1. Background

• Funding of schools is undertaken within a statutory framework. The Scheme of financial management and any amendments thereto are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.
• The formula for distributing funding to schools is similarly subject to statutory regulation but subject to proper consultation changes to the funding arrangements do not require ministerial approval.
• Consultation on proposed changes to school funding arrangements have traditionally been undertaken during the Autumn Terms. The results of the consultation exercise and final proposals are then usually considered by members early in the Spring Term so enabling them to be reflected in the school budget allocations produced after the February Council meeting.

1. Consultation Proposals for Changes in April 2002

• With the significant changes in Education Service funding now promised for April 2003, only minor changes were the subject of consultation this year. The only exception was post-16 education funding changes which are dealt with later in this report.
• Four formal changes to the current scheme were proposed.

1. Potential delegation of the maintenance of residential properties.
2. Potential delegation of consequential work arising from the inspection of school kitchens.
3. Potential changes to the behavioural audit in high schools.
4. Introduction of a new factor for a language support unit in a special school.

• All four changes were considered to be minor tidying-up of the current funding arrangements rather than significant changes to the funding arrangements. The changes only have minor impact on individual school budgets.
• Details of the four proposals and the recommended changes to the current funding arrangements are set out in the following paragraphs.

Annex – full details of the four proposals are included as an Annex to the report.

1. Post-16 Funding

• The introduction of a new funding regime for post 16 funding from April 2002 and the requirement for post-16 education in schools to be funded in accordance with the Learning and Skills Council national formula will require further technical changes to Norfolk’s funding formula.
• Norfolk’s funding formula will need the addition of two new factors to accommodate this change. The first factor will be to enable the introduction of the school by school funding allocations from the Learning and Skills Council. The second factor will reflect the transfer of funding from the Authority to the Learning and Skills Council i.e. a negative factor. It is proposed that the negative factor equates as far as possible to the funding allocations made available from the Learning and Skills Council to individual schools.
• Given the late notification of details of the funding regime and of individual school allocations the Department for Education and Skills accepted formal consultation with schools would be impossible. However, a number of workshops have been arranged for post-16 schools, the latest of which will be held on the 16 January, to explain the various implications of the new arrangements.

Contact Officer: Paul Fisher

Tel No: 01603 223464

The technical paper on this proposal will be sent automatically to those schools with residential properties and is available on request to all other schools.

When the balance of the building maintenance budget was delegated to schools last year it did not contain the budget for consequential work arising as a result of an Environmental Health inspection. Currently all work arising from other inspections is paid for by the school and, therefore, delegating these funds would ensure consistency across the board.

The proposal is to delegate the available resources, currently £100,000, to all schools through the per pupil element of the formula. In order for those schools that have joined the Building Maintenance Partnership Pool to buy back the consequential work required, the A to Z split of responsibilities contained in the BMPP prospectus would need to be amended accordingly and this higher level of service reflected in the buy back cost.

Currently the Norfolk Behaviour Questionnaire is used in Years 7 or 8 (depending on Year of entry) and Year 10 to assess the level of whole school funding a high school receives as part of their delegated budget. This should reflect the relative need in each school for addressing behavioural problems.

Schools have raised concerns about the lack of knowledge of pupils on transfer and the workload involved in carrying out the Behaviour Audit in two year groups. Following discussions with the SEN Funding User Group, it is proposed that the Behaviour Audit in high schools should be conducted in Year 9 only and that Years 7 and 8 should be funded on a pro-rata basis according to the funding allocated for behaviour in Years 9, 10 and 11.

It is proposed to introduce this in the funding year 2002/03.

• Workloads would be reduced as schools would only have to carry out the Behaviour Audit in Year 9
• Concerns relating to lack of knowledge of pupils on transfer would be addressed
• Using Years 9,10 and 11 as the basis for pro-rata funding should ensure that even in small schools a fair profile of need is represented
• Funding for behaviour would be clearly recognised as separate from curriculum and care

• The opportunity for schools to appeal would be reduced and there would be no appeal against pro-rata funding
• Pupils in Year 7 and 8 would not attract individual bands for behaviour

There would possibly be some redistribution of current SEN funding between schools and between the elements of the Audit. It is not possible, however, to assess the impact on a school-by-school basis, there being no data to work from as pupils are not currently tested in Year 9.

In 2001/02 50% of appeals from high schools for pupils with behavioural difficulties were not agreed as the pupils’ needs had changed since the Audit. This does not meet the criteria for appeals. It is likely, therefore, that funding for behaviour in secondary schools would increase under the proposed system. This would result in a redistribution of resources from other areas of the SEN budget but may more accurately reflect the relative areas of need.

A trial could be run for a year to assess the impact of any change but this would necessitate all high schools auditing Year 9 pupils in addition to Years 7/8 and 10 and it would put back implementation for a year.

It is proposed that a new factor for a Language Support Unit in a Special School should be introduced.

To provide additional specialist language and communication support for pupils with assessed needs in this area.

0.5 FTE Language Support Co-ordinator

0.5 FTE Speech Therapist (funded by the Health Authority)

A full time Language Support Assistant

A senior manager in charge of language development throughout the school

A room dedicated to language support

Cost –£30,735 per Unit

Funding – reduction in funded pupil places in a specific Special School