SOLIHULL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
Report to:
Forum Finance Group
Meeting date:
10 November 2015
Subject/Report Title:
CONSULTATION RESULTS ON PROPSED CHANGES TO THE
SOLIHULL FAIR FUNDING FORMULA FOR 2016-17
Report Author
Steve Fenton
Schools affected:
All Schools
All Primary
All Secondary
All Special
All Primary and Secondary
Maintained Schools Only
Academy Schools Only
PVI Settings
PRUs
Other (specify)
Type of Report
For Forum to Express a view to the Local Authority
Forum Voting
Whole of Forum
Public/Private
report:
Public
Exempt by virtue
N/A
of Paragraph:
1.
Purpose of Report
1.1
To inform Finance Group of the outcome of the recent consultation with schools on
two possible changes to the Funding formula for 2016-17. For Finance Group to
recommend to Forum the desired approach for 2016-17.
2.
Decision(s) Recommended
2.1
That a split-site factor be introduced for 2016-17 exactly as proposed in the
consultation.
2.2
That an EAL factor is introduced for 2016-17, and that this is by means of using
uncommitted funds from the DSG rather than any re-distribution of existing school
funding.
3.
Background
3.1
At your last meeting of 16 June 2015, the group considered two reports setting out
the rationale for a new split-site factor and an EAL factor. The proposal to consult
with schools was ratified by Forum at their meeting of 6 July 2015.
4.
For consideration
4.1
Consultation via “Survey Monkey” took place for the period 1 October to 6 November
2015.
4.2
The communication to schools stated the following:
4.3
“The survey will only allow a single response from a particular device, but I do not
mind if Heads, Governors, Bursars respond individually, this is as much about
getting views rather than a pure vote. When I report to Forum I will take the “most
senior” (Bursar->Head->Chair of Governors) response to be the “vote” for a school if
different views are expressed by representatives from the same school. So please
do circulate this to your Chair of Governors, Finance Committee and Bursar.
4.4
There are no other proposed changes to school funding for next year. The DfE have
confirmed that all Local Authorities will receive the same DSG unit level of funding as
for 2015-16. So for Solihull, next year’s budgets are planned to use the same unit
values as for 2015-16, and only change in respect of pupil number changes. We do
have pupil growth and I will do everything I can to fully reflect that growth in school
budgets.
4.5
Finally, I do know that schools do not always respond to these consultations unless
you feel very strongly about an issue, so I will take a non-vote as “We are OK about
this provided there is no great adverse impact on my school”. I am particularly after
feedback where you feel the proposal is weak, controversial, or where you think it
could be improved.”
4.6
By 6 November 14 schools had responded, 10 primary and 4 secondary. I am
pleased that of those that responded, there is a good mix of north and south across
both sectors.
4.7
The results are summarised in Appendix 1.
4.8
For the split site factor there is significant support for the factor with just one school
being against. The rationale and £100,000 value are largely accepted, and there is
no additional comment that would give me cause to re-think the proposal.
4.9
For the EAL factor there is large support for the introduction of the factor and support
for the factor to be “phased in” as and when DSG funding allows. There is a 50/50
split about funding or part funding the factor from an existing factor, e.g. prior
attainment.
4.10
In interpreting the formal responses from schools, I a aware that the proposals have
been discussed extensively at Forum, Finance Group and SAB, and I have received
no “strong” views outside the formal consultation. So I do think the rational for both
changes do have wide support.
4.11
The comments from schools in the consultation about this being a growing issue are
confirmed by recent information on significant in-year pupil growth from inward
migration to Solihull from new entrants to the school system, from abroad, and being
from all over the world. During the summer Solihull received over 200 new
applications for school places, the majority of which were from new entrants to the
UK.
4.12
For EAL the key consideration is about using existing school funding to introduce the
factor. Giving this careful consideration I am now of the clear opinion that it is not
necessary to re-deploy existing delegated funds. Firstly, the “promise” to schools of
financial/funding stability and to minimise turbulence from formula changes is a very
strong consideration, we should only depart from it if there are very powerful grounds
for doing so. Secondly I think the probability of finding some “headroom” from the
DSG to put “new” money into a new funding factor is very high.
4.13
I am not in a position to be precise, but I think it would certainly be possible to initiate
a factor for 2016-17 with something like a £100,000 to £150,000 new DSG funding,
and then consider this in future budget years, particularly when we know more about
the government plans for “fair Funding”.
4.14
I also appreciate that for most schools the priority will be for the formula to address
pay cost increase concerns, another reason to perhaps to start with a modest
amount and look to increase over time.
4.15
The previous report to Finance stated that at the DfE Fair Funding “average level”,
the unit rates would be £466 primary and £1,130 secondary. This would require
additional funding of £470,000.
4.16
If I allocate £100,000 to initiate the factor, then the unit rates would be £100 primary
£242 secondary, and schools that benefit the most would still receive a notable
amount of funding. I would then further recommend that, all things being equal the
factor could be increased by a further amount in respect of savings being released
from amalgamated schools.
5.
Consultation / Scrutiny already taken place / to take place
5.1
This report, incorporating the views of the Finance Group will be taken to Forum at
their December meeting for Forum to make recommendations to the Cabinet
Member.
6.
Key Implications for Schools & Settings
6.1
Delivery of the Council’s Priorities
The options/proposals in this report will contribute to the delivery of the following
Council Priority(ies):

*Improve Health and Wellbeing – schools should be able to enhance their
curriculum delivery to pupils with EAL that have entered the system within the last
3 years.

*Managed Growth – there is considerable evidence emerging of significant
growth in pupils from around the world being new entrants to the education
system, and therefore with EAL.

*Build Stronger Communities
6.2
Policy/Strategy Implications
6.3
Meeting the duty to involve
6.4
Financial Implications – the split site factor is self-funding for 20116-17, from 201718, the factor will release £75,000 back into the DSG for allocation to schools. The
EAL factor could be introduced by earmarking £100,000 of 2016-17 unallocated
DSG. This is not certain at this stage, but is highly probable, arising from pupil
growth.
6.5
Legal implications – the proposals are fully compliant with School Funding
regulations.
6.6
Risk Implications
6.7
Statutory Equality Duty
6.8
Carbon Management/Environmental – n/a
6.9
Partner Organisations – n/a
6.10
Safeguarding/Corporate Parenting Implications – n/a
6.11
Customer Impact – n/a
6.12
Other implications – n/a
7.
List of Appendices Referred to
7.1
Appendix 1 – Summary of consultation responses.
7.2
Appendix 2 – EAL at £100,000
8.
Background Papers and Web Links Used to Compile this Report
8.1
EAL report to Finance Group 16 June 2015
8.2
Split-site report to Finance Group 16 June 2015
9.
List of Other Relevant Documents
9.1