Skip to content
NASBM data collection for the DfE National Funding Formula Consultation (Stage 2)
Stage 2 consultation questions
The following section presents the questions contained within the DfE national funding formula stage 2 consultation document.
You are invited to complete the questions here, using the consultation document to refer back to. NASBM will then supply the DfE with all data collected from here so they can incorporate your responses when they consider the overall sector feedback from this consultation.
The deadline for completion is 22 March 2017.
Consultation papers
You can access the DfE consultation papers via these links:
Executive summary
http://www.nasbm.co.uk/documents/094830.8072555NFF_Stage2_executive_summary.pdf
Main document
http://www.nasbm.co.uk/documents/095059.9325549NFF_Stage2_schools_consultationdoc.pdf
Central School Services Block impact technical note
http://www.nasbm.co.uk/documents/095225.6586562NFF_TechNote_CSSBExternal.pdf
Impact technical note
http://www.nasbm.co.uk/documents/095340.6694600NFF_TechNote_SBExternal.pdf
Equalities Impact Assessment
http://www.nasbm.co.uk/documents/095546.0429742NFF_EqualityImpactAssessment.pdf
QA publication note
http://www.nasbm.co.uk/documents/095718.5348156NFF%20QA%20Publication%20Note.pdf
1.
Overall approach
In designing their national funding formula, the DfE have taken careful steps to balance the principles of fairness and stability. Do you think they have struck the right balance?
NASBM advice on this: Think about the changes in the weighting between basic entitlement and additional need. Also consider whether protection factors will mitigate turbulence.
Yes
No
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
2.
Do you support the DfE's proposal to set the primary to secondary ratio in line with the current national average?
DfE have decided that the secondary phase should be funded, overall, at a higher level than primary, after consulting on this in stage one. DfE are now consulting on how great the difference should be between the phases.
The current national average is 1:1.29, which means that secondary pupils are funded 29% higher overall than primary pupils.
Yes
No – the ratio should be closer (i.e. primary and secondary phases should be funded at more similar levels)
No – the ratio should be wider (i.e. the secondary phase should be funded more than 29% higher than the primary phase)
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
3.
Do you support our proposal to maximise pupil-led funding?
DfE are proposing to maximise the amount of funding allocated to factors that directly relate to pupils and their characteristics, compared to the factors that relate to schools' characteristics. DfE propose to do this by reducing the lump sum compared to the current national average (see question 10 on the lump sum value).
NASBM advice on this: The aim is that funding be allocated to factors that relate directly to pupils and their characteristics. This may be achieved by reducing the lump sum of £110,000 which schools receive as a contribution to the kinds of costs that do not vary with pupil numbers.
Yes
No – you should further increase pupil-led funding and further reduce school-led funding
No – you should keep the balance between pupil-led and school-led funding in line with the current national average
No – you should increase school-led funding compared to the current national average
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
4.
Pupil-led factors
Within the total pupil-led funding, do you support the DfE's proposal to increase the proportion allocated to the additional needs factors
(deprivation, low prior attainment and English as an additional language)
?
Of the total schools block funding, 76% is currently allocated to basic per-pupil funding (AWPU) and 13% is allocated to the additional needs factors (deprivation, low prior attainment and English as an additional language).
The formula will recognise educational disadvantage in its widest sense, including those who are not eligible for the pupil premium but whose families may only be just about managing. It increases the total spent on additional needs factors compared to the funding explicitly directed through these factors in the current system.
DfE are therefore proposing to increase the proportion of the total schools block funding allocated to additional needs factors to 18%, with 73% allocated to basic per-pupil funding.
NASBM advice on this: Remember, any money that the DfE put into one factor will have to come from another.
Yes
No – allocate a greater proportion to additional needs
No – allocate a lower proportion to additional needs
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
5.
Do you agree with the proposed weightings for each of the additional needs factors?
NASBM advice on this: It is worth referring to the current levels and comparing them with those proposed.
Deprivation – pupil-based at 5.5%
Allocate a higher proportion
The proportion is about right
Allocate a lower proportion
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
6.
Deprivation – area based at 3.9%
Allocate a higher proportion
The proportion is about right
Allocate a lower proportion
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
7.
Low prior attainment at 7.5%
Allocate a higher proportion
The proportion is about right
Allocate a lower proportion
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
8.
English as an additional language at 1.2%
Allocate a higher proportion
The proportion is about right
Allocate a lower proportion
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
9.
Do you have any suggestions about potential indicators and data sources the DfE could use to allocate mobility funding in 2019–20 and beyond?
DfE have decided to include the mobility factor in the national funding formula, following the first stage of consultation. This will be based on historic spend for 2018–19, while they develop a more sophisticated indicator. DfE would welcome any comments on potential indicators and data sources that could be a better way of allocating mobility funding in future.
10.
Do you agree with the proposed lump sum amount of £110,000 for all schools?
NASBM advice on this: This factor is intended to contribute to the costs that do not vary with pupil numbers. This is particularly important for small schools. But again, remember anything extra that goes into this factor comes out of the others.
Primary
Allocate a higher amount
This is about the right amount
Allocate a lower amount
11.
Secondary
Allocate a higher amount
This is about the right amount
Allocate a lower amount
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
12.
School-led factors
Do you agree with the proposed amounts for sparsity funding of up to £25,000 for primary schools and up to £65,000 for secondary, middle and all-through schools?
The DfE have decided to include a sparsity factor to target extra funding for schools that are small and remote. They are proposing that this would be tapered so that smaller schools receive more funding, up to a maximum of £25,000 for primary schools and £65,000 for secondary schools.
NASBM advice on this: The proposals include a sparsity factor to target extra funding for schools that are small and remote. This is tapered so that smaller schools receive more funding, up to a maximum of £25,000 for primary schools and £65,000 for secondary schools.
Primary
Allocate a higher amount
This is about the right amount
Allocate a lower amount
13.
Secondary
Allocate a higher amount
This about the right amount
Allocate a lower amount
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
14.
Do you agree that lagged pupil growth data would provide an effective basis for the growth factor in the long term?
The growth factor will be based on local authorities' historic spend in 2018–19. For the longer term the DfE intend to develop a more sophisticated measure and in the consultation suggest the option of using lagged pupil growth data. The DfE will consult on proposals at a later stage, but would welcome any initial comments on this suggestion now.
NASBM advice on this: For now, the proposals suggest the use of a growth factor based on local authorities' historic spend in 2018–19. A longer-term option might be the use of lagged pupil growth data.
15.
Funding floor
Do you agree with the principle of a funding floor?
To ensure stability, the DfE propose to put in place a floor that would protect schools from large overall reductions as a result of this formula. This would be in addition to the minimum funding guarantee.
Yes
No
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
16.
Do you support the DfE proposal to set the funding floor at minus 3%?
This will mean that no school will lose more than 3% of their current per-pupil funding as a result of this formula.
NASBM advice on this: The idea is that no school will lose more than 3% of their current per-pupil funding as a result of this formula. However, it may be worth looking at what the unprotected settlement might be and the risk of limited gains in the future as a result of capping losses.
Yes
No – the floor should be lower (i.e. allow losses of more than 3% per pupil)
No – the floor should be higher (i.e. restrict losses to less than 3% per pupil)
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
17.
Do you agree that for new or growing schools (i.e. schools that are still filling up and do not have pupils in all year groups yet) the funding floor should be applied to the per-pupil funding they would have received if they were at full capacity?
DfE believes that, to treat growing schools fairly, the funding floor should take account of the fact that these schools have not yet filled all their year groups.
Yes
No
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
18.
Transition
Do you support the DfE proposal to continue the minimum funding guarantee at minus 1.5%?
The minimum funding guarantee protects schools against reductions of more than a certain percentage per pupil each year. The DfE are proposing to continue the minimum funding guarantee at minus 1.5% per pupil per year.
Yes
No – the minimum funding guarantee should be lower (i.e. allow losses of more than 1.5% per pupil in any year)
No – the minimum funding guarantee should be higher (i.e. restrict losses to less than 1.5% per pupil in any year)
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
19.
Further considerations
Are there further considerations the DfE should be taking into account about the proposed schools national funding formula?
20.
Central school services block
The following questions are about the central school services block.
Do you agree that the DfE should allocate 10% of funding through a deprivation factor in the central school services block?
NASBM advice on this: We need to ask ourselves, is there enough funding targeted at the most vulnerable children in schools and who should have control over this funding?
Yes
No – a higher proportion should be allocated to the deprivation factor
No – a lower proportion should be allocated to the deprivation factor
No – there should not be a deprivation factor
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
21.
Do you support the DfE proposal to limit reductions on local authorities' central school services block funding to 2.5% per pupil in 2018–19 and in 2019–20?
NASBM advice on this: The question is, who do you want to have control over central services funding and at what levels? Is 2.5% about right and are there any circumstances where this percentage could be exceeded?
Yes
No – allow losses of more than 2.5% per pupil per year
No – limit reductions to less than 2.5% per pupil per year
Please explain your reasoning and any further evidence the DfE should take into account:
22.
Are there further considerations the DfE should be taking into account about the proposed central school services block formula?
23.
Equalities analysis
The question below refers to the equalities impact assessment published with the consultation.
Is there any evidence relating to the 8 protected characteristics identified in the Equality Act 2010 that is not included in the equalities impact assessment and that the DfE should take into account?