Memorandum from the Department for Education
and Skills (DfES)
INTRODUCTION
1. This memorandum explores the issues affecting
the education of children of Service personnel in maintained schools
in England, when their families are based in the UK, and maintained
boarding schools, when they are overseas.
SERVICE CHILDREN
IN STATE
SCHOOLS (SCISS) WORKING
GROUP
2. In January 2005, the Service Children
in State Schools (SCISS) working group was established by the
Secretary of State to address concerns about a lack of knowledge
of the range of issues that affect the education of Service children
in maintained schools in England. The working group was set up
to provide an opportunity for head teachers and local authority
officers, from schools and areas with large numbers of Service
personnel, to advise the Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) about the issues that particularly
affect these children and the schools that have a high proportion
of children from Service families. The terms of reference and
membership of this Group are attached at Annex A. [17]
3. The working group was set up jointly
by the DfES and the MOD, with the secretariat being provided by
the Children's Education Advisory Service (CEAS) agency of the
MOD. The DfES has made available up to £5,000 in both 2005-06
and 2006-07 for expenses of the participants, such as travel and
payment for cover if necessary, to allow head teachers to take
part without cost to their schools. The working group meets four
times a year.
4. The working group has followed up an
information gathering exercise conducted by CEAS in 2004, at the
request of the then Secretary of State for Education, which involved
schools in England with large numbers of Service children in identifying
the key issues for their schools at a series of regional meetings,
attended by DfES officials.
5. This identified two main concerns for
schools:
— The perceived need of those
schools that have high numbers of children from Service families
for additional funding to address the problems of high mobility
and the emotional needs of some of these children, especially
when a parent has been deployed to a dangerous area.
— The need to identify Service
children on the Annual School Census to establish the number of
these pupils in each school. This would facilitate research into
the problems faced by Service children, allowing trends to be
recognised and, possibly, resources targeted more effectively.
At present, children of Service personnel in England are not identified
as a group in the Annual School Census.
6. The working group is in the early stages
of identifying additional issues of concern to schools and pupils.
These include:
— school admissions, because of
the frequent need to find a place outside the normal admissions
round;
— attendance issues, because these
children have higher than average time out of school for term
time holidays, as parents often spend up to two weeks with their
family at the end of an overseas tour of duty;
— communication problems, such
as between the schools and their local bases and the MOD about
when children might move; there are also problems about the transfer
of pupil records when a child moves, especially from abroad, and
the transfer of information about children with special educational
needs;
— ensuring effective support for
children from ethnic minority backgrounds, such as Gurkha families;
— better use of contextualised
value added data by Ofsted and help for schools completing their
self evaluation form to highlight more effectively their Service
children and associated problems; and
— the need to encourage more research
to identify Service children's specific problems and any additional
support needed.
7. The working group will be taking these
issues forward with the Department in the near future.
FUNDING FOR
SCHOOLS WITH
SERVICE CHILDREN
8. The Government is conscious that schools
with high numbers of pupils drawn from Service families face disruption
as those families are transferred to other bases. The issue of
Service children's turnover is a particular issue for authorities
such as Oxfordshire (Brize Norton), Wiltshire (Salisbury), Hampshire
(Aldershot) and Essex (Colchester) where there are major bases.
9. As part of the consultation on new school
funding arrangements from 2006-07, the Department considered,
along with education partners, whether there was a case for introducing
a mobility measure in the Additional Educational Needs (AEN) part
of the funding formulae, the School Formula Spending Share (SFSS),
to take account of pupil turnover. However, the Government decided
against this measure.
10. Under the consultation launched in February
2005, the Department proposed to distribute Dedicated Schools
Grant (DSG) using the current SFSS formula. In the light of responses
to the consultation the Department proposed and consulted on a
modified method for distributing DSG, so there would be no change
needed to the formula as regards funding in 2006-07 and 2007-08.
The modified distribution methodology is designed to provide funding
stability for schools in all areas of the country for the next
two years as a new system is introduced. This methodology takes
Local Authorities' existing level of spending as the baseline—rather
than the level of their SFSS—then gives all authorities
a minimum increase of 5% per pupil in each of the next two years.
Remaining grant is distributed according to a number of criteria
using objective, verifiable data.
11. The Government appreciates that mobility,
especially in the two years before GCSE exams are taken, can have
a significant impact on pupil achievement. Consequently, Local
Authorities are allowed to take account of mobility in their funding
formulae for schools. The Government believe this is the right
level at which to address the issue. There would be two problems
with introducing a mobility factor into funding from Government
to Local Authorities:
— Mobility is very widespread
and affects a number of groups—travellers, looked after
children, some socially deprived groups as well as Service families.
There have been calls for a mobility factor from the Association
of London Government because pupil turnover is an issue in parts
of London; from authorities where seasonal turnover in seaside
towns and from agricultural communities. Data show that introducing
an extra factor for mobility into the AEN formula would spread
the funding for deprivation more widely.
— Secondly, it is difficult to
produce an appropriate definition of mobility from the Annual
School Census. The Government does not consider these data robust
enough to include in a distribution formula.
12. Looking ahead, the first two years of
the new funding arrangements will be transitional and various
aspects of the system will be reviewed before the next grant allocations
covering the period 2008-11. The Terms of Reference for the Review
were published on 6 April 2006. A copy is attached at Annex B.
[18]The
Department has written to a wide range of stakeholders, including
the CEAS, inviting preliminary comments on the issues covered
by the end of May 2006. The Department will analyse the responses
to the options in the consultation with its national education
partners through the autumn before consulting widely on specific
proposals in spring 2007.
IDENTIFYING SERVICE
CHILDREN
13. Data on all pupils in maintained schools
and non-maintained special schools in England is collected via
the Annual School Census. Although there is no mandatory requirement
for schools operated abroad by Service Children's Education to
provide this information, they do provide individual pupil data
in line with the School Census on a voluntary basis. However there
is no provision to identify details on the children of Service
families at schools in England separately within the Census.
14. Ministers had given their provisional
agreement for a Service children's marker to be included in the
Census for 2006-07. However, the Department's Census Board recommended
rejection of the proposal on the grounds that the national need
for the collection of this data, when set against the potential
burden for schools in recording and updating the information,
was not fully demonstrated. The Census Board also expressed concern
that collecting information about some parents' professions could
alienate parents, who might be worried about the purpose of the
collection of this data by schools.
15. The Department will request the SCISS
working group to provide a full business case for the inclusion
of a Service Children's marker in the Annual School Census, if
the group considers this is justified and still desirable.
SCHOOL ADMISSIONS
16. Parents have the right to express a
preference for any school they wish their child to attend and
that preference must be met unless certain conditions apply—usually
that the school is full. Any parent refused a place at a school
to which they have applied has the right of appeal to an independent
appeal panel.
17. Admission authorities (the local authority
for community and voluntary controlled schools and the governing
body for voluntary aided and foundation schools) must determine
admission arrangements for their schools, including admission
numbers, following consultation with other admission authorities
and schools in their area. When determining admission arrangements,
all admission authorities must comply with the law on admissions
and all other relevant legislation—notably on sex discrimination,
race discrimination, disability discrimination and human rights.
They must also have regard to the statutory guidance given in
the School Admissions Code of Practice. (The current version of
the Code came into force in January 2003.) This indicates that
admission authorities should aim to ensure that:
— the arrangements enable parents'
preferences for the schools of their choice to be met to the maximum
extent possible;
— admission criteria are clear,
fair and objective, for the benefit of all children, including
those with special educational needs, disabilities or in public
care;
— local admission arrangements
contribute to improving standards for all pupils;
— local admission authorities
consult each other and co-ordinate their arrangements, including
over the rapid re-integration wherever possible of children who
have been excluded from other schools;
— parents have easy access to
helpful admissions information; and
— local admission arrangements
achieve full compliance with all relevant legislation and guidance—including
on infant class sizes and on equal opportunities—and take
full account of the guidance in the Code.
18. Although they are not maintained schools,
Academies are required by their funding agreements to comply with
admissions law and the School Admissions Code of Practice. (Other
independent schools, including City Technology Colleges (CTCs)
which were set up under the previous administration, are not covered
by these legislative provisions or the Code of Practice. However,
Local Authorities are encouraged to invite CTCs to participate
in co-ordinated admission arrangements and Admission Forums.)
19. Each Local Authority has co-ordinated
admission schemes for primary and secondary admissions. Co-ordinated
schemes are an administrative process to make school admissions
easier, more transparent and less stressful for parents. Under
co-ordinated admissions, parents apply at the normal age of entry
to a primary or secondary school on a single common application
form to their Local Authority, naming the schools they wish their
child to attend. Individual applications are sent to the schools'
admission authorities for consideration against their published
oversubscription criteria. Each admission authority provides the
Local Authority with a list of the order they wish to offer places
and the Local Authority then removes any multiple offers that
could have been made by reference to the parents' ranked order
of preference, giving parents the highest offer that could be
made. The single offer of a school place is notified to the parent
by the Local Authority on 1 March for secondary school admissions
or the locally agreed date for primary schools admissions.
20. In the normal year of admission, schools
may not refuse an application until the school is full—that
is, until the published admission number is reached. Typical oversubscription
criteria include looked after children (who are required in law
to be given top priority), siblings, catchment areas, feeder schools
and distance from the school to the home. Schools that have been
designated by the Department as having a religious character can
give priority to members of that faith. Designated grammar schools
can prioritise on the basis of academic ability.
Admission Forums
21. Each Local Authority area has an Admission
Forum. Admission Forums provide a vehicle for admission authorities
and other key interested parties to get together to discuss the
effectiveness of admission arrangements, seek agreements on how
to deal with difficult admission issues and advise admission authorities
on ways in which their arrangements can be improved. Admission
authorities must have regard to their advice. Where significant
numbers of Service Personnel are located in an area, the Forum
should include a representative of CEAS or of the Service among
their number, to ensure that Service children's needs are properly
considered.
22. One of the key tasks of the Forum is
to agree with the Local Authority, and schools in their area,
protocols for the admission for "hard to place" pupils
outside of the normal admissions round. These protocols are aimed
at ensuring that children that move often, like looked after children,
are admitted to a suitable school quickly. They also seek to ensure
that no school is required to admit an unreasonable number of
pupils that have been permanently excluded from other schools.
These protocols can also be used to cater for any circumstance
in which a child might have difficulty finding a place outside
of the normal admissions round and this can include Service children
returning from abroad.
Issues relating to service children
23. Service Personnel returning to England
have the same rights as other parents to apply for a school place
at their preferred school. Whether their children will be offered
a place at their preferred school may depend on whether the parents
are applying during the normal admission round (the normal intake
year to the school) or outside the normal admission round.
24. Where applications are being made in
the normal admissions round, the School Admissions Code of Practice
makes it clear that, in the case of the children of UK Service
Personnel and other Crown Servants (including Diplomats), admission
authorities may accept applications from parents returning to
their area some months in advance. However, applications during
the normal admissions round can be problematic because parents
may not have a UK address when they apply, which creates difficulties
for admission authorities in applying their oversubscription criteria
relating to catchment area or distance.
25. When parents apply for a school place
for their child outside the normal admissions round, because the
child is over the age of entry to the school or the family's move
does not coincide with the timetable for normal admissions, popular
schools may have all their places filled with local children whose
parents were able to apply at the normal time. Where a school
has already admitted children up to its admission number, the
admission authority may legitimately refuse the admission of additional
pupils. In these circumstances the parent may appeal to an independent
appeal panel in order to gain a place at that school or consider
applying to another school.
26. The Government is proposing to amend
the law so that in future all admission authorities must act in
accordance with the School Admissions Code. Officials in the DfES
have had discussions with officials in the MOD to agree what could
be included in the School Admissions Code in future to ensure
that admission arrangement work more equitably for the children
of Service Personnel returning from abroad. This may include some
strengthening of the Code to ensure that, so far as is practicable,
applications from Service Personnel returning from abroad are
treated as residing in the area of the school for which they are
applying and that protocols for placing pupils quickly should,
where necessary, include the children of Service Personnel returning
from abroad.
MAINTAINED BOARDING
SCHOOLS
27. The maintained boarding sector is a
valuable resource for many parents as it provides continuity for
children whose parents' work involves frequent changes of location
or those who work overseas, such as Service children. There are
34 maintained boarding schools in England, with approximately
32,500 pupils, 4,500 of whom are boarders. The maintained boarding
sector includes all ability comprehensive schools, grammar schools
and one further education college. All schools follow the national
curriculum and take the same exams as other schools in the maintained
sector. There is no charge for the education provided at these
schools. Parents pay only for the boarding provision, making these
schools a reasonable option for parents who are based overseas.
SERVICE CHILDREN'S
EDUCATION (SCE)
28. Senior officials from DfES are members
of the SCE Owner's Board. They meet regularly with the Chief Executive
of SCE to discuss policy developments of interest to SCE schools.
This ensures that SCE are informed about DfES policy and that,
wherever possible, the needs of SCE schools and their children
are taken into account. This arrangement has resulted in, for
example, the Education Maintenance Allowance for young people
staying on in education at the age of 16 being extended to the
families of Service Personnel studying at defined locations while
abroad. It has also resulted in SCE schools being taken into account
when identifying school improvement partners for schools.
29. DfES has also provided advisory support
for SCE from Children's Services Improvement Advisers. SCE have
welcomed this arrangement, which has provided them with the same
level of professional advice as received by Local Authorities
in England.
Annex A
TERMS OF REFERENCE—SERVICE CHILDREN
IN STATE SCHOOLS WORKING GROUP
— To consider the impact of education
legislation and guidance on state maintained schools in supporting
effective and efficient education for Service children.
— To make recommendations and
to give advice to the DfES, the MOD and other relevant bodies
eg Ofsted, about the impact of mobility and other factors on Service
children's educational attainment and experience.
— To facilitate the provision
of relevant information and guidance for state schools which have
Service children on their roll.
MEMBERSHIP
Mike Curtis
| (Head teacher, Carterton Primary School, Oxfordshire)—Chair
|
| Olivia Denson | (Head of CEAS)—Vice-Chair
|
| Hilary Alcock | (Head teacher, Buntingsdale Infants School and Nursery, Shropshire)
|
| Coryn Bell | (Assistant Head teacher, The Priory LSST, Lincolnshire)
|
| Tina Evans | (Head teacher, Zouch Primary School, Wiltshire)
|
| Peter Frost | (Head teacher, Trevisker County Primary School, Cornwall)
|
| Norman Hoare | (Head teacher, St George's VA Boarding School, Hertfordshire/State Boarding Schools Association Executive)
|
| Sue Garner | (Deputy Head—School Admissions, Organisation and Governance Division, DfES)
|
| Janice Oakley | (Head teacher, Brookwood Primary School, Surrey)
|
| Richard Parker | (Assistant Director, Wiltshire Local Authority)
|
| Steve Richardson | (AD SPPol Families, MOD)
|
| Roy Taylor | (Education Officer, CEAS)
|
| Jeremy Watt | (Education Officer, CEAS)
|
| |
Annex B
TERMS OF REFERENCE—FUNDING REVIEW
REVIEW OF NEW RECURRENT FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SCHOOLS:
TERMS OF REFERENCE
INTRODUCTION
30. Jacqui Smith's statement to Parliament of 21 July
2005 announcing the new recurrent funding arrangements for schools
from April 2006 made clear that the first two years of the new
arrangements would be regarded as transitional, and that various
aspects of the system would be reviewed in time for the next set
of grant allocations covering the period 2008-11. The Minister's
statement of 7 December 2005 announcing the details of Dedicated
Schools Grant allocations for 2006-08 made clear that that review
would also cover the method of distribution of the DSG. This note
sets out the government's proposals for the coverage of that review.
PURPOSE OF
THE REVIEW
AND OBJECTIVES
31. The purpose of the review is to evaluate the impact
of key aspects of the new recurrent funding arrangements for schools
from April 2006; to make recommendations on any adjustments needed
to those arrangements in the light of experience; and to consider
what further developments in the school funding system are needed
to support the government's wider policies for schools and children's
services, including provision for 14-19 year olds. The review
will look at issues relating to distribution both to local authorities
and to schools, and also at issues relating to the administration
of the new arrangements. It will make recommendations to Ministers
by the summer of 2007: those will then be considered alongside
the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review and decisions
will be announced in time for the school funding settlement for
2008-11 in late 2007.
32. In evaluating the impact of the new arrangements
and considering options for the future we will take into account
the following objectives—recognising that in some cases
there are tensions between different objectives and it will be
necessary to strike an appropriate balance:
— Simplicity—school funding arrangements
should be transparent and easy for schools to understand, with
the number of separate funding streams kept to a minimum;
— Flexibility—school funding arrangements
should deliver sufficient flexibility to respond to national,
local and school level priorities;
— Stability—school funding arrangements
should provide schools with stability, with certainty over long
term forward budgets and transitional arrangements to ensure that
any distributional changes remain manageable at school level;
— Equity—school funding arrangements
should deliver resources in line with need, recognising the different
costs of educating particular groups of pupils (eg those from
more deprived backgrounds) and in providing schooling in different
areas; and
— Value for money—school funding arrangements
should deliver funding in a way that enables schools and local
authorities to make the best use of available resources to raise
standards in every area.
33. The remainder of this note sets out the detailed
issues which we propose to consider as part of the review.
THE DEDICATED
SCHOOLS GRANT
34. In relation to the Dedicated Schools Grant, we propose
to consider:
— whether to continue with a distribution methodology
which starts from a baseline of existing DSG allocations, adds
a basic increase and then allocates funds according to Ministerial
priorities, as in 2006-08; move to a formula-based approach; or
some combination of the two;
— within any formula-based element, the balance
between formula factors and the relevant indicators for each factor;
— if appropriate, priorities for distributing
headroom within a methodology which starts from existing DSG allocations
(as above), and the appropriate distribution methodology for each
element;
— what transitional protection is needed if
we move to a new approach to distribution; and
— whether any changes are needed to the scope
of the DSG or the conditions of grant.
SPECIFIC GRANTS
35. In relation to specific grants, we propose to consider:
— whether any specific grants should be merged
with the DSG from 2008-09, and if so which; and the distributional
implications and transitional arrangements needed;
— if neither is merged into the DSG, the scope
for merging the School Development Grant and School Standards
Grant into a single standards grant, the distribution of any such
grant and any transitional arrangements needed; and
— the scope for merging or ending any further
specific grants, and the distributional implications and transitional
arrangements needed.
DEPRIVATION FUNDING
AT SCHOOL
LEVEL
36. As part of the review process we will take forward
the programme of work set out in the action statement published
alongside the Deprivation Funding Review on 7 December 2005. This
will include in particular:
— a technical review of deprivation indicators;
and
— the collation and analysis of the deprivation
statements which local authorities are required to produce by
5 May 2006.
37. We also propose to consider whether further action
is needed to ensure that local authorities recognise the costs
of dealing with deprivation in their local funding formulae. The
impact on schools of any changes in the way funding was distributed
would need careful assessment.
MINIMUM FUNDING
GUARANTEE38. In relation to
the minimum funding guarantee, we propose to consider:
— whether or not there should continue to be
a nationally determined MFG, and if so the level at which it should
be set (in particular whether it should continue to cover average
cost pressures, or should be set at a lower level which gives
greater scope for redistribution between schools); and
— assuming the MFG continues, whether any changes
are needed to the detailed operation of the guarantee.
ACADEMIC YEAR
BUDGETS
39. Ministers have made clear that they have no plans
to introduce academic year accounting for schools. However, we
propose to look again at the issue of academic year budgeting
(which essentially means presenting schools' budget allocations
on an academic year as well as a financial year basis). In particular
we propose to consider:
— the benefits, costs and practical implications
for schools and local authorities of moving to academic year budgets
in the context of multi-year settlements; and
— if the benefits appear worthwhile in principle,
the implications of moving to academic year budgeting for the
distribution of the DSG and specific grants, for the setting of
schools' budgets by local authorities, and for the allocation
across years of the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review
settlement for schools.
OPERATION OF
MULTI-YEAR
BUDGETS
40. We propose to look at the detailed operation of the
new school funding arrangements (particularly multi-year budgets)
at local authority level in 2006-08 and make recommendations for,
and implement, any changes needed for 2008 and beyond. We will
consider, in particular:
— to what extent multi-year budgets delivered
greater predictability for schools, and whether and how this could
be enhanced: in particular whether the balance between central
prescription and local flexibility in the current regulations
is right;
— whether any changes are needed to the operation
of the central expenditure limit;
— the scope for ensuring that schools are aware
of key pressures—particularly teachers' pay—across
the same time period for which they are given budget allocations;
— whether any changes are needed to the regulations
governing pupil counts—in particular whether and when to
move to using a September pupil count, which would enable budgets
to be finalised earlier;
— the incentives on schools to under or over-spend
their budgets; and
— any other changes needed to the School Finance
Regulations or the guidance governing local authority schemes—in
particular what changes would be needed if Ministers decided to
move to academic year budgeting.
SCHOOLS FORUMS
41. We propose to review the effectiveness of Schools
Forums in delivering the school funding arrangements for 2006-08,
and consider:
— whether the remit of Schools Forums remains
right, including in particular whether they should be given a
role in considering capital funding issues;
— whether Forums should be given any further
decision-making powers, or whether any of those already granted
should be amended or removed;
— whether any further changes are needed to
the rules governing Forums' constitution or proceedings, or to
the Department's Good Practice Guide; and
— what further advice and guidance should be
provided to Forums, including whether there is scope to ensure
that all Forums have access to independent advice.
12 April 2006
17
Note: See Ev 82 Back
18
Note: See Ev 83 Back
|
