New funding formula cuts out LA

[sparkeh]

In another step to cut out LA from education, Nicky Morgan is planning on making school funding fairer and giving the cash directly to schools.

Morgan tackles 'unfair' school funding - BBC News

[elsiegee40]

This has been on the cards for a long time. I can't remember when it was first announced, around the election probably, but after the last messing with the formula I will be surprised if a lot of schools aren't worse off.

 

Maybe I am being unduly cynical, but living in "the affluent south east" seems to mean my governor secondary modern gets hit every time they do this.

 

The problem is that our town isn't seen as disadvantaged, but the formula probably won't cater for the fact that non grammars are coping with the disadvantaged part of the local population. The advantaged get coached into the grammars.

 

EDIT

Also cutting out the LA has been obvious from the academy conversion agenda. Wrest control from the LAs as fast as possible

Edited March 7, 2016 by elsiegee40

[localzuk]

@elsiegee40 - the thing is, per child, schools are getting very different amounts of money. Our area gets a couple of thousand per child less than most of those in the south east.

 

So, sadly, those schools that have been receiving more than their fair share are going to get hit.

[elsiegee40]

@elsiegee40 - the thing is, per child, schools are getting very different amounts of money. Our area gets a couple of thousand per child less than most of those in the south east.

 

So, sadly, those schools that have been receiving more than their fair share are going to get hit.

 

I know that. I just have to look at the three schools in our MAT. They're roughly in a line 20 miles from each other. Each gets different amounts per pupil already.

 

Our staff have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to live down here. Teachers and support staff struggle. We have Sig+ FSM. There are disadvantaged families in the South East too. And most of them are in the non grammars, but I doubt the formula will fine tune for that.

 

Sorry I'm on an anti grammar rant again. I went to one and so did my daughter. It wasn't until I saw behind the scenes that I realised the inequalities.

 

And believe me parts of Kent are right up there with the worst inner cities for disadvantage. Their secondary moderns are in even more dire need than those round us

Edited March 7, 2016 by elsiegee40

[localzuk]

The formula definitely needs fixing though. Its not right that schools in London get £8k+ per pupil, whilst those in Cambridgeshire get £4k.

[elsiegee40]

The formula definitely needs fixing though. Its not right that schools in London get £8k+ per pupil, whilst those in Cambridge get £4k.

 

Just don't include Kent, etc with London. "The South East" is not all advantaged; it's a large and diverse geographical area

[CAM]

The formula definitely needs fixing though. Its not right that schools in London get £8k+ per pupil, whilst those in Cambridgeshire get £4k.

 

That's a problem with the London-centric economic model. Everything in London is expensive. Travel, housing, even a pint of beer. Even London weighting struggles to keep up so costs per pupil will be higher than other parts of the country.

[localzuk]

That's a problem with the London-centric economic model. Everything in London is expensive. Travel, housing, even a pint of beer. Even London weighting struggles to keep up so costs per pupil will be higher than other parts of the country.

 

The thing is, London weighting doesn't account for that vast difference in funding. We're talking a 50% higher funding level, but the London weighting is an extra £5-10k per teacher, depending on scale point. Not double. Things like resources and the like don't cost more in a London school - they can buy from the same companies as the rest of us.

 

So, yes, London is more expensive, but not 50% more expensive.

[PotNoodleTech]

You know what I totally agree with this. School A gets much less than others in the area with a similar demographic. Why? No one explains, no one is willing to put their head above the parapet. There doesn't seem to be "a reason"

 

It will be a good thing to have less weird formulas based on how many councillors with kids live near school B and C, also, less central middle people shuffling money around internally in secret is a bonus, some schools that have been unfairly funded will lose out and some that have also been unfairly funded will gain.

Edited March 7, 2016 by PotNoodleTech

[Michael]

I don't think the formula will work as intended and I suspect this is most likely a cost cutting exercise at the same time.

 

Really silly example - but lets say you have 30 kids wanting to go to the local Theatre - statistically renting a coach in London is going to cost more than in Birmingham for example, so making it 'equal' is going to be unrealistic.

 

This rule doesn't just apply to schools - fuel is more expensive in London, accommodation is more expensive, property is more expensive, alcohol is more expensive... maybe if I earned £100K+ a year, I wouldn't notice the differences either like MPs.

 

And what I don't understand is one minute I hear LAs are getting more power/control, but then they're not... then we wonder why Council Tax is getting more and more expensive!

[localzuk]

In London, wouldn't you just take the kids on the tube? I know that's what our lot do when they go on a trip to London. I know that's a rather specific thing, but the point I'm making is that there are other options in London that aren't available to us out here.

[Michael]

In London, wouldn't you just take the kids on the tube? I know that's what our lot do when they go on a trip to London. I know that's a rather specific thing, but the point I'm making is that there are other options in London that aren't available to us out here.

 

You're probably right, but then the actual Theatre tickets will probably be more expensive than those in Birmingham.

 

I do wonder sometimes when there's such a focus on the North or the Northern Powerhouse as they refer to it, maybe the problem's actually in London itself? London is abnormally more expensive than everywhere else.

[CAM]

Not everywhere is covered by the Tube. South London especially has almost no Tube coverage and rely on buses and National Rail. Even then, schools will put on minibus services from the local station and the further out you go, the less services there are accepting the free Oyster for pupils as county-run buses take over. You also have fuel costs for deliveries, increased costs for services and utilities, increased costs of food from shops....all on top of the extra money for weighting (remember personnel are expensive and eat up most of an organisation's budget).

 

I'd go as far as saying London and it's immediate surroundings are a separate economy to the rest of the UK. The difference is that enormous.

[sparkeh]

I'm hoping that we will end up better off. We are right on the border between Leicester City and Leicestershire (on the county side). There is a school just over the road, over the boundary on the city side. We have the same type of kids from the same estate. Yet the city school gets significantly more money per pupil because according to the system they are from the deprived inner city whereas our kids are from the leafy villages.

 

Theses kind of discrepancies need to be removed from the system.

[Michael]

I think the funding needs to be reviewed/simplified, but I don't think it can be the same for all.

 

I can't help but notice Government appear to be trying to standardise everything, so it's the same for all as to simplify the management overhead, which in English means they can cut x amount of jobs for the individuals who make such calculations.

 

For example (not sure if many people are aware), from April 2016, no matter how much National Insurance you've paid in your 32 years of service, we'll all get the same at the end - something like £150 a week (going up with inflation over time).

 

So someone who's earning £50K a year and someone who's earning £25K a year will get the same out when they retire, despite the £50K earner paying more NI in their working life. Doesn't sound very fair, but this is essentially what's happening. Even worse, all our NI contributions will go up considerably from April, meaning less money to take home to bridge the gap in Government finances. Again, not really very fair but this is a reality!

[witch]

I thought that was the point of academies - they would be funded directly by the government and not the LA - around here I know that is why a couple of the single-school academies went that way.

 

Down here we are in the bottom tier of funding per pupil. We also have deprived areas and the residual grammar issue, although we have some cracking comprehensives as well - and the cleverest children don't always go to the grammars.

We have been fighting for more money for years - somehow I doubt this is going to help

Edited March 7, 2016 by witch

[elsiegee40]

This is being discussed on the UKGovernors forum that I browse. I'll leave these two comments

 

Having skim read the consultation document, it really is just an exercise in confirming (sorry consulting) that they are going to use most of the existing formula for the new national formula. Everything to do with real numbers comes later.

 

The only bit that is slightly controversial is that they say they are introducing the national funding formula in 2017 but actually they are handing the "bulk" funding over to the LAs in 2017/18 and 2018/19 and the LA can then use their existing formula (as much as they can) if they so wish. So the real national funding formula does not really start to 2019/20

 

And another

But the "bulk funding" as you put it will change from 2017 - so losing LAs are unlikely to be able to maintain their existing formulae. MFG will apply (and possibly with losses/gains capped at more than 1.5%).

 

i don't think it's a coincidence that LA role will end before 2020, when all secondary schools expected to be academies. Rumours of an Education White Paper that will map out how all schools will make the academy journey.

[BKGarry]

Well they could be fun, there has already been a Kent court case with a PFI school going academy status where Kent still had to pay the shortfall of the contract as the contract was with KCC. If all schools are to be direct funded there will be a lot former LAs really badly off as they are likely to still have years to pay off these contracts.

 

That is just one implication that springs to mind which is going to have a negative impact all around.

 

While I do not have a problem with Grammar Schools (in principle) but you cannot treat schools in areas where a traditional entry based 11+ exam taken the same as schools where this does not exist.

 

Also the irony here is I am in a weird place where if I move slightly closer to London (between my home town and the m25) the prices go down as we have HS1 at our station.

[nathan]

Glad they are sorting this out, unhappy that it is capped at 1.5%. We in Leicestershire have had the worst funding in the UK for years, but it will only ever increase at 1.5% per year. We probably won't see that anyway as there will probably be funding taken off us elsewhere.

[localzuk]

I thought the losses were going to be capped per year, but the gains weren't supposed to be. Otherwise it kinda defeats the point!

[nathan]

I thought the losses were going to be capped per year, but the gains weren't supposed to be. Otherwise it kinda defeats the point!

 

Don't think they are, well according to our FD.

 

I can't imagine the government agreeing to that anyway as it's going to cost them a lot more in the short term.

[localzuk]

A 1.5% increase would be pretty much nothing. It wouldn't even cover the increase in employer NI contributions I don't think...So, the fairer formula would be pointless.

[nathan]

A 1.5% increase would be pretty much nothing. It wouldn't even cover the increase in employer NI contributions I don't think...So, the fairer formula would be pointless.

 

I wouldn't say it would be pointless as it would 1.5% increase per year until the funding meets the new fairer formula. I think it's just the changes are limited to 1.5% per year, not that's its a maximum of 1.5 gain/loss.

[localzuk]

I wouldn't say it would be pointless as it would 1.5% increase per year until the funding meets the new fairer formula. I think it's just the changes are limited to 1.5% per year, not that's its a maximum of 1.5 gain/loss.

 

Considering schools in some areas are getting around 85% more than us, we wouldn't meet the mid point for many years!

[nathan]

Considering schools in some areas are getting around 85% more than us, we wouldn't meet the mid point for many years!

 

haha, very true!

 

I don't think it will ever be equal funding across all areas, just fairer. Of course, we would all like to know what they deem fairer.