- Pressing to bridge the funding gap
- Strongly arguing to ensure the debate about ACA goes our way
- Pushing for the use of the best available statistics in relation to educational achievement (including super outputs!)
- Avoiding any incentive to fund under-achievement rather than help for under-achievers
- Reminding Ministers that authorities sometimes have little or no choice about maintaining small schools.
This is précis of Dugald’s presentation to the f40 National Conference on 10 May.
In any ranking of 150 bodies there are bound to be forty at the bottom! It is always worth remembering that. But the principle of similar funding for similar education provision is a reasonable objective. It’s the things that are not similar that give us the problem.
Some major changes have taken place at the DCSF. There’s been a fundamental shift in thinking and approach. The focus is now about outcomes for children. The current Secretary of State, Ed Balls, is passionate about improving things for children and young people.
Over the years there’s been a significant amount of new money injected into education, and the f40 Group has acknowledged that. But the economic climate is getting progressively more difficult. In this tough environment we are seeking better outcomes for the same or less input.
Of particular interest to f40 is the question of pockets of deprivation and personalisation by pupils only, plus the fact that high to low ratio has been contained (or slightly shrunk). These things have been kept on our radar by f40 – so it demonstrates that the Group has been successful.
The DSG Formula Review is looking for a funding system that is fit for the priorities and challenges of the next decade (from 2011-12). The existing system is in need of change. We need a transparent formula. But no formula, no matter how intelligent, is capable of developing a sensible outcome for every single authority. The DCSF acknowledges that children in the same situation should be funded the same, different children in different circumstances should be funded differently and efficient schools are in a better starting position.
The funding system should support schools and LAs to implement the Children’s Plan, including:
- Raising educational achievement of all children and young people
- Narrow gaps in educational achievement between all children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds
- Improve all aspects of children’s well-being.
The following objectives will lead to improved outcomes:
- Deliver resources to where most needed and can be used most effectively, to raise
educational achievement, narrow achievement gaps and improve well-being - Create incentives to support efficient se of resources
- Do so in a way that ensures stability, simplicity and transparency.
Issues: Incentives
The notion of incentives has gone down like a lead balloon among authorities, but Ministers are keen to examine the opportunities. We’re looking at collaboration; pupil premium; efficiency and value for money; workforce improvement; focused deployment; supporting wider outcomes.
Issues: Deprivation and other factors
These include: area costs; sparsity and rurality; small schools; SEN v AEN. We must consider - what is deprivation? And, how do we account for cultural deprivation? And, beyond deprivation, we will want to consider how to help under-achievers to learn, as well as other learners.
The outlook for expenditure on children’s services is as follows: CSR07>c2% real, whilst in the future it may look like CSR09/10>1.6% real?? Or even less. Cost pressures are increasing and will not always be funded.
In conclusion, the review will be challenging within public expenditure context, but funding system must reflect Children’s Plan and 21st Century schooling. The status quo is not an option and the new system needs to cohere with other funding streams.
The review is progressing and f40 is actively involved. Updates and all documentation is held at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/schoolfunding/
The DSG Review Group’s meeting on12 May meeting was cancelled and business moved forward to the next meeting scheduled for Monday 9 June. The main issue for this meeting will be Activity-Led Funding. F40 has submitted a paper (see separate story or visit f40’s website – www.40.org.uk.
The 9 June meeting will also consider SEN costs and the f40 Group is hoping to present evidence from its member authorities. Our deputy chair Cllr Ivan Ould, who represents Leicestershire on the Group, is preparing an initial background paper which will circulated to all member authorities for additional comments in the near future.
For a future DSG Review Group meeting (week commencing 14 July) f40 will present a paper on Area Cost Adjustment. The draft paper has already been circulated to Directors of Children’s Services and School Forum chairs in f40 member authorities for comment. The deadline for responses to be provided to the f40 Secretariat is Friday, 13 June. Please check that your authority or School Forum has contributed to this important paper.
One of the early priorities for the DSG Review Group to consider is the extension of the national post-16 activity-led funding formula to 14-16 year olds.
That’s why f40 started its consideration of activity led formulae by looking at adapting the LSC formula for pre-16. The LSC formula has basic elements:
- An amount per course, weighted to take account of the costs of different courses.
- Success rate: in FE this was introduced to ensure that students were not enrolled on unrealistic courses
- Additional educational needs using two proxy indicators – a measure of social deprivation and a measure of prior attainment.
- The funds for high cost special needs are provided separately.
F40 looked at the LSC basic entitlement excluding any Additional Educational Needs or Special Needs funding and adapted the funding as follows:
- The basic rate in 2007-08 is £2,945 per student for the equivalent of three AS subjects (a student taking more subjects has higher funding). This represents about 13.5 hours teaching per week. So we have scaled it up to allow for the 25 hours per week that a 14-16 year old is taught.
- About 30% of the curriculum for 14-16 year-olds is based in labs, workshops or other practical based groups. So we have scaled-up to allow for 30% of the curriculum to be weighted at 1.2.
- 14-16 year-olds are taught in larger classes – partly because of the need post-16 to introduce more choice and choice costs. We have assumed that the funding for post-16 was based on an average class size of 14 and in KS4 the average class size would be 24. Where class sizes are smaller in lab and workshops, this is allowed for in the weighting of these subjects. When this was done, we assumed that it was the teacher costs that were different, so we also assumed that 60% of the funding is used for teaching costs, and we scaled-up this part of the funding. The overheads were left un-scaled.
The end result is a figure of £4,200 as the basic entitlement for an average 14-16 year old, excluding any additional educational needs support.
F40 then went on to look at the average entitlement funding for a 14-16 year old. It is not the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) – it is the total average funding per student excluding any additional educational needs funding. the AWPU covers the curriculum costs and all the other funding covers overheads. The LSC formula is intended to cover both curriculum and overhead costs. F40 adapted the figures as follows:
- We took the average funding per student in 11-16 schools across the country and data from the CFR website so that we had all funding delegated by local authorities, excluding Special Educational Needs, and then added in all central grants.
- This data is based on the 2006-07 funding year – so we scaled it up for inflation over two years using the Minimum Funding Guarantee to get a figure for 2008-09 – the same year that the LSC figures are based on.
- Next allowances were made for the difference between an average for 11-16 and 14-16 funding. AWPUs - which account for about 72% of local authority delegated funding - are higher in KS4 (usually the ratio KS3:KS4 is about 0.85).
- Finally we adjusted the total to allow for any additional educational needs funding – and we assumed this to be about 5% of the total.
When this had been done we ended up with an estimated basic entitlement in the current funding of £4,100.
Whilst the estimated actual figure is lower than the estimated adapted LSC figure, given the number of estimations in both calculations, the difference is not significant, which is welcome. It shows that the LSC formula could be adapted and would lead to a more secure calculation of the basic entitlement without totally distorting the funding system.
The LSC model is comparable with the funding model developed by East Riding of Yorkshire Council and adopted by the f40 Group. The key assumption in the formula is the assumed class size for 14-16 year olds. The East Riding Activity-Led model uses 27 for classroom subjects and 21 for all work shop or lab based and option subjects. This recognises the additional costs in an option system. The class size in the LSC adapted model was set at 24 to allow for the choices in options and is equivalent to the 27 in core subjects and 21 in options used in the East Riding/f40 model.
It is reassuring that the estimated costs for the basic entitlement are very similar whether we start from the East Riding/f40 model or the LSC model. This is not surprising as both are based on analysis of the real costs of providing good quality courses. Both are capable of being used as the basis for a national formula for 14-16 year olds.
This exercise shows that we could use an adapted LSC activity-led formula for the basic entitlement in Key Stage 4 without totally distorting the funding system. However, it would result in considerable redistribution and that would need to be carefully managed. We can learn from the mistakes made when the post-16 funding was moved from local authorities to a national formula. There were mistakes in the transition funding at both local authority and school levels.
F40’s financial consultant, Lindsey Wharmby, has prepared a draft report on the issues stemming from Area Cost Adjustment. The full paper is currently out to consultation with f40 authority members. Closing date for comments is Friday, 13 June.
The paper will then be finalised and submitted to the DSG Review Group for consideration at its July meeting (week commencing 12 July).
The main points are that:
- There should be a basic entitlement for all pupils
- It should include support for pupils who are under-achieving
- Where there are different costs due to salaries or sparsity this should be recognised by additional funding
- There needs to be a way of funding pupils with SEN.
Differences in regional costs:
- Cost adjustments are allocated to local authorities for increased costs in different regions (see chart).
- Analysis across the regions does not show that, except for London, costs are any higher
- There is undoubtedly a problem at boundaries between differently funded areas
Costs due to size of school:
- There is a significantly increased cost in running smaller primary and secondary schools
- There is a difference between small schools in urban areas( small schools by choice) and small schools in rural areas ( small schools by necessity)
- Costs of leadership is one of the factors increasing the costs of small schools
- School leaders still have to do many of the same jobs as leaders in large schools.
This chart shows the distribution of area cost uplifts region by region.
- Bedfordshire
- Bury
- Cambridgeshire
- Cheshire
- Derbyshire
- Dorset
- East Riding of Yorkshire
- Gloucestershire
- Herefordshire Council
- Kent
- Leicestershire
- North Somerset
- North Tyneside
- North Yorkshire
- Nottinghamshire
- Solihull
- South Gloucestershire
- Staffordshire
- Stockport
- Suffolk
- Wakefield
- Warrington
- Warwickshire
- Wigan
- Worcestershire
- York
The following authorities, by ranking, make up the remaining “poorest forty” in the government’s funding league table of 150 LEAs:
Wiltshire (146)
Northumberland (145)
Devon (144)
Shropshire (142)
Poole (141)
Cornwall (137)
Somerset (136)
Swindon (134)
Northamptonshire (133)
Wokingham (131)
Lincolnshire (126)
Norfolk (123)
Bournemouth (122)
North Lincolnshire (120)
Hampshire (119)
Trafford (118)
Barnsley (117)
Cumbria (116)
Oxfordshire (111)
West Sussex (110)
Plymouth (109)
Bath & North East Somerset (107)
Here’s an excellent idea for School Forums to consider. The Gloucestershire Schools Forum ensures that it has f40’s fairer funding campaign constantly on its radar by including f40 as a standing item its meetings agenda.
Gillian Hayward, who chairs the Forum, and is also a long-standing member of f40’s Executive Committee says the practice ensures all Forum members are aware of progress and can contribute if they wish. It also ensures there's a good sense of local ownership and involvement .
She added: "Gloucestershire set up its own local fair funding group many years ago to ensure that messages about the inadequacy of our funding were highlighted.
"When the School Forum system was introduced we wanted to continue to include issues of funding and what the main f40 Group was doing to fight our cause, so maintaining an agenda item about fair funding seemed like the sensible approach.
"I would certainly recommend that other Forums should consider taking up the idea, it only takes a few minutes at each meeting. In between meetings, we email out draft papers and reports so there is always the chance to comment."
The 2008-09 national DSG settlement included £40.9m for local authorities that have significant pockets of deprivation, in otherwise relatively affluent areas.
Twenty seven of the poorest funded local authorities benefited from funding totalling £27.9m.
This resulted from the f40 Group’s persistent highlighting of the fact that such pockets of deprivation exist, particularly in largely rural areas.
One local authority that benefited was f40 Group member Bedfordshire, which received £1.2million, giving an overall settlement per pupil of 5.1%, against the national average of 4.6%.
Malcolm Newsam, Director of Children’s Services said: “I am delighted that we are members of f40. They campaign intelligently on behalf of relatively poorly funded authorities. I was particularly pleased with the extra £1.2m for pockets of deprivation, which enabled us to put more money into schools with the largest proportion of children from deprived backgrounds. This enhanced the effect of our own deprivation review, which had highlighted the need to increase the amount of deprivation funding.”
F40’s secretarial, membership and PR services are provided by Doug Allan at DTW. He can be contacted on 01287 610404 or by email at doug@dtw.co.uk
