Meeting documents

ITEM EX5

EXECUTIVE - 11 DECEMBER 2001

REVIEW OF SCHOOL BUDGET DELEGATION FORMULA

Report by Chief Education Officer and Director of Business Support & County Treasurer

Background

1. The then Education Committee on 10 October 2001 considered a report on the Review of Schools’ Budget Formula for 2002/03. The review has been necessary in the light of locally determined needs. Members agreed to consult schools on the proposals set out in the report. The LEA wrote to all headteachers and chairs of governors, giving them until 23 November 2001 to respond. Details of the responses can be found in Annex 1. Additionally, the DfES wrote to all LEAs on 22 November informing them of DfES targets and changes to the Fair Funding regulations. A summary of the main points in the letter are set out in Annex 2.

Results of the Consultation

2. None of the issues raised in the consultation were particularly contentious. This has, perhaps, contributed to the relatively poor response, only 79 responses being returned by the deadline. These responses are discussed over the following paragraphs for each of the questions posed.

Split Site Allocation for Primary Schools

3. There are currently no primary split site schools and hence no provision in the formula. However, due to a reorganisation of provision in Wantage, there is a temporary split site from September 2001 and the City Reorganisation will cause a split site to be created at SS Mary and John on a permanent basis and SS Philip and James on a temporary basis.
4. 91% of schools responding to the consultation agreed that the costs of operating a split primary site should be recognised in the formula. Additionally 92% of schools agreed that the funding should be allocated as a fixed sum plus an amount per pupil. Comparison has been undertaken with amounts given in other authorities’ formulae and discussions have also taken place with headteachers at the affected primary schools. In the case of the latter, a supplement of £25,000 has been demonstrated to be sufficient to cover the costs of split site operation. To this extent, schools will be consulted on having a fixed sum of £25,000. This would be a budget pressure of £40,000 in 2002/03.

Pupil Count

5. 83% of schools have agreed that the basis of the pupil count should remain unchanged for statutory aged pupils.
6. 100% of schools agreed that funding for Under 5s should be standardised and made more transparent. Therefore, schools will be consulted on having Nursery Classes and Early Years Units funded on a five-twelfths, seven-twelfths basis. This standardises funding with the statutory aged pupils and would include the arrangements for retrospective compensation and clawback.
7. In respect of transparency, it is intended to change the documentation sent out to schools informing them of their budget allocation. Historically a 30 page document with pupil number and associated information for all schools has been sent out. For 2002/03 this is to be replaced with a one page dedicated notification as exemplified in Annex 3.

Interface Between Standards Fund and ISB

8. 72% of schools agreed with the principle that a reduction in Individual Schools Budgets (ISB) be used to meet the LEA contribution for new Standards Fund grants. However, there are no such grants for 2002/03.

City First Schools: Temporary Variation

9. During the transition period for City Schools Reorganisation, a significant number of first schools will find that they are faced with "uneconomic" year groups of 40 or 50 pupils. 88% of schools agreed that such schools should be provided with a class size allocation to avoid classes greater than 35. This will be a temporary difficulty and it is proposed that the funding should be a first call on the surplus balances of closing middle schools.

Special Needs Index: Social Deprivation

10. The Oxfordshire formula has the Special Needs Index which acts as a proxy for Special Educational Needs. However, this does not reflect social deprivation in terms of recognising the ability of parents to pay for school trips etc. 85% of schools agreed that the socio-economic deprivation scores used in the Special Needs Index be used to allocate up to £250,000 to pay for pupils from deprived backgrounds to go on field and residential trips etc. For 2002/03 this will be dependent on available budget growth for schools.
11. The DfES letter of 22 November has addressed this area. From 2002/03, it is a requirement for LEAs to include a factor in the formulae to allocate funds based on a measure of social deprivation. The regulations will not set a prescribed amount. The existing regulations do not allow a nil sum to be allocated.

Protection for Budget Losses

12. 72% of schools agreed that there should be no change to the existing formula.

Specialist Schools

13. Education Committee on 10 October agreed that all Oxfordshire secondary schools should explore the possibility of gaining specialist school status. The Chief Education Officer was requested to give support to those wishing to apply, to report back on the necessary support and look at ways of increasing funding for those which failed to obtain the status. Only 42% of schools responding to the consultation on this final point agreed with the notion of providing additional financial support for those schools which have not been successful. A further report will go to the Executive on the three actions above in January.

Next Steps

14. The initial consultation with schools was formative, in that their views have been sought in general terms. Further consultation now needs to be undertaken with schools and governors on the firm proposals outline above.

Financial Implications

A growth bid of £40,000 is set out in respect of primary split sites in paragraph 4. This will be included in the Education budget proposals. A further growth pressure is identified in paragraph 10 in respect of social deprivation which, at this time, has not been quantified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

15. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to consult schools formally on the issues identified in the report.

Background Papers: Consultation letter to Headteachers and Chairs of Governors

Responses to consultation document

December 2001

Return to TOP