Agenda item

Members to note the reforms to the National Funding Formula – Government Consultation Response.

The Forum received a report for information which provided Members with an outline of the government response to the consultation feedback on “Completing the reforms to the National Funding Formula”.

The government had held a consultation on proposed changes to school funding and moving to a “direct” schools national funding formula (NFF).  The document entitled “Completing the reforms to the National Funding Formula” had been consulted on between 6th July 2021 to 30th September 2021.

The schools NFF was a single, national formula that allocated the core funding for all mainstream primary and secondary schools, both maintained and academies, in England.  Since its introduction, the NFF had been a ‘local authority-level’ formula.

                  The proposals consulted on were:

•        The aim should be that all NFF funding factors – pupil-led and school-led are included in the formula and that all funding distributed by the NFF should be allocated to schools on the basis of that formula, without further adjustments by LAs

•        To amend the premises factors within the NFF in advance of the introduction of the direct formula, so that allocations were based on a consistent, objective assessment of current need

•        To reform the approach to funding schools experiencing significant growth in pupil numbers

•        From 2023-24, to progressively tighten rules governing LAs’ flexibility over schools funding, so that schools’ allocations through local formulae moved closer to the NFF distribution

•        To reform the approach to funding for central school services delivered by LAs, to support LAs to deliver their remaining responsibilities and services and ensuring a greater voice for schools in receipt of these services.

•        An open question on the potential value of moving to a consistent funding year across maintained schools and academies.

The Government had confirmed the following: -

The approach for 2023-24 would be to require all LAs to use each of the NFF factors, and no others, in their local formulae, and moving each LA’s local formula factor values (at least) 10% closer to the NFF values.

         LA’s to use the NFF definition for the English as an Additional Language (EAL) factor.

         The approach to transition in subsequent years would be dependent upon the impact in the first year.

         The Government also seemed to suggest it would set a requirement that LA’s cannot overshoot the NFF value.  Sandwell already had several of its factor values which were above the NFF factor values and two NFF factors which it did not currently use; IDACI Band F and the mobility / pupils starting school outside of normal entry dates (as set out in Appendix 1 /to the report).

         The full details and requirements for LAs would be provided alongside the July 2022 NFF announcement in the schools funding operational guide.  This provision would be included in the relevant School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations.  The government had also stated it would maintain the protections within the funding system; e.g. the minimum funding guarantee to minimise disruption for schools.

         The Government had intended to move to a formulaic basis for the allocation of funding through the premises factors; specifically split site, schools with PFI contracts and other exceptional circumstances.

         The consultation also outlined proposals to reform growth funding to a national standardised system.

Over the coming year, the Government would:

•        Consult on an approach to the split sites factor and to the PFI factor in the NFF.

•        In the second stage consultation, include proposals for the revised growth and falling rolls factor to include some options which would allow a degree of local flexibility.

•        In the second stage consultation, include proposals for an exceptional circumstances factor.

This report provided a high-level overview of the government response to the consultation and further insight into each proposal and the feedback received was set out in the response.

         J Topham referred to last year’s final transition formula where the primary and secondary ratio had been looked considered.  Primary colleagues had wanted a ‘stand-still’ option.  However, reading the current report, a stand-still option would no longer be available.  J Topham, therefore, enquired if that meant it would be necessary to move closer to the National Funding Formula.

R Kerr advised that in July the Government would issue the National Funding Formula provisional allocation.  Then in September it would also issue the Operational Guide for School Funding.  In view of this, it would be required to move 10% closer to where it had been previously.  How this would work in practice remained unclear at present, as the Guidance, when issued, should provide the necessary clarification.

S Baker, in referring to the stand-still option no longer being available, requested if this could be discussed at Primary Partnership soon so all who need to be were made aware of this matter.

R Kerr stated that this would not be a problem.  A Timmins stated that he would take it through JEG and then the Partnerships.

Agreed that the contents of the report be noted.