Meeting documents

1 THE ISSUE

1.1 This report sets out the responses received from the consultation with schools on issues related to the local management of schools and the funding formula.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 The committee agrees to

I. Adopt the proposed funding formula for primary and secondary schools with effect from 1^st April 2003.

II. Implement the secondary transitional arrangements proposed over a 3 year period.

III. Implement the new formula factor for infant class size, to replace the DfES grant, with effect from 1^st April 2003 as proposed in the consultation

IV. Consult further with primary schools as to the proposed methodology of implementation and transitional arrangements, at the earliest opportunity, to allow transitional arrangements to be in place on school budgets from 1^st April 2004.

V. Instruct officers to develop further methodologies of delivering resources to schools for pupils with statements of SEN.

3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 There are no direct financial implications to the authority from this report, but the impact of the decisions will affect the distribution of resources to schools from April 2004. There is no movement of resources between the Primary and Secondary sectors.

4 THE REPORT

4.1 The Authority's existing school funding formula is in need of revision. This has long been recognised by the LEA. Members are reminded that in the Ofsted inspection of the LEA (October 2000) the inspectors commented that:

"At present primary and secondary schools are funded through a formula largely unchanged since it was inherited from Avon. Rightly, the LEA has embarked upon a fundamental review, following the successful review last year of the funding formula for special schools. The review is expected to be completed in time for the start of the 2001/2 financial year. The LEA has identified the issues that need to be addressed such as the balance of funding between key stages; at present funding for sixth forms is relatively high and for Key Stage 2 relatively low. The protection for small schools is currently generous and will need to be revised. The present method of allocating funds to meet additional educational needs is no longer appropriate for this authority."

4.2 In January 2001 the Education Committee rejected the implementation of a new formula, as work on the model was not complete.

4.3 The Committee determined in January 2002 not to implement the main recommendations of the LM Review Group for 2002/03 due to the impact of the review on individual schools, but asked for further consideration of the individual factors. This has now happened.

4.4 The LMS Review consultation document was sent to schools on 23rd October 2002 with responses to be received by 13^th December 2001. At that date 46 out of 81 mainstream schools had responded.

4.5 During the consultation three meetings were held between 21^st and 26^th November at venues around the authority. These sessions were attended by 27 headteachers, 19 governors and 12 finance officers and other representatives.

4.6 The responses received have been analysed and a summary is included within this paper. The full set of responses has been deposited in the group rooms for members' consideration.

5 Activity Led Resourcing

5.1 A working group of nine primary headteachers, with a varied split of small medium and large schools was established.

5.2 The group met on eight occasions through the summer and autumn terms re-analysing the individual factors that had been established in the prior year's consultation.

5.3 The group made minor changes to most of the factors to reflect changing circumstances. Additionally, a significant overhaul of the small schools protection factor was made.

5.4 The group felt that the consultation process should be set out in two parts. Firstly, schools have been consulted on the individual factors that will make up the model. Then it is intended to consult on proposals for implementation. This would entail allocating resources to schools on the new model but providing full protection as if they were funded on the current model in year one.

5.5 As no secondary schools were involved in the redrafting of the consultation proposals the consultation document was drafted to allow secondary schools to opt for implementing the model from April 2003 with the impact of implementation to take immediate effect. Transitional arrangements would then stagger the impact over a set time period.

5.6 Attached at Appendix A is an analysis of the responses received from schools. The detailed responses have been made available in the group rooms. In Appendix A questions 1-26 relate specifically to the Activity Led Review elements of the consultation.

5.7 From the responses it can be seen that most responses were positive about the proposals, particularly in the primary sector.

5.8 More concern was shown in the secondary sector, possibly due to no secondary heads being involved in the drafting of the consultation. A further meeting has been established with secondary heads, the executive member for education and officers on the 9^th January 2003, in order to fully comprehend any concerns that may exist. The Executive Member will update the Executive verbally.

6. Infant Class Size

6.1 The DfES Infant Class Size grant will cease to be delivered as a grant but will be incorporated as part of the Education Formula Spending for 2003/4.

6.2 The consultation document logged the proposed methodology for allocating resources to schools with infant aged pupils in order to ensure that schools maintain the ability to keep infant class sizes under the statutory maximum of 30 pupils per class.

6.3 The responses to the consultation were recorded in questions 27-28 on Appendix A. The results show a favourable response from primary schools to the proposal.

7 SEN

7.1 In 2002/3 the resources for pupils with Statements of SEN were technically delegated to schools using the methodology known as the "matrix".

7.2 The methodology of delivering resources to schools for pupils is based on the statement of need, identified through a rigorous and costly process.

7.3 In order to reduce bureaucracy and allow schools to deliver resources to individuals without the need for a statement a proposal to allocate funding to schools on a formulaic approach has been considered.

7.4 Schools were asked if additional work on developing a methodology to address the issue was appropriate. The response suggests further work is welcomed by schools.

Document3

This version was printed 06-Jan-03 11:41 a41/p41