Are schools funding plans fair?

NO

Ivan Ould, chair, f40 group of councils and lead member for children's and adults services, Leicestershire Council

Although f40 has welcomed stage 2 of the fair funding for schools consultation, we believe that the government's proposals fall short of what was expected, will not deliver fairness and must be substantially revised.

There are several key elements of the proposals that f40 is unhappy about, but of most concern is the proportion of weighting given to additional educational needs (AEN) rather than basic entitlement.

In our view, it is vital the basic level of funding allocated to all schools is adequate for the school to staff and operate sufficiently.

The additional needs funding should be as the name suggests - additional. If the Department for Education can clearly demonstrate that additional funding needs to be targeted at the AEN factors, this should not be at the expense of the basic entitlement funding, which is intended to provide a core baseline of funding for all pupils and is imperative to achieving a fair, balanced and equitable funding formula.

f40 questions the extent of the transfer of funding into AEN at a time when schools are struggling to meet their core responsibilities, as evidenced by the National Audit Office report which indicated cost increases of around eight per cent.

We believe too much funding is directed towards deprivation and that when Pupil Premium is also taken into account, this could be considered as double funding.

The basic funding percentage under the existing proposed formula - approximately 72.5 per cent - is simply too low. It creates distortions that risk replacing one unfairness with another. We seek more clarity between what the deprivation funding in the main funding formula and pupil premium are supposed to support.

f40's own needs-led model - which was constructed to ensure all schools are able to function with appropriate pupil/teacher ratios and a lump sum that is set to meet a defined set of costs - provided for pupil funding at 75 per cent and additional needs factors of 14 per cent (deprivation eight per cent, prior attainment five per cent and education as an additional language one per cent). That is the sort of split that the government ought to be proposing.

It is absolutely right that the government has brought forward proposals for a national funding formula, but the formula being proposed seems to be weighted more towards maintaining stability than achieving fairness.

It is vitally important that one injustice is not replaced with another.

• f40 represents the views of the 41 lowest funded education authorities in England
  
  

YES

Anne Heavey, policy adviser, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)

The main problem with the national funding formula for schools is that there just isn't enough money in the budget.

ATL does not think too much weight has been put on deprivation - in fact, it is extraordinary that a Conservative government has had the courage to recognise that significant extra resources are required to help disadvantaged pupils to achieve their potential.

Rather than rewrite the funding formula, the DfE must secure a better settlement from the Treasury to ensure that every school has enough to cover running costs, and the money identified for providing support to pupils with additional needs can be put to that use.

Reducing the additional needs factors for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) could make it difficult for school leaders to continue to have inclusive schools. The Department for Education remains extremely reluctant to include SEN support in the funding formula, and uses low prior attainment data as a proxy measure. Even when combined with the full income deprivation affecting children index (IDACI) and free school meals (FSM) indicators, many pupils identified as needing SEN support do not benefit from the full £6,000 that school leaders should make available to put provision and support in place for them.

In the past, many councils would have been able to use funding from the high needs block to "top up" school SEN support budgets, a practice common in small primary schools with a significant proportion of pupils identified at SEN support level. With the future of this thrown into doubt by the funding proposals, it is not clear how these schools will continue to receive this support.

If money is taken out of the additional needs factors, the already significant challenges affecting SEN support funding in schools will be exacerbated and children will lose out. In some cases, this will mean that pupils with SEND are not identified in a timely fashion, in others they will not have access to the support they are entitled to.

ATL does not believe that anyone would want to prevent these children accessing the support they need to thrive at school, but we know the axe will fall on vital support staff, inclusion teams and resources budgets if funding for the additional needs factors are cut.

The funding formula is a start, a good start, but to achieve school funding that is fair, the DfE must work with the Treasury to achieve the following:

• Ensure that no school faces a real-terms loss as a result of the national funding formula
• Ensure that the basic pupil allocations are high enough to run a school
• Set out a clear path for schools that should gain under the formula to receive the extra funding in good time.