1 / 35

Item 3 Formula Review

Item 3 Formula Review. Formula Review Consultation. Simplification Mainstreaming grants Balance of SEN/AEN/Deprivation and impact of Pupil Premium. Q3. Do you agree with the overall aim of simplifying the formula to make it easier to understand and explain?.

bela
Télécharger la présentation

Item 3 Formula Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Item 3Formula Review

  2. Formula ReviewConsultation • Simplification • Mainstreaming grants • Balance of SEN/AEN/Deprivation and impact of Pupil Premium

  3. Q3. Do you agree with the overall aim of simplifying the formula to make it easier to understand and explain?

  4. Q4a. Do you agree with the proposal to allocate SEN, AEN and personalisation prior attainment funding using Mosaic? If prior attainment is retained it would be at a flat rate per qualifying pupil, not weighted

  5. Q4b. Do you agree with the proposal to allocate SEN, AEN and personalisation prior attainment funding across all primary age year groups R to 6?

  6. Q4c. Do you agree with the proposal to allocate KS2 personalisation Mosaic funding across all primary age year groups R to 6?

  7. Q4d. Do you agree with the proposal to allocate SEN, AEN and personalisation funding across all secondary age year groups 7-11?

  8. Q4e. Do you agree with the proposal to base low prior attainment on only level 2 and below KS2 scores? Note : Flat rate per pupil, not weighted 15:5:1 Comments on significant numbers at level 3 with SEN/AEN

  9. Q5. Do you agree with the proposed reallocation of key stage 2 and 3 personalisation AEN indicator pots across all pupils?

  10. Q6. Remove the 6th form non AWPU deduction factor and at the same time remove the funding of 6th form pupils from the following sections/factors: AWPU, Mosaic, AEN indicators and grounds?

  11. Q7. Do you agree with the proposed new challenging circumstances formula? • Measure total additional SEN/AEN/Deprivation funding, and rank schools • CC Funding then allocated pro-rata to rankings, top 10% schools

  12. Q8. Do you agree that the “workforce reform - junior aged pupils with no AEN funding” should be shared across all primary schools/pupils ?

  13. Q9. Do you agree with the proposed changes to insurance? Allocation per pupil and an amount per square metre. KCC charges to match formula

  14. Q10. Do you agree with the proposal to delete the temporary floor area factor?

  15. New FactorQ16. Do you agree with the proposal for a one-year new English as an Additional Language arrival budget supplement?

  16. End of simplification issues

  17. Mainstreaming of Specific Grants • Consultation only on £70m out of total £124m • School Standards Grant (SSG) • SSG (Personalisation) • School Development grant – includes EIC, BIP, LIG • Further consideration of the balance to follow – could potentially offset some of the £70m gains/losses

  18. Q11. Do you agree with the proposal to allocate SSG by AWPU and lump sum?

  19. Q12. Do you agree with the proposal to add SSG(P) funding to AWPU and Mosaic (and Prior Attainment in Secondary schools) factors? Note that if prior attainment (KS1) factor is retained for primary this too would be enhanced with a share of this grant, not just mosaic

  20. Q13. Do you agree that SDG should be allocated broadly in line with the current distribution - 67% AWPU and 33% Mosaic? Should a proportion of the “deprivation” element of SDG be allocated by prior attainment (i.e. not solely via Mosaic)?

  21. Q13a/b. Should the proposed reallocation of SDG (Q13 above) be at the same rates per pupil for all phases?

  22. Q14a. Do you agree with the proposal to pay schools a standard contribution when their ASTs are commissioned for LA work?

  23. Special SchoolsQ15. Do you agree with the proposal to allocate the former specific grants via an increased lump sum and increased allocation per place? 4 individual responses were received from special schools, of which 3 were in favour; a collective response from a further 8 special schools supported an alternative proposal, to allocate all funding via a lump sum. It is proposed to accept the alternative proposal as the outcome aligns better with the other funding reallocations resulting from the earlier review of the special school formula

  24. End of grants section

  25. Transitional arrangements • Normal operation of MFG would limit the impact of formula changes to 1.5% p.a. • If exemptions to the MFG were agreed, we could apply alternative transitional arrangements • We proposed a 17 month no losses guarantee, then full impact of change in September 2012 • Gains could apply partially/in full from April

  26. Q17. Do you agree that protection from funding reductions should be offered for 17 months, and paid for from unallocated DSG and/or by scaling back budget gains? Strong reaction against continuing to protect historical anomalies, especially EIC,LIG,BIP Equally strong reaction to impact on viability if significant reductions are applied

  27. Special SchoolsQ18. Do you agree that schools already qualifying for budget protection in 2011/12 should receive additional protection if their proposed grant formula share is less than the current allocation?

  28. End of Transition Issues

  29. Impact of Pupil Premium • Recognition of, and support for, government intentions • But highlighting high levels of disadvantage funding already in Kent (meeting 100% of former target) • Current differentials equate to over £3,000 per FSM on average and PP will increase differentials • New pupil premium money comes at the cost of a reduced pot for basic funding/cost pressures • Only schools with high FSM will see increases sufficient to cover cost pressures

  30. Q1. Is the current balance of funding between "general to all schools" and "SEN / AEN / disadvantage factors" about right?

  31. Q2. Should the Kent formula be adjusted to reflect the additional differentials introduced by the Pupil Premium?

  32. End of Pupil Premium section

  33. Other issues

  34. SEN Review • Need an interim proposal for high level SEN needs in pilot areas • Consultation provided funding framework that can be applied from April to all areas • Covers both unit funding and VSCN • Any potential budget losses can be included in the overall protection proposals

  35. Q19a. Do you support the outline proposal for funding VSCN, Units and Lead Schools? A standard rate per qualifying pupil. Each need type funded at the special school formula level

More Related