Agenda item

FAIRER SCHOOLS FUNDING IN 2015-16

RESPONSE OF THE

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

INTRODUCTION

1.  This document sets out the response of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) to the DfE consultation “Fairer schools funding in 2015-16.” 

2.  The postponement of the National Funding Formula could have been an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the full range of school needs in order to develop a funding system that could truly meet the needs of teaching and learning. Instead the consultation seeks to steer responses to a narrow set of questions that will unfortunately, the NUT believes, inappropriately restrict responses.  We are also concerned that issues of great significance to schools in funding terms have not been included for consideration in this latest consultation. For example the Treasury announcement that increased cost pressures for employers of teachers in the form of higher employer pension contributions and NI contributions resulting from the abolition of the contracted out rebate will not be reimbursed through additional funding.

3.  In addition, some of the consultation questions are particular to local authority finance departments and are not possible for other consultees to answer in detail.  We therefore present our comments under general headings based on the main areas covered by the consultation document.

KEY CONSULTATION ISSUES

Distribution of funding (consultation question 1)

4.   The consultation document states that there is widespread recognition that the current school funding system is unfair and out of date. The proposed solution – simplification of funding arrangements, with an even greater focus on pupil-led factors as opposed to other relevant factors such as premises and staffing costs – will not make funding “fairer.”

5.   The NUT view is that the funding system has never fully reflected the needs of schools.  We do not seek to defend the existing funding system, but to change it so that it meets the needs of schools.  This requires a much more fundamental review than the narrow approach set out in the DfE consultation document.

6.   To enable an informed discussion of school funding, we need an open discussion of what we expect our schools to deliver.  That means a detailed examination of the full range of cost factors relevant to schools.  Conditions of learning are essential to the success of our education system, so we need to address issue such as class size, non-contact time and teacher pay.

7.   We know that schools are already experiencing funding turbulence and that the new simpler local formula imposed by the DfE is unable to identify the full range of school needs.  This shows that simplification in itself is not the answer; changes to the funding system made on the basis of the current inadequate level of resources don’t make funding “fairer” – they simply shift funding problems around the school system.

Minimum funding levels (consultation questions 2 and 3)

8.   The consultation document confirms that, prior to the allocation of the “additional” £350 million, local authorities will be funded at the same cash level per pupil in 2015-16 as in 2014-15 – continuing the overall real terms cuts in school funding.

9.   The consultation sets out the allocated minimum funding levels for the seven proposed factors – but this does nothing to inform the discussion on the extent to which the full range of schools’ needs will be met by the new system.  The lack of such analysis in the consultation document makes it extremely difficult to engage meaningfully with the consultation questions.

10. Local discretion on the amount of factors that can be used in allocating funding is essential to ensure that the needs of schools are met.  The innate complexity of school funding must be taken fully into consideration – the simplification approach adopted by the DfE has simply resulted in appropriate local need factors not being taken into account.

11.   Annex B of the consultation document sets out indicative changes in 2015-16 for the 62 local authorities that would receive additional funding based on assumed pupil number data.  This data should not be used to bolster the Government’s claims that it has protected school funding. It is clear that some local authorities and schools will see an increase in their funding levels but without a full needs-led approach schools’ funding requirements are unlikely to be entirely met. The real terms reductions in school funding mean that any schools that gain will be more than matched by schools that lose.

12.   Instead of asking respondents if they agree with the DfE’s proposed choice of characteristics to which to attach minimum funding levels, the DfE should instead be undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the full range of school needs including support for the conditions of learning such as teacher pay and conditions. In order to comment on the proposed per pupil amounts for indicative funding levels there would need to be some contextual information to accompany the consultation questions, such as the impact on distribution between local authorities and between schools in the same authority. 

Labour market costs

13.  The NUT’s position on a needs-led approach to funding applies equally to the labour market costs issue.  The significant additional labour market costs faced by schools in the London and Fringe area must be reflected fully in the school funding system, without being restricted by the overall cost envelope. 

Sparsity review

14.   The DfE should take note of any examples consultees provide of problems experienced locally in the funding of small schools serving sparsely populated areas.  The NUT view is that local authorities are best placed to decide locally, in consultation with schools, on criteria for the sparsity factor including the possible use of average numbers in each year group.

15.   The DfE recognised in its review of 2013-14 arrangements that the sparsity factor will not address the needs of small schools that are not in rural areas.  The limited lump sum amounts are likely to cause problems for small schools in rural and non-rural areas.  Small schools in non-rural areas also need to be properly resourced. The full analysis of school needs to which we refer above applies equally to sparsity issues.