Consultation on the proposed new National Funding Formula, March 2017 – Guide for Parents and others wishing to respond
Anson School Governors have made considered, detailed, collective responses to the two parts of the schools National Funding Formula Consultation, ending 22 March 2017.
Many of the questions were complex and required reference to multiple, lengthy consultation documents. This document is our guide for our parents and others concerned for the school, who may wish to respond to the consultation and who may wish to reflect the responses that we have submitted. It is therefore a shortened version of the Governors’ response. That full Governors’ response is available on the school website.
How shall I fill in the consultation documents and when must I do this?
The consultation ends on Wednesday 22 March so we strongly recommend you sit down at a computer for 15 minutes or so before the end of Wednesday 22 March to do this.
The consultation has two parts which you fill in as online forms. Below we set out in two tables a shortened version of the responses we gave.
At the beginning, both online forms ask for your name and your role (parent or teacher etc). It will ask about the school too - Anson is a ‘local authority maintained school’ in the local authority area of Brent. For organisation you can put ‘Anson Primary School’.
The first part of the consultation is on the whole National Funding Formula (NFF) and can be found here:
It has 18 questions which are all set out in the table here below. You do not need to answer all the questions and can leave boxes blank. We have put suggested answers in the table below.
The second part focuses on funding for special educational needs (here named High Needs) and can be found here. It has 9 questions which we have also set out suggested answers to below.
Q1: In designing our national funding formula, we have taken careful steps to balance the principles of fairness and stability. Do you think we have struck the right balance?
No
The proposals do not provide enough financial stability for schools, and it is likely that my school will experience a serious cut.
Q2: Do you support our proposal to set the primary to secondary ratio in line with the current national average of 1:1.29, which means that pupils in the secondary phase are funded overall 29% higher than pupils in the primary phase?
No – ratio shd be closer
In Brent the proposals would actually lead to a greater proportion of funding going to secondary schools, resulting in primary schools like ours losing more money.
Q3: Do you support our proposal to maximise pupil-led funding, so that more funding is allocated to factors that relate directly to pupils and their characteristics?
Not answered
Q4. Within the total pupil-led funding, do you support our proposal to increase the proportion allocated to the additional needs factors (deprivation, low prior attainment and English as an additional language)?
Yes
Yes, but more work needs to be done on accurately measuring the needs of children and families who qualify for free school meals among other factors.
Q5. Do you agree with the proposed weightings for each of the additional needs factors?
Not answered
I am worried that your measures under report the deprivation some children experience. And I think you have neglected the factors related to children who join school during the school year and whose first language is not English.
Q6. Do you have any suggestions about potential indicators and data sources we could use to allocate mobility funding in 2019-20 and beyond?
As stated above, you need to factor in the impact on schools and children of those children who join during the school year (‘mobility factor’).
Q7. Do you agree with the proposed lump sum amount of £110,000 for all schools?
Not answered
Q8. Do you agree with the proposed amounts for sparsity funding of up to £25,000 for primary schools and up to £65,000 for secondary, middle and all-through schools?
Not answered
Q9. Do you agree that lagged pupil growth data would provide an effective basis for the growth factor in the longer term?
Could create cash-flow problems, and make budgeting harder.
Q10. Do you agree with the principle of a funding floor that would protect schools from large overall reductions as a result of this formula? This would be in addition to the minimum funding guarantee.
Yes
We agree with the principle of a funding floor, but this should be set at current funding levels. Funding protections should be enhanced with additional resources.
Q11. Do you support our proposal to set the floor at minus 3%, which will mean that no school will lose more than 3% of their current per-pupil funding level as a result of this formula?
No (restrict to less than 3%)
There is no evidence that schools can manage a funding cut of 3% alongside other cost pressures without impacting on school standards.
At the very least current funding levels should be protected.
Q12. Do you agree that for new or growing schools the funding floor should be applied to the per-pupil funding they would have received if they were at full capacity?
No answer
Q13. Do you support our proposal to continue the minimum funding guarantee at minus 1.5% per pupil? This will mean that schools are protected against reductions of more than 1.5% per pupil per year.
No (minimum funding guarantee should be higher)
No school should lose any funding as a direct result of the implementation of the National Funding Formula.
Q14. Are there further considerations we should be taking into account about the proposed schools national funding formula?
Our school is facing considerable financial pressures due to London weighting salary levels, its small physical size, and a high proportion of children with extra needs. Our school already does a really good job for most families, with Oftsed finding us good and outstanding in some areas, exceeding expectations for many of our children. It is unfair to change the funding formula now and cut our resources when we have worked so hard to build a good school for so long.
Chapter 5 – Central Schools Services Block
Q15. Do you agree that we should allocate 10% of funding through a deprivation factor in the central school services block?
Yes
Yes. Local authorities in more deprived areas are likely to incur higher costs.
Q16. Do you support our proposal to limit reductions on local authorities’ central school services block funding to 2.5% per pupil in 2018-19 and in 2019-20?
Yes
Yes. This will enable longer term planning, and avoid sudden disruption to services.
Q17. Are there further considerations we should be taking into account about the proposed central school services block formula?
No answer
Q18. Is there any evidence relating to the 8 protected characteristics identified in the Equality Act 2010 that is not included in the equalities impact assessment and that we should take into account?
No answer
Part 2: High Needs consultation here:
You will be asked the same name/status questions again and then proceed to 9 questions similar to those above.
https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/high-needs-funding-reform-2/consultation/intro/
Q1: In designing our national funding formula, we have taken careful steps to balance the principles of fairness and stability. Do you think we have struck the right balance?
No
I am very worried about the impact these proposals might have on children with extra needs.
Q2: We are proposing a formula comprising a number of formula factors with different values and weightings. Do you agree with the following proposals?
• Historic spend factor – to allocate to each local authority a sum equal to 50% of its planned spending baseline
• Basic entitlement – to allocate to each local authority £4,000 per pupil
**these questions are phrased in a way which is very difficult to answer. We recommend you do not tick the ‘allocation boxes’, but just repeat the sentence above for question 1 in the ‘please explain your reasoning box’:
I am very worried about the impact these proposals might have on children with extra needs.
Q3: We propose to use the following weightings for each of the formula factors listed below, adding up to 100%. Do you agree?
• Population – 50%
• Free school meals eligibility – 10%
• IDACI – 10%
• Key stage 2 low attainment – 7.5%
• Key stage 4 low attainment – 7.5%
• Children in bad health – 7.5%
• Disability living allowance – 7.5%
Same as question 2 or leave blank
Q4: Do you agree with the principle of protecting local authorities from reductions in funding as a result of this formula? This is referred to as a funding floor in this document.
Yes
Q5: Do you support our proposal to set the funding floor such that no local authority will see a reduction in funding, compared to their spending baseline?
Yes
Chapter 4 – introducing a new formula distribution to local areas
Q6: Do you agree with our proposals to allow limited flexibility between schools and high needs budgets in 2018-19?
No
We need to make some of these decisions locally.
Q7: Do you have any suggestions about the level of flexibility we should allow between schools and high needs budgets in 2019-20 and beyond?
Leave blank
Q8: Are there further considerations we should be taking into account about the proposed high needs national funding formula?
I understand that at my school the proposed changes will not meet our levels of need.
Q9: Is there any evidence relating to the eight protected characteristics as identified in the Equality Act 2010 that is not included in the Equalities Analysis Impact Assessment and that we should take into account?
Leave blank