Docstoc

Responses

Document Sample
Responses Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                                    Annex B


     Comments in respect of Paper A


     Tickenham CE Primary School      A5 - Yes, if by small schools you mean the less than 180 and this depends on
                                      whether schools of less than 105 are fully funded.
     Uphill Primary School            A3 No because if 180 is the cut off for small schools then the support should be
                                      for all small schools.
     Ashcombe Primary School          Whilst agreeing to the above, we would like to feel that small schools are
                                      encouraged (when above average salaries) to redress this balance with new
                                      appointments being teacher new to the profession or recently qualified.

                                      A5. Until now the redistribution is clarified, this is difficult to judge.
     Locking Primary School           May be worth further investigating.

                                      A1. Would 150 be more beneficial as percentage to all schools?
     Comments in respect of Paper B
     Mead Vale Primary School         current methodology is banded at 2.5 primary and 1.5 secondary - all phases
                                      should be banded at the same levels - it is not acceptable that primary schools
                                      have to have considerably more deprivation. Banding must be fair. no to B5
                                      because the funding is not delegated to schools - if it was this would be yes.

     Flax Bourton Primary             B1 and B2 - Use of 'households with no car or van' as a deprivation factor
                                      biases the data (and the funding) in favour of inner urban areas with good
                                      public transport and disadvantages areas of rural deprivation (where public
                                      transport is less good and a vehicle, however old, is almost essential for access
                                      to services). This factor should be removed; weighting it would increase the
                                      bias.
     Walliscote Primary School        B5 with many children arriving with EAL funding should be put in place sooner,
                                      Walliscote currently has over 50 children with EAL and 17 different languages.

     Ashcombe Primary School          B4. If Central Government cease grant - North Somerset schools should not be
                                      penalised.

                                      B5. Intermediate funding for 2008-2011 should be found to support schools
                                      with high levels of ethnic minority pupils.

                                      B6 & B7. Simple chain procedure needed - shared with all schools.
     Churchill Community School &     B1. Please be reminded that however socially deprived, people in rural areas
     Sixth Form                       cannot cope without a car. Also, what checks would be made to establish the
                                      presence of cars not registered with DVLC?

                                      B4. I believe, in new CYPS & ECM ERA that a review of support for travellers
                                      as well as the LA's. Expectations of traveller families for traveller children
                                      should also occur.

                                      B6. Until we have established how much more work may be generated in this
                                      field under CYPS/ECM, a simple methodology should be created that maintains
                                      some control of these expectations at school level. Then evaluate and review
                                      as necessary.
     Comments in respect of Paper C
     No comments




                                   Produced by the CYPS Finance Team
749e6bcd-7561-4a91-bd43-c9b62e1ccb5e.xls                                                                           4/24/2010
                                                                                                                 Annex B
     Comments in respect of Paper D
     Mead Vale Primary School          This is an historical payment - why should it be ring fenced?
     Ashcombe Primary School           D2. All primary schools have grounds costs too and so money should be
                                       redistributed across all age groups AWPU
     Churchill Community School &      Even though we've got one (no use to man nor beast), this seems inevitable.
     Sixth Form
     Comments in respect of Paper E
     Ashcombe Primary School           E4. Annual review needed to reflect current energy pricing.

                                       E6. Current system is unfair - better to have entitlement for all 3 phase and an
                                       average of £1.40 per meal for all age groups across the board.

                                       E7. Annual review for all phases - funding matching need accurately.

                                       E9. We feel this should cease as it is an unfair difference between teachers - it
                                       is a taxable 'perk'.
     Baytree School                    This is not just teaching (teachers), it should be for 'adults' who support SEN
                                       children.
     Gordano Community School          Funding on take up would further disadvantage schools who have missed out
                                       on the subsidy. We are trying to promote healthy eating and encourage a
                                       return to school meal eating. Reducing our ability to do this will see each more
                                       heading to the chip shop.
     Locking Primary School            E2. Canteen system in secondary attracts different costings.

                                       E5. Again canteen system requires different equipment. Is this more or less
                                       expensive? Audit?

                                       E9. Not only special schools!
     Windwhistle Primary School        E5. The pooling scheme for kitchen equipment does not seem to have a fair
                                       system for primary schools.
     Churchill Community School &      * Does this go on to say: a). And this should all come from LA corporate
     Sixth Form                        funding and b). Schools that run a healthy eating regime within projected
                                       budgets should receive a performance related bonus. [I though not].

                                       NB: The anomaly of a 'subsidy' for meals within negotiated contract (the LA
                                       contract) not being fair to those outside the contract must be addressed. It is
                                       frankly outrageous that DSB money is being used to subsidise in this way and
                                       as unfairly.
     Comments in respect of Paper F
     Uphill Primary School          F2 I don't like top slicing as a principle.
     Locking Primary School         Difficult to comment - special schools staff know best.
     Comments in respect of Paper G
     Mead Vale                      Primary- schools of over 400 need two deputy heads Primary - schools of over
                                    400 need 5 points and over 500 6 points Secondary-if they were funded at the
                                    same level as primary they would have 7 tlr's for 800 not 26.4 8 tlr's for 1000 not
                                    33 and 12 tlr's for 1400 not 46 - where is the fairness in this? Secondary -
                                    Management release time per pupil is £289.96 per pupil compared to £65.50
                                    per pupil - this is an increase PER PUPIL of 442% above primary - this is
                                    HUGELY more and unfair to the other phases.
     Flax Bourton Primary           As we have no direct experience of the management of Secondary or Special
                                    Schools, neither the Headteacher nor I feel competent to express an opinion as
                                    to what is appropriate staffing for those schools. It is wrong to ask us to do so.
                                    I strongly suggest that in determining the management and leadership
                                    allocations for a sector either (a) only the responses from that sector should be
                                    taken in to account or (b) the responses from that sector should be given much
                                    greater weight.




                                   Produced by the CYPS Finance Team
749e6bcd-7561-4a91-bd43-c9b62e1ccb5e.xls                                                                       4/24/2010
                                                                                                                  Annex B
     Walliscote Primary School         G5 - reduce the fte on deputies and assistant headteachers
                                       G6 - as the difference per pupil for primary and secondary is so vast this is very
                                       unfair!
                                       G7 - why is there such an imbalance for primary and secondary; there as many
                                       issues to manage for both.
                                       G8 - whilst this should work in principle the fact that the funding per pupil is so
                                       vast makes it incredibly unfair with a difference of over £170
                                       G9 - with low pupil numbers surly TLRs would be more appropriate for special
                                       schools
                                       G10-12 this system in theory should work except the difference in funding per
                                       pupil is vastly different leaving primary underfunded
     Wrington                          G5 Reduce the fte on deputies and assistant headteachers
                                       G6 The funding mechanism should be similar to the mechanism used at
                                       primary phase to allow direct comparison, introduce a higher lump sum for
                                       secondary phase and cut the per pupil cost to similar levels as primary sector
                                       G7 Reduce the total management time for secondary time for secondary phase-
                                       extremely excessive
                                       G8 Blatant inequality between primary and secondary funding-no educational
                                       rationale for this
                                       G10-12 Funding mechanism should be same for all phases-transparency and
                                       equality is needed

                                      G
     St. Barnabas C of E Primary School 5 - Reduce the fte on deputies and assistant headteachers G6 - The funding
                                      mechanism should be similar to the mechanism used at Primary phase to allow
                                      for direct comparison - introduce a higher lump sum and give equity for the pupil
                                      level G7 - Reduce the total management time for secondary phase- are these
                                      figures correct?
                                      G8 - TLR's - the funding in Primary and Secondary seems to be very
                                      substantially imbalanced. Surely all funding needs to be the same whatever the
                                      sector?
                                      G9 Do special schools need Assistant Headteachers as well as H/T and Deputy
                                      and if so surely the allocated funding should pay for the structure and not
                                      additional funding be allocated as a matter of course - All Workforce reform
                                      structure had to be based on affordable budgeting and every school had to be
                                      organised accordingly - 'cut the cloth according to the width???...'
                                      G10 - 12 - Surely the funding mechanism should be similar for all phases and at
                                      least be reported in the same way!

     Uphill Primary School             G5 Reduce the fte on deputies and assistant heads.

                                       G6 The funding should be similar to the mechanism used at primary level, to
                                       allow direct comparison, introduce a higher lump sum for secondary phase and
                                       cut the per pupil funding to similar levels as primary sector.

                                       G7 Reduce the total management time for secondary phase.

                                       G8 Why the differential between primary and secondary TLRs? This is "unfair"
                                       funding between the sectors and needs to be redressed.

                                       G9 Why have assistant heads in special schools when by definition they are
                                       small schools?

                                       G10 -12 Funding mechanism should be the same for all schools. Clarity of
                                       funding needs addressing to make it understandable and fairer.




                                   Produced by the CYPS Finance Team
749e6bcd-7561-4a91-bd43-c9b62e1ccb5e.xls                                                                        4/24/2010
                                                                                                             Annex B
     Becket Primary                   This is supposed to be a FAIR funding document. Why is there a different
                                      system for TLRs assistant heads and management time organised differently?
                                      For years the primary sector has been trying to do too much with far less money
                                      than the secondary. Non contact time in primary is a miserly 10%; speaking to
                                      some sec teacher colleagues their nc time is at least double this.
                                      G5 Reduce the fte on deputies and assistant headteachers.
                                      G6 The funding mechanism should be similar to the mechanism used at
                                      primary phase to allow direct comparison, introduce a higher lump sum for
                                      secondary phase & cut the per pupil funding to similar levels as primary sector
                                      £38.00 per pupil not £174.35!!
                                      G7 Reduce the total management time for secondary phase as currently the
                                      hours given would mean that all leadership team members in secondary phase
                                      would not be teaching at all during the week (over 30 hours release time for
                                      each post!)
                                      G8 TLRs: Primary school = 540 pupils = 4 TLRs funded by £20.50 per pupil,
                                      secondary school = 800 pupils = 26.4 TLRs funded by £197.42 per pupil This
                                      is blatantly unfair funding between the sectors and needs to be redressed now!
                                      For too many years we have been fobbed off with "in the future ..." The future
                                      has now arrived!!
                                      G9: No assistant headteachers should be funded in special schools, numbers
     Dundry c of E Primary            G5 reduce fte
                                      G6 funding for secondary's should have same mechanism as primaries
                                      G7 Would result in team leaders doing very little teaching
                                      G8 Primaries losing out on TLR funding. Many cannot afford them
                                      G9 Are they really needed?
                                      G10 System should be the same for all 3 phases.
     Ashcombe                         G1. Deputy Head - bigger differential needed, e.g. 0.7=105 pupils, 1.0=180,
                                      1.8=540. Needs another category of size school, e.g. 350 pupils?
                                      G1 TLRS: Need 4 TLRs for 300+ pupils, 6 TLRS for 540+ pupils [currently 6
                                      TLRS @ Ashcombe for 395 pupils!]
                                      G2 & G3 & G4. Agree in principle but how were actual figures derived? Do
                                      they meet current school costs?
                                      G5. Reduce FTE on deputies and assistants. Also, lump sums should be
                                      higher and cut per pupil to similar levels as primary £38.00.
                                      G7. Management time figures - reduce because currently hours given would
                                      mean all leadership team members are not teaching at all during the school
                                      weeks over 30 hours per week per leadership member!!
                                      G8 TLRS: Primary 540 pupils = 4TLRS } £20.50 per pupil, secondary 800 pupils
                                      = 26.4 TLRS } £197.42 per pupil. This is blatantly unfair funding between
                                      phases!!
                                      G9. No assistant HT's in special schools - numbers of pupils very low! Use 1
                                      TLR instead for Group 3 and Group 4 schools.
                                      G10 & G11 & G12. Common model of funding needed for all 3 sectors.
     Gordano                          Business Managers as part of SLT? How allowed for?
     Locking                          G1. TLR - up to individual schools.
     Churchill Community School &     I see this still as a work in progress and one with more than an element of
     Sixth Form                       aspiration.
                                      I reiterate my position: -
                                      Factors for the L&M of schools should be kept to a minimum. The bank of any
                                      resources for this aspect of a school's work should come from the AWPU. This
                                      gives maximum flexibility to governing bodies to take strategic decisions about
                                      how they will structure the L&M. It also does not create hostages to fortune
                                      when rolls may be variable.
                                      * This is largely best left to school leaders and should not (outside a very
                                      restricted core) be a matter of formula.
     Comments in respect of Paper H




                                   Produced by the CYPS Finance Team
749e6bcd-7561-4a91-bd43-c9b62e1ccb5e.xls                                                                    4/24/2010
                                                                                                                 Annex B
     Tickenham CE Primary School    H2.If this is already delegated but schools can opt in by choosing the personnel
                                    SLA, is there a difference. I would be concerned that some schools may cut
                                    corners to cut costs. Would there be an initial extra amount of money for a new
                                    school opening, where they are having to CRB every single member of staff?

                                    H3 / H4 - Not sure what is to be gained from delegating this funding. Would it be
                                    worth having a straw poll to look at what VA / Trust schools would want to do?
                                    Has the Diocese been consulted?

     Uphill Primary School          H2 Don't see the logic of age-weighted response to CRB checks. Surely when
                                    talking child protection it must be done no matter how many pupils are in the
                                    school.
     Ashcombe Primary School        H1 & H7. It was individual school choice - no LEA funding diverted to support
                                    this. Other funding streams will be open to them > Church, sponsorship. Any
                                    money saved > AWPU for all schools.
     Baytree School                 In Annex 1 - the increase in numbers of pupils at Baytree (2007/08) suggests
                                    there will be a need to review placements more regularly other than just
                                    January.
     Gordano Community School       Why not on AWPU? Insurance isn't charged by lump sum, it is charged by
                                    AWPU - large schools will lose out for no reason if lump sum is used.
     Churchill Community School &   H2. There seems a significant flaw in the logic here - that it is assumed that
     Sixth Form                     supply staff used by school all have had their CRB checks through the LA.
                                    Actually, most schools use a 'proxy' different umbrella body - agencies.
                                    Agencies carry out CRB checks and pass on this cost to schools. It is schools
                                    that check these checks - on the day, using our staff time, etc. So: a). how will
                                    this element (the majority for our school) be costed and delegated to us to pass
                                    on to agencies as extra fees? and b). how will the LA practically satisfy [its]
                                    statutory responsibilities with agency staff? It would not be fair to use such a
                                    simple methodology as you propose - school staff/supply staff.


                                    H3 & H4. With regard to these 'charges' if one of these schools opts back into
                                    the LA service, it should be at a cost neutral basis. Once such a service is
                                    accepted, surely the LA would be honour and legally bound to treat everyone
                                    equally. Therefore, if the LA were recharging schools with a status, they would
                                    have to do this to all schools. If the stance is to treat 'status' schools
                                    deliberately detrimentally, then I would change my recommendation (H1) to
                                    these factors being built into the formula for all schools. Of course, if there is no
                                    deliberate determination to be detrimental, the LA will proceed on the basis of
                                    fairness. as has been pointed out generally, the amount of work would remain
                                    the same [and the idea that a change of status would create more work for the
                                    Admissions Team because the LA would have to check ... [and] discuss any
                                    concerns is obvious nonsense - this actually describes what happens now!


                                    H4. Specifically regarding insurances, my understanding is that the LA must
                                    ensure there is sufficient cover for these elements of the governors obligations
                                    and liabilities. if this is the case, why would there need to be an adjustment (or
                                    surcharge) against a small number of schools who change status? if such a
                                    surcharge was to be 'in-built' (or the potential thereof), governing bodies would,
                                    seek a more accurate commitment from the beginning. H8. There is no
                                    mention of legal services and a factor for delegation other than to say it is not
                                    possible to do so. This reflects the absence of an SLA for legal services. I
                                    wonder what the satisfaction levels are amongst Heads and Governors for this
                                    ';service'? Perhaps its time to look at this too.




                                   Produced by the CYPS Finance Team
749e6bcd-7561-4a91-bd43-c9b62e1ccb5e.xls                                                                       4/24/2010

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:10
posted:4/25/2010
language:English
pages:5