APPENDIX
Diplomas 14-19: how can the funding system best
support the proposed new curriculum?
1. Principles
1.1 The Diplomas for 14-19-year-olds are
a new curriculum with the potential to improve the opportunities
and educational experience of many 14-16-year-olds and improve
participation rates in education and training post-16. So the
first questions are:
— What does the new curriculum involve?
— How does it differ from the existing
curriculum?
— What elements are new, what stays
the same and what can be adapted?
— How do we ensure that there is flexibility
within the system so that students are not locked into one path
chosen at 14?
1.2 One thing is already clear, schools
and colleges will have to collaborate to ensure that the full
entitlement to all possible Diplomas at all levels is available
for all students—this is what is meant by an entitlement
curriculum. So the next questions are:
— How are we going to deliver this?
— What will be the changes to the existing
structure?
— Who will manage the provision of
entitlement in an area?
1.3 The funding system has to support the
new curriculum. Currently 14-16-year-olds are funded through local
authority formulae and 16-19-year-olds through a national LSC
formula. We need coherence 14-19; the funding for an individual
student 14-19 must not depend on the institution attended but
on the cost of delivering their course. The questions for the
funding system are:
— What is the cost of the new curriculum?
— What are the additional costs of
collaboration?
— Are there additional costs within
post-16 institutions in dealing with 14-16-year-olds?
— What are the possible savings within
the existing structure?
— How can the funding for the new curriculum
be delivered across all local authorities (14-16) and the LSC
funded elements (post-16)?
2. The new curriculum
2.1 All 14-19-year-olds will be able to
choose to follow any one of 14 different vocational pathways,
starting at three different levels based on their prior levels
of attainment. It is relatively easy to plan (and cost) for students
choosing to enter a vocational pathway at 16 because, although
there are changes to the curriculum provision, there are not significant
changes to the existing structures. Students will be able to choose
different paths available at different institutions or providers
or through existing or similar patterns of collaboration between
institutions and providers.
2.2 The planning for students choosing a
vocational pathway at 14 is more difficult. Presumably the cost
of delivering the Diploma will be the same whether a student is
14 or 16. However 14-16-year-olds will also have to meet the requirements
of the National Curriculum core and RE. There are still unanswered
questions about the curriculum structure.
— Will the Diploma be a coherent package
with some integration between the elements of core skills, vocational
elements and work-based learning?
— How will this change the current
provision in school of separate National Curriculum core subjects,
some option subjects, RE and personal, health and social education?
— Will there be integration between
the levels of each Diploma or common themes across the same level
of different Diplomas?
— How will students be able to move
between Diploma areas?
— How will the guidance programme in
Key Stage 3 need to be changed to ensure that students make informed
and appropriate choices?
— How will all this fit into the Key
Stage 4 curriculum for students not choosing to take one of the
Diplomas?
Until we have some models answering all these
questions, it is difficult to estimate the additional costs for
14-16-year-olds.
2.3 At present funding for students 16-19
is greater than funding for 14-16-year-olds to reflect the cost
of smaller class sizes as a consequence of more choice and specialised
teaching. The cost of delivering a Diploma for 14-16-year-olds
will include all these inherent costs plus any additional curriculum
(most full time 16-19-year-olds are not taught for 25 hours a
week, Key Stage 4 students are). If some 14-16-year-olds are going
to spend time at an FE college or other provider, there will be
spare unused capacity in their home schools. Schools will not
be able to fill this spare capacity because all 14-16-year-olds
have a place in the system. Whilst there may be some small savings
in schools if fewer classes are being taught, there will be no
savings in overheads such as site, occupancy and management costs.
3. Delivery
3.1 Collaborative arrangements will be needed
to deliver the Diplomas. What are the characteristics of these
collaborations? They will need to:
— Ensure that students have access
to all Diplomas without unnecessary duplication of resources or
uneconomic provision within an area.
— Be different in different circumstances—rural
or urban, proximity of institutions, travel patterns.
— Not necessarily involve students
travelling—teachers can travel and there could be small
specialist facilities in some schools.
— Arrange work experience to suit both
the learning needs of the students and the employers.
3.2 The present structure of buildings and
resources will need to change:
— If local colleges and other providers
have the capacity to provide for some 14-16-year-olds then the
changes may be minimal, involving changes to the working practices
of schools and colleges.
— If there is no suitable arrangement
of schools and colleges or the colleges do not have the capacity
to meet the needs of 14-16-year-olds then there may be the need
for capital investment—including establishing small workshop
facilities in rural areas (perhaps based on a school) and moving
teachers rather than students.
— The main changes to existing structures
will be in the working practices of staff.
3.3 There will need to be changes to the
organisation and work of staff in schools and colleges. Collaboration
between schools and colleges requires a formal organisation with
a clear management structure to cover:
— Information and guidance for Key
Stage 3 students to enable them to choose an appropriate path
from the full entitlement.
— Organisation of the timetable of
collaborative provision, including matching school and college
term dates.
— Ensuring good curriculum links between
different institutions so that the Diplomas form a coherent curriculum.
— Ensuring quality control so that
all partner institutions are satisfied.
— Ensuring good pastoral links across
partner institutions so that students are monitored and there
is satisfactory reporting to parents.
— Efficient and safe travel for students,
particularly 14-16-year-olds, between institutions.
— Organisation of the work experience
element—including health and safety checks, Criminal Records
Bureau checks for all relevant staff and ensuring the work experience
fits into the Diploma curriculum.
3.4 FE and Sixth Form Colleges and other
providers will need to consider for their staff:
— Time for liaison with schools to
ensure the Diploma curriculum is coherent.
— Qualification to teach 14-16-year-olds.
— Additional statutory responsibility
for 14-16-year-olds in providing supervision on site when not
in classes and reports to parents.
— Any additional activity needed to
safeguard younger students including Criminal Records Bureau checks.
3.5 Schools will need to consider for their
staff:
— Time for liaison with colleges to
ensure the Diploma curriculum is coherent.
— How the core curriculum can be organised
to ensure that the school timetable meshes with the college part.
4. How much more will the Diplomas cost?
4.1 The LSC has already done some work on
costing some elements of the Diploma. What is needed now is a
cost for delivering the whole Diplomas for 16-19-year-olds as
this gives us the starting point for costing Diplomas for 14-16-year-olds.
14-16-year-olds will have additional curriculum requirements to
meet the National Curriculum.
4.2 Where will there be savings? It is unlikely
that there will be larger classes for 14-16-year-olds in the practical
elements of the Diplomas; indeed there may be an argument for
saying that classes for the younger students should be smaller.
It is possible that the core elements of the Diploma, delivered
mainly in schools, will be able to be in slightly larger classes
than in post-16 simply because schools are already organised to
teach larger core classes in Key Stage 4. However the key question
is how the core in a Diploma course matches the core National
Curriculum.
4.3 If a school has to provide a different
core curriculum for students on Diplomas, it will cost more. If
students are at college for their practical options whilst other
students are covering core areas there will need to be extra core
classes for the Diploma students. If the core in Diplomas needs
to be more integrated into the Diploma curriculum, it may not
be possible to run Diploma and any other core classes together.
Will it be possible, provided the practical elements are at the
same time, to provide the same core for students on different
Diplomas? If students from the same school are at the college
on different days for different Diplomas (highly likely) all the
above will be even more complex. Until we have the answers to
some of these questions it is not possible to see if there will
be any savings in schools. At the moment it looks as if the new
Diplomas are likely to lead to more choice in schools, not only
for the "option" part of the curriculum but also within
the core—and choice is always more expensive.
4.4 The principle that students should not
be double funded is important so we need to consider where the
savings in schools are when some students are taught elsewhere
for part of the week. There is one simple way of estimating the
savings through students attending another institution. For all
schools you can calculate the unit cost of a lesson—how
much it costs that school to put on one extra lesson per week
throughout the school year. For an 11-16 secondary school outside
London in 2006-07, the cost is about £1,600 for one lesson
in a 30 period week. If we assume that the students on a Diploma
course are spending the equivalent of one day a week at the College,
then the theoretical saving to the school is six lessons at £1,600
or £9,600. This assumes that a whole class of students from
the option block goes to the college and that the school runs
its option blocks in the times the students are at college so
that they rejoin the school for the core curriculum and there
is no need to put on additional core classes. As explained above,
this ideal scenario is very unlikely. Even if 20 students (approximately
a whole class in a KS4 option scheme) were all taking Diplomas,
they are unlikely to be the same Diploma or even on the same day
of the week and it is highly unlikely that all the students will
have come from the same option class in the school. It is far
more likely that they will have reduced four or five classes by
four or five students.
4.5 Another way of looking at it is to consider
the amount the school receives per week for each student and reduce
it at an appropriate rate for the students being taught at the
college. The typical 11-16 school used in the above example receives
£3,500 per Key Stage 4 student. A very simple model would
be to assume that the student is at the college for one day per
week, so the school can contribute 1/5 of the amount per student
or for 20 students £14,000. However there are several problems
with this. First of all the school provides more than simply 30
lessons for each student, there is all the pastoral and support
time and the student has also to contribute to the administration
and site running costs for the school and these are unlikely to
change simply because 20 students are out of school for one day.
So perhaps it would be fairer to take only 1/7 of the amount per
pupil or £10,000 for 20 students. It is not satisfactory
to use the Age Weighted Pupil Unit to estimate the savings per
student because many authorities use elements of the site costs
per pupil in the calculation of their AWPU and so the AWPU varies
in make up throughout the country. Again any saving depends on
a class group of students from the school going on the same day
of the week to the college. Schools where a significant proportion
of students choose Diploma courses will make some savings but
savings are unlikely until at least 40 (two groups) of students
are involved and the range of Diplomas chosen is small.
4.6 There is an inherent extra cost in the
new curriculum—schools will become smaller because, in effect
some 14-16-year-olds will be part-time in the system. Schools
will not be able to get more 14-16-year-olds to fill the gaps
because all 14-16-year-olds are already in the system. It is unlikely
but possible that there could be some reorganisation of secondary
provision where very large numbers of students go part time to
college at 14-16 so that two small schools could amalgamate knowing
that a large Key Stage 3 cohort would be a predominantly part-time
Key Stage 4 cohort but the opportunities will be limited and not
apparent for some years until we know the take-up of the new Diplomas.
4.7 The real problem with either of these
calculations is that they depend on all the students being out
of school on the same day, all coming from the same option subjects
in the school so that the school can offer fewer classes in their
option blocks. It also assumes that it is not necessary to change
any of the core classes. It is very unlikely that all these conditions
will be met. If as a result of some pupils choosing to take Diplomas,
a school has to offer fewer subject choices in their option blocks,
you are constraining the curriculum of those students not choosing
to take the Diplomas.
4.8 In summary, what are the additional
costs in the system?
— More choice at 14 will cost more.
The most efficient timetable is one for a totally core curriculum.
— The additional provision is in practical
areas where the class sizes will be smaller than classroom based
subjects.
— The cost of collaboration in itself
is considerable.
5. How can the funding system support the new
curriculum?
5.1 The simplest way would be to extend
the LSC system for 14-16-year-olds undertaking Diploma courses.
Schools would have to plan and enable their students to choose
their Key Stage 4 course early in Year 9. The combination of a
plan and a funding system for Diplomas on the same basis as 16-19-year-olds
on Diplomas would then operate. The funding rate for a Key Stage
4 student would need to recognise that their curriculum will include
more taught hours than a post-16 student. The school receives
the funding for the students on Diplomas on this new rate and
purchases through a collaborative any elements of the Diploma
that it cannot deliver itself.
5.2 There would need to be some adjustment
of the local authority funding for the school. The local authority
funding formula would apply for those students not on Diploma
courses. There would need to be some further abatement to correct
for the institution costs inherent in the LSC funding model—in
the same way that local authorities already correct for the post-16
funding (but with more regulation and clearer guidelines so that
there is some coherence and fairness across local authorities).
The school would be accountable to the LSC for the delivery of
their planned Diplomas for Key Stage 4 students just as they will
be accountable to deliver their planned provision for post-16.
The planning element in the formula is essential as we are assuming
Diplomas will grow steadily both in number of courses available
and take up for at least the first 10 years of the programme.
5.3 The LSC funding rate for all Diploma
courses will need to take into account the cost of the necessary
collaboration. If this element of the funding is in the student
rate, then the schools and colleges taking part in the collaborative
jointly fund the organisation of the collaborative.
5.4 The first essential step is to be clear
about the structure and content of the Diplomas. It is not possible
to plan a sensible funding system unless we are clear about what
activities schools and colleges will be expected to provide and
what activities will no longer be needed. The LSC formula for
post-16 is fundamentally based on an analysis of the costs of
providing a course and is a very good place to start an analysis
of the new Diplomas once we are clear about their structure and
content.
5.5 It is difficult to see how a funding
system for 14-19 Diplomas based on actual student take-up can
fit into the Dedicated Schools Grant and multi-year budgets. Even
in the first year of a multi-year budget, the local authority
has to know in November the level of the DSG for the following
April. It is highly unlikely that all Year 9 students will have
made their choices for Year 10 courses in time to influence the
level of DSG.
5.6 There will need to be a balance between
planning and funding stability, particularly in the first years
until all Diplomas are in place and the system has settled down.
Schools will need to plan in January to March for the following
September Diploma starts and know that the funding is stable,
even if some students change their minds between March and September
(not unknown amongst 14-year-olds).
January 2007
| 
