Archived decisions

Please tick if you want us to keep your response confidential.

Name

Organisation (if applicable)

Hampshire County Council

Address:

The Castle

Winchester

hants

SO24 0LQ

Please tick one of the boxes that best describes you as a respondent

_

Local Authority

Schools Forum

Teacher Union

Governor Association

Headteacher Association

School

Headteacher

Bursar

Governor

Teacher

Parent

Other

If other, please specify:

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

_

Strongly disagree

Comments:

The timescales for introducing a new distribution mechanism are too short to allow implementation in 2006/07. It does not allow for modelling or exemplifications. Whilst it is appreciated that local authorities and schools would be guaranteed the minimum 5% per pupil increase above the agreed current base, growth above this will be of key importance to schools and a full and open debate on the rationale for changes is essential.

There are no clear and stated drivers for a different distribution mechanism for 2006/07, apart from the potential to increase funding for deprivation. Any such increase should take full account of all funding streams for deprivation and this distribution mechanism would not ensure that.

Further a distribution mechanism as proposed calls into question the need to retain two separate specific grants for schools as it is recognised in the paper that those distribution approaches could be replicated.

From these examples alone it is clear that this proposal needs further work.

Strongly agree

Agree

_

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Comments:

Clear criteria for distribution were set out by the LGA in advance of the last local government formula review and these remain applicable now. In practice the criteria set out include many of these. In addition it is important that grant systems are:

· predictable,

· easy to understand and explain,

· use the most recent data smoothed where appropriate and

· incentivise local authorities to pursue efficiencies and best value.

Comments:

Where criteria relate to a specific policy aim, such as narrowing the achievement gap for pupils from deprived backgrounds, they should recognise potential double funding through other grant funding mechanisms including the new School Development Grant and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

The proposal to relate elements of money to authorities' relative or absolute levels of funding is not a distribution criterion in itself and will need criteria and formula in order to determine funding levels in the first instance.

Comments:

Transitional arrangements need to reflect variations in funding for schools relative to FSS between authorities, but it would be inequitable both to schools and to local taxpayers to incorporate this as a factor in the distribution of DSG in the longer term.

Hampshire County Council would propose an approach for the two transitional years, retaining the current distribution methodology, and increasing the proposed minimum per pupil distribution to 6%. This would allow local authorities and schools locally to review their pressure and priority areas and target money through the fair funding formula.

This would allow time to develop a robust distribution approach for 2008/09.

Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to acknowledge individual responses unless you place an 'X' in the box below.

Please acknowledge this reply

Here at the Department for Education and Skills we carry out our research on many different topics and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, would it be alright if we were to contact you again from time to time either for research or to send through consultation documents?

Yes

No