SESSION 2000/2001 SECOND REPORT

REPORT ON THE PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA FOR GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Ordered by The Committee for Education to be printed 13 December 2001

Report 02/01R (to the Northern Ireland Assembly from the Committee for Education)

Report, proceedings of the committee, written submissions and minutes of evidence relating to the report

COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION

Powers

The Committee for Education is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Belfast Agreement, Section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under Assembly Standing Order 46. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department of Education and has a role in the initiation of legislation.

The Committee has the power to:

• consider and advise on Departmental budgets and Annual Plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
• approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of relevant primary legislation;
• call for persons and papers;
• initiate inquiries and make reports; and
• consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by the Minister of Education

MEMBERSHIP

The Committee was established on 29 November 1999 with 11 members, including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of five.

The membership of the Committee is as follows:

• Mr Danny Kennedy (Chairperson)
• Mr Sammy Wilson (Deputy Chairperson)
• Mrs Eileen Bell
• Mr John Fee
• Mr Tommy Gallagher
• Mr Oliver Gibson
• Mr Tom Hamilton*
• Ms Patricia Lewsley
• Mr Barry McElduff
• Mr Gerry McHugh
• Mr Ken Robinson

*Mr Tom Hamilton replaced Mr Tom Benson on 29 January 2001. Mr Benson died on 24 December 2000.

Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by the Stationery Office by Order of the Committee. All publications of the Committee are posted on the Assembly’s website: www.niassembly.gov.uk.

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Committee for Education, Committee Office,
Northern Ireland Assembly, Room 242, Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast BT4 3XX.
( (028) 9052 1629;Ê (028) 9052 1371; e-mail: committee.education@niassembly.gov.uk.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION - POWERS AND MEMBERSHIP

GLOSSARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Report

The Approach Taken by the Committee

Key Issues

Acknowledgements

THE CONTEXT

Education Reform and the Creation of the Current System for the Funding of Grant-Aided Schools

The Operation of the Current Funding System for Grant-Aided Schools

Schools’ Budget Shares

The Outcomes of Current Arrangements

THE PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

Policies and Priorities

The Key Principles

The Proposed Major Changes to the Current System

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE

The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

The Governing Bodies’ Association

Belfast Education and Library Board

Comhairle Na Gaelscolaíochta

Western Education and Library Board

North Eastern Education and Library Board

The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education

Southern Education and Library Board

South Eastern Education and Library Board

The Equality Commission

Principals of Primary Schools

Principals of Post-Primary Schools

Other Oral Evidence

FINDINGS

General Issues Identified From Within the Consultation Proposals

Targeting Social Need

The Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries

Small Schools’ Issues

Proposals for Dealing with Premises and Grounds Costs

Equality Issues

Special Sectoral or Area Concerns

Strategic Issues, some of which are not discussed within the Consultation Document

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee Relating to the Report

Appendix 2 - Written Submissions to the Committee (Printed)

Appendix 3 - List of Written Memoranda Submitted to the Committee (Unprinted)

Appendix 4 - Minutes of Evidence

Top

GLOSSARY

ARNE Assessment of Relative Needs Exercise:
conducted annually between DE and the ELBs to divide the overall budget between the main school sectors/areas.

ASB Aggregated Schools’ Budget:
the residual funding for distribution through the formula to schools, after the deduction of costs for centrally-retained items by ELBs/DE.

AWPU Age-Weighted Pupil Unit:
the main ‘building block’ of the formula by which schools are funded. Each formula determines the financial value of a pupil unit each year, then, based on this, weights pupils by age.

DE Department of Education

ELBs Education and Library Boards

BELB Belfast Education and Library Board

NEELB North Eastern Education and Library Board

SEELB South Eastern Education and Library Board

SELB Southern Education and Library Board

WELB Western Education and Library Board

FSM Free School Meals entitlement:
an indicator entitling a child to a free school lunch, based on his or her family’s entitlement to either Jobseeker’s Allowance (Income based) or Income Support.

GSB General Schools’ Budget:
the amount of funding for expenditure on schools currently allocated to each ELB/sector through the annual Assessment of Relative Needs Exercise. From this GSB, each funding authority deducts the costs of centrally-provided services, etc. to arrive at the Aggregated Schools Budget. The ASB is then divided up between schools according to the funding authority’s approved formula.

‘HIGH ASB’ DE’s proposed model in the consultation document that in future, levels of delegated funding across the ELBs should be more consistent and that the value of an age-weighted pupil unit should be at the highest current level.

‘LOW ASB’ DE’s proposed model in the consultation document that in future the level of the ASB should be the sum of the existing ASBs.

LMS The Local Management of Schools arrangements:
based on the principle, introduced in 1989, that school Boards of Governors should have responsibility for their own delegated budgets. Funding schools by formula was introduced.

TSN Targeting Social Need:
in schooling, the arrangements by which additional funding is targeted towards children suffering from social or educational disadvantage.

Top

RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD UNDERPIN A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

Recommendation

The Committee recommends that the proposed principle in the document ‘Schools should be funded according to their relative need’ should be expanded to read ‘Schools should be funded according to their relative need including mitigating the effects of social disadvantage’.

THE EFFECTS ON EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARD CENTRAL SERVICES

Recommendation

While the Committee supports the need to target resources as far as possible into school classrooms, it is very concerned at the likely negative impact on ELB central services to pupils and classrooms of the Department’s proposal to transfer £15 million from the General Schools’ Budget into schools’ delegated budgets.

The Committee recommends that if additional monies are to be delegated, these should not require any transfer of funding from existing General Schools’ Budgets and should be without detriment to current levels of ELB central services to schools.

CHANGES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN ELBS AND SCHOOLS

Recommendation

While acknowledging views about the added flexibility which might result for some schools from delegating further responsibilities and associated funding into school budgets, the Committee is concerned that this may lead to diseconomies of scale in the provision of these services. The Committee also expresses its concern about the pressure on some schools to divert funding allocated for premises maintenance into other areas of spending and the associated deterioration of the school estate.

The Committee therefore agrees with the Department that the division of responsibilities between ELBs and schools should not be altered at present. The Committee, however, recommends that the division of responsibilities should be reviewed in due course in light of the result of the Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland.

TSN ISSUES

Recommendation

Whilst the Committee fully supports the TSN policy it shares the reservations expressed by witnesses about the lack of information currently available to inform decision-making around the most effective levels of TSN funding.

The Committee therefore recommends that before any change is made to the current 5% level of top-slicing for TSN funding, a more informed discussion based on additional information about current and anticipated outcomes should be undertaken.

Recommendation

The Committee acknowledges the additional needs in some schools arising from higher than average incidence of socially deprived pupils but notes that there are other forms of funding available to provide extra support.

The Committee recommends that schools should receive social deprivation funding for all qualifying pupils as proposed by the Department of Education in the consultation document.

Recommendation

The Committee is concerned about the possible impact of the Common Funding Formula proposals on SELB units for children with Moderate Learning Difficulties, partly because this appears to run counter to current initiatives to include, as far as possible, such pupils in mainstream schooling, and partly because of the likely financial implications if new Special Schools have to be built.

The Committee therefore recommends that DE should reconsider the relevant Common Funding Formula proposals, to establish whether current practice in the SELB area should be protected, and whether such practice might be appropriate for extension to other ELB areas.

Recommendation

The Committee is concerned that current arrangements for identifying pupils who are socially disadvantaged may not include the whole cohort of such pupils.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department of Education gives further consideration to whether and how children from low waged families may be included in entitlement to Free School Meals.

Recommendation

The Committee supports the view that supplementary indicators be derived by the Department to ensure that the whole cohort of socially disadvantaged children is identified.

The Committee recommends that such supplementary indicators be arrived at in consultation with appropriate bodies, including schools.

Recommendation

The Committee is concerned that many families whose children are eligible for Free School Meals do not claim these, thus depriving these children of their entitlement, and depriving their schools of additional funding based on FSM eligibility.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department, in conjunction with all appropriate authorities and with schools, takes steps as soon as possible to assess and maximise the take-up rate of FSM entitlement.

Recommendation

The Committee supports the view that funding for the social deprivation factor should be distinct from that for the educational deprivation factor.

The Committee recommends therefore that levels of educational deprivation should be funded using only an indicator or indicators deriving from levels of educational attainment.

Recommendation

The Committee shares the views of many respondents that the use of end of Key Stage attainment tests to identify educational need is unsatisfactory. In particular, the use of Key Stage 2 results to fund educational deprivation in Primary schools is likely to provide perverse incentives in some schools.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department gives further consideration to the use of more robust and appropriate indicators such as standardised testing or baseline screening as a basis for the funding of educational need.

For Primary schools an appropriate indicator will be one that identifies levels of need as soon as possible after entry to school.

THE TREATMENT OF TEACHERS’ SALARIES

Recommendation

In spite of some schools’ difficulties in funding an adequate cohort of teachers, the Committee believes that given the dominance of salary costs within school budgets, the removal of such costs from budgets would undermine the principles of Local Management of Schools.

The Committee therefore recommends that the costs of teachers’ salaries should be retained within delegated budgets.

Recommendation

The Committee believes that the current arrangements for the allocation and charging of teachers’ salary costs create difficulties for too many schools in fulfilling core curriculum requirements, and therefore require too much ‘top-up’ to provide for these requirements. Although part of this ‘top-up’ funding is already available for distribution through the Teacher Salary Protection Factor of the Formula, the requirement for an additional factor adds complication to the Formula. It appears, too, that the protection factor may have to be applied to a majority of schools overall, thus bringing into question the adequacy of basic funding arrangements for teachers’ salaries. These issues might be addressed more effectively through the use of alternative arrangements.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department of Education undertake further investigation of alternative methods of providing schools with the actual costs of employing teachers in order to inform discussion on Common Funding Formula proposals before a final decision is made. Such investigation should include consideration of those methods currently in use in Scottish local authorities, such as Angus Council.

SMALL SCHOOLS’ ISSUES

Recommendation

The Committee recognises the difficulties for many small schools in providing for the full curriculum and in creating effective management arrangements. It is also concerned at the likely longer-term impact of demographic change on small, rural schools and their communities and feels that the funding system must provide stability for them as far as possible.

The Committee recommends that the Funding Formula should continue to provide additional support for small schools and teaching Principals, as proposed by DE.

The Committee also anticipates that the recommended review of arrangements for the funding of teachers’ salaries will provide a more secure financial footing for curriculum delivery and effective management in small schools.

PREMISES AND GROUNDS COSTS

Recommendation

The Committee notes that there is no need for either a condition of buildings or energy efficiency weighting within the premises factor for new schools.

The Committee recommends that the issue of including weightings for condition of buildings/energy efficiency within the premises factor for other schools should be kept under review by the Department.

Recommendation

The Committee is concerned that financial pressures within the delegated budgets of some schools may lead to inadequate expenditure on the maintenance of buildings and premises by some schools. However, the Committee is also of the view that there should not be any change in the distribution of responsibilities and funding for these between ELBs and schools pending the outcome of the Review of Public Administration.

The Committee therefore recommends that the existing division of responsibilities for landlord and tenant maintenance should be retained in the short term. However, to protect the condition of the school estate all schools should be required to provide an annual statement of expenditure on maintenance.

Recommendation

The Committee notes both NICIE concerns about funding for VAT liability, and the discussion in the Coopers & Lybrand Report about how VAT might be funded.

The Committee recommends that the Department should explore further the Coopers and Lybrand suggestion that GMI schools’ VAT liability should be funded through an enhancement related to each school’s total LMS budget, rather than through the premises factor alone.

Recommendation

The Committee notes that in the proposed provision for premises expenditure by VG and GMI schools, there is an allowance for landlord maintenance responsibilities. The Committee does not share the Department’s view that this allowance should be greater than that expended by the ELBs for comparable responsibilities for Controlled and Maintained schools. The Committee also notes that at present one GMI school has agreed to purchase all services from the area ELB. The Committee is of the view that this higher than average funding would be better deployed in funding core classroom activities in all schools.

The Committee therefore recommends that in the interests of promoting Best Value and funding transparency, allowances for landlord responsibilities should be comparable across all sectors and areas. In order to assist with economies of scale for Voluntary Grammar and GMI schools, the Department may wish to consult with the ELBs as to whether they would also be able to sell landlord services to schools in these sectors.

EQUALITY ISSUES

Recommendation

The Committee notes the concerns about the Department’s Equality Impact Assessment in the consultation document.

The Committee recommends that the Department should address these concerns and provide full details of the base information used in its Equality Impact Assessment.

Recommendation

The Committee notes concerns that the Common Funding Formula proposals may lead to inequalities between phases of schooling or groups of schools.

The Committee recommends that the Department keeps these issues under careful review. It anticipates that earlier recommendations in respect of small schools, TSN and the funding of teachers’ salary costs will assist in this process.

Recommendation

The Committee notes the views of the Equality Commission that levels of funding for the additional educational needs of Traveller children and children for whom English is an additional language should be kept under review, and that, for the latter group, annual evidence of their progress in English should be obtained.

The Committee recommends that the Department keeps these issues under review, and should publish the evidence collected.

Special Sectoral Concerns

Recommendation

The Committee notes the views of NICIE and the GBA that the proposed amounts allocated for the purchase of administrative services in these sectors, based on equivalent ELB costs may not be pitched at an adequate level. The Committee also notes that at present one GMI school has agreed to purchase all services from the area ELB.

The Committee recommends that, in order to promote Best Value and transparency, funding for administrative services specific to Voluntary Grammar and GMI schools should be provided at the level of equivalent ELB costs for Controlled and Maintained schools. The Department, NICIE and the GBA may wish to consider whether these services may be purchased from the ELBs or through other arrangements which provide for economies of scale.

Recommendation

The Committee acknowledges the concerns of NICIE and an Comhairle Na Gaelscolaíochta as to whether the Department’s proposal for a 10% growth in enrolment is appropriate as a trigger point for additional funding for growing schools, or whether a 5% growth should be substituted. The Committee believes, however, that to plan for a 5% trigger might require the retention of overly large funds centrally and that that would militate against the Committee’s principle that as much funding as possible should be directly deployed to support core classroom activities.

The Committee recommends therefore that the Department may wish to consider whether a rolling 3-year average of enrolment, rather than a percentage-based trigger point, might provide a more appropriate basis of funding for any Formula Factors which use a per capita indicator. Any such modification would apply to all schools.

Recommendation

The Committee notes the views expressed by NICIE as to the special teacher training needs and additional costs of its sector arising from its inclusive principles. However, the Council did not support its argument with evidence.

The Committee recommends therefore that the Department keeps this issue under review and anticipates that earlier recommendations about Targeting Social and Educational Need are likely to address this.

Recommendation

The Committee notes the concerns of NICIE and CCMS about the length of the transition period. It also notes that any extension of transition will penalise those schools which will gain through the introduction of commonality.

The Committee recommends that the proposal for a 3-year transition period should be adopted, provided that the c.£15 million of funds to be added to schools’ delegated budgets is provided from outside the current General Schools’ Budgets. Otherwise, a 5-year period should be adopted.

Recommendation

The Committee notes the views of the GBA and of the Equality Commission in respect of the funding for Preparatory Departments. It also notes the Department’s evidence about pupil teacher ratios in Preparatory Departments.

The Committee recommends that the Department’s proposal for funding Preparatory Departments should be adopted.

Recommendation

The Committee notes the proposal made by CCMS about the extension of current central initiatives, for example, to reduce Key Stage 1 class sizes, and notes that such initiatives apply to all schools. The Committee wishes to re-state its view that as much funding as possible for core classroom activities should be included in delegated budgets.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department should consider whether funding for generally-applicable initiatives should continue to be allocated centrally, or whether, in this instance for example, an increased formula weighting for Key Stage 1 pupils would allow schools more flexibility in the determination of how best to provide for these children.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF CHANGES IN SCHOOL FUNDING AT A TIME OF OTHER MAJOR CHANGES IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM.

Recommendation

The Committee feels that progress may be made in moving to more equitable and transparent funding arrangements while other changes are still in process: funding arrangements can later be adjusted, if necessary.

The Committee recommends that the Department should consider and bring forward for discussion, whenever appropriate, the implications of the various Policy Reviews which will affect funding arrangements for schools.

TRANSFER OF FUNDING BETWEEN PHASES OF SCHOOLING

Recommendation

The Committee recognises the need to provide additional support for Early Years education. However, the Committee also believes that if this support damages Post-Primary schooling, then the purpose of the move to commonality will have failed.

The Committee therefore recommends that additional support for Early Years education should not lead to a reduction of support for any other phase of schooling.

HOW SHOULD DECISION-MAKING BE SHARED WITHIN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM?

Recommendation

The Committee believes that these are important issues which should be addressed in order to provide a sound basis for eventual decision making. It feels that these issues should have been more explicitly and fully explored through the Common Funding Formula proposals than they have been in the current document.

The Committee recommends that the Department give some consideration to this issue, and take appropriate steps to promote such debate.

Top

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Report

There are currently seven different LMS Funding Formulae in operation - each of the five Education and Library Boards operates its own LMS Formula and the Department of Education operates two formulae - one for Grant Maintained Integrated Schools and one for Voluntary Grammar Schools. While all the formulae are very similar in terms of the factors used, differences in the amounts made available for schools under the formulae and differences in values attached to individual factors have resulted in variations in the budgets of similar schools in different areas or sectors.

In January 2001 Departmental officials briefed the Education Committee on proposals for a change in the arrangements for the funding of schools. Having taken account of a number of points raised by the Committee, the Minister of Education published a consultation document outlining Proposals for a Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools on 5 April 2001. The document indicates that the overall aim in introducing a Common LMS Formula is:

"To ensure that schools with similar characteristics receive similar levels of funding regardless of the area or sector in which they are located."

The Committee welcomed the publication of the consultation document. The issue of how schools are funded has generated the most requests for meetings with the Committee and representatives from all sectors and all sizes of schools have expressed their concerns on this matter.

The Committee was, however, very concerned about the short timescale set for the consultation period which was initially due to end on 29 June 2001 and the matter was raised with the Minister of Education on a number of occasions. The Committee believed that a reasonable period for consultation was necessary to enable schools, Boards of Governors, education organisations and other interested parties to consider this important and complex issue and submit responses. The Committee therefore welcomed the announcement made on 19 June 2001 to extend the consultation period until 21 September 2001. The Minister of Education subsequently announced his decision to postpone the implementation date for a Common Funding Formula from April 2002 to April 2003 and the Committee was of the view that this was a more realistic timeframe and would enable full consideration to be given to all the responses received.

On 9 May 2001 the Department of Education informed the Committee that there were errors in some of the Illustrative Outcomes included in Annex 1 of the consultation document, specifically those for Voluntary Grammar Schools and Grant Maintained Integrated Schools. The Committee was very perturbed and sought an assurance from the Minister of Education that every effort had been made to bring the correct information to the attention of all concerned without delay. The Committee also sought confirmation that the other figures and information contained in the consultation document was correct. The Department subsequently found an error in the Illustrative Outcomes quoted for nursery schools which also had to be amended.

1.2 The Approach taken by the Committee

Given the limited timescale for consideration of the detailed and complex consultation document a small number of key witnesses were identified and asked to submit written evidence on the three issues each believed to be most important in the proposals. The written submissions are included in this Report at Appendix 2. Oral evidence sessions to expand on the issues were subsequently held with:

• Belfast Education and Library Board
• Comhairle Na Gaelscolaíochta
• Council for Catholic Maintained Schools
• Equality Commission
• Governing Bodies’ Association
• North Eastern Education and Library Board
• Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education
• South Eastern Education and Library Board
• Southern Education and Library Board
• Western Education and Library Board

The Committee also wished to discuss the proposals with Primary and Post-Primary School Principals who had experience of operating the LMS Funding System on a daily basis. Two evidence sessions with Primary Principals and Post-Primary Principals who represented a variety of small and large schools, urban and rural schools and schools with relatively high and low levels of socio-economic deprivation took place on 20 September and 4 October 2001. The Principals who participated were:

• Aine Andrews GaelScoil na bhFál
• Malachy Crudden St Nicholas’ Primary School
• Maurice Doherty The High School, Ballynahinch
• Deirdre Ferguson Loanends Primary School
• Jill Houston Hazelwood Integrated Primary School
• Michael Lombard Holy Trinity Primary School
• Grainne McCafferty St Cecilia’s College
• Garnet Mullan Newtownhamilton High School
• Declan O’Kelly Lumen Christi College

The Minister of Education provided the Committee with copies of responses received from the main education bodies, unions and key associations to the consultation exercise. The Minister and officials also attended the Committee on 11 October 2001 to outline the results of the analysis of all the responses received and to answer questions. The analysis of the consultation exercise is available at www.deni.gov.uk The Committee notes the level of responses from schools to the consultation exercise. Table 2 of the analysis indicates that the highest level of school responses (55.6% of schools) was from the Grammar sectors. Just under half (49.5%) of schools in the nursery phase responded, 37.4% of Secondary including Grant Maintained Integrated Schools and only 35.1% of Primary schools. The Committee considers that, given this response rate, care must be taken in using this information.

The transcripts of all the oral evidence sessions are included under Minutes of Evidence at Appendix 4.

Members of the Committee held informal meetings with a range of groups, individuals and School Principals where funding issues were discussed. A number of groups and individuals also sent the Committee written submissions outlining their views. A list of these is included at Appendix 3.

The Committee appointed Mrs Penny McKeown of the Graduate School of Education, Queen’s University of Belfast in June 2001 to act as Specialist Adviser.

To assist the Committee in its consideration of the evidence and the key issues, Mr Craig Clement of Angus District Council, a member of the Executive Working Group that reviewed Devolved School Management in Scotland, met with the Committee on 29 November 2001.

1.3 Key Issues

In this Report the Education Committee has focused on the written and oral evidence received and on what it believes to be the key issues regarding the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula. Detailed information about the context of current funding arrangements for schools and the key issues is provided in the following sections. The implementation of a Common Funding Formula will require primary legislation and the Committee decided to publish the Report to inform consideration and stimulate debate on the matter.

1.4 Acknowledgements

The Education Committee would like to thank all those who contributed to its consideration of this important and complex subject through written and oral submissions. The evidence has contributed to many of the recommendations made in this Report.

In particular the Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the Primary and Post-Primary School Principals who took time out of their very busy schedules to attend Committee meetings and discuss the practical out-workings of LMS Funding.

The Committee expresses its thanks to the Specialist Adviser, Mrs Penny McKeown, for the significant contribution she has made to this Report.

In addition, the Committee wishes to place on record its appreciation of the work of the Clerk to the Committee and her staff and the researchers within the Assembly Research and Library Services in producing this Report.

Top

2. THE CONTEXT

2.1 Education Reform and the Creation of the Current System for the Funding of Grant-Aided Schools

2.1.1 Local Management of Schools

As a result of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, the management and funding arrangements for schools in Northern Ireland were radically changed. Through the introduction of Local Management of Schools (LMS), wide-ranging responsibilities were delegated to school governing bodies for the management of ‘their’ schools, including the delivery of the Northern Ireland Common Curriculum. Funding to support these responsibilities was also delegated to Boards of Governors.

Governors, in partnership with principal teachers, became the local decision-making bodies in the management of grant-aided schools. They were given authority to determine school priorities and school spending, within both the parameters of the schools’ budgets and of national agreements related, for example, to the levels of teacher salaries.

2.1.2 Formula Funding

At the same time, new arrangements were set in place to allocate these delegated budgets to individual schools. Each of the five Education and Library Boards (ELBs) was the funding authority for the Controlled and Maintained schools in its area. The Department of Education (DENI) held these responsibilities for the Voluntary Grammar and Grant-Maintained Integrated sectors. Budget shares would be determined annually by the relevant funding authority, using an approved formula, which was based on a range of objective factors. One intention of this was to create a transparent funding mechanism.

The bulk of any school’s budget would be arrived at from the numbers of pupils on roll, weighted according to age (AWPUs). Other funding factors, largely common across the funding authorities, included allocations for qualifying educationally or socially disadvantaged pupils, for maintenance of school premises and for the protection of full curriculum delivery in small schools. Additional factors, sometimes individual to funding authorities, included support for Senior High Schools, for schools on split sites or with swimming pools, and for children of traveller or service families.

While there was to be a common approach among funding authorities to the main aspects of formula funding, there was also a degree of latitude permitted, so that authorities might devise arrangements to meet the particular needs of their area or sector. Thus, as well as the incorporation of some different factors, as described above, each authority was able to set the value of an AWPU, to set the weightings for pupils of different ages and to determine the values to be attributed to the other factors included in the formula. For example, in the distribution of funding to address issues generated by social disadvantage, six of the seven formulae allocated an amount for every qualifying pupil (using the Free School Meals indicator) while one formula set a threshold of 20% of pupils so entitled before any funding was allocated to a school. In the same way some formulae distributed funds for the maintenance of school premises using indicators which made allowance for the condition and energy efficiency of the buildings, and others did not.

2.1.3 Open Enrolment

Formula funding was underpinned by the simultaneous introduction of open enrolment. This instituted a ‘market’ in schooling, on the grounds that competition between schools for pupils would make schools more responsive to local needs and would therefore be likely to drive up standards of pupil attainment. School intake quotas ceased to exist and instead, as far as possible, school places were to be allocated on the basis of parental preference.

In the event of school over-subscription, Governors were obliged to set and apply approved admissions criteria, based on objective conditions. These might include distance between home and school, or having an older sibling already at the school. Only Grammar schools could select pupils using academic criteria based on performance in the annual transfer tests.

The impact of competition for pupils was sharpened by the direct linkage of school budgets to the number of pupils on roll, through the age-weighted pupil unit (AWPU) of the funding formula. Except for qualifying small schools, the AWPU element of any school’s budget was the main means of generating income to pay for teacher and other staff salaries, the purchase of equipment and other consumables, and any other associated curriculum or school expenses. The formulae did not make provision for the payment of teacher salaries at actual costs but were based instead on average salary costs, as determined by each funding authority. Practice in calculating this average varies between authorities: one ELB (North Eastern Education and Library Board) at present uses the average for each phase calculated within its own area only, while another (Western Education and Library Board) uses average figures supplied by DE from the whole of Northern Ireland.

Schools were also free to generate additional income through various means including the letting of facilities, or from voluntary parental contributions.

2.2 The Operation of the Current Funding System for Grant-Aided Schools

There are at present seven formulae in existence: two for Voluntary Grammar and Grant Maintained Integrated (GMI) schools (both DE-generated), and five for Controlled and Maintained schools (ELB-generated). Each funding authority is required to publish annually its LMS Budget and spending Outturn statements.

2.2.1 Stages in Deriving the Formula

The Department of Education (DE) sets the overall education and youth services budget within the Programme for Government.

DE retains funding for allocation to the Voluntary Grammar and GMI sectors, then divides the residue between ELBs through an annual Assessment of Relative Needs Exercise (ARNE). This exercise allows the Department to allocate different quanta of recurrent funding, and expenditure for Targeting Social Need to each Board, based on factors including pupil population, Free School Meals (FSM) entitlement, school floor area, taxi mileage and the numbers of small schools in each ELB.

The amount allocated to each funding authority is the GENERAL SCHOOLS’ BUDGET (GSB). It includes monies for three categories of expenditure: school resources held at centre, resources attributed to schools and resources to be delegated to individual schools.

School resources held at the centre by the Education and Library Boards include funding for:

• DE initiatives;
• ELB initiatives;
• teachers’ staff costs, including severance, premature retirement and redundancy, maternity, long term sickness, peripatetic teachers and youth tutors;
• non-teacher staff costs;
• non-teacher costs, including rates, rents, split sites;
• special education costs, including teachers in special units and additional provision for statemented pupils;
• ‘landlord’ maintenance of buildings and grounds;
• contingency funding; and
• curriculum reserve support fund.

School resources held centrally by the Education and Library Boards but attributed to schools include:

• capital expenditure;
• central administrative costs;
• educational psychology service;
• school meals and milk;
• home-to-school transport;
• boarding, maintenance and clothing allowance;
• school library service;
• education and welfare services;
• the curriculum and advisory services provided to schools in all sectors (CASS); and
• school crossing patrols.

Each ELB and DE (for the Voluntary Grammar and GMI sectors) decides how much of the General Schools’ Budget is to be retained for school resources held at centre and for resources attributed to schools. This amount is subtracted from the total GSB.

The remainder is the AGGREGATED SCHOOLS’ BUDGET, (ASB) which is the total of monies delegated to individual school Boards of Governors. At present, the proportion of the GSB delegated to schools through the ASB varies between the seven formulae from 67% to 74%.

Within the ASB, each funding authority devises the formula for its schools: sets the value of an Age Weighted Pupil Unit, agrees weightings for pupils of different ages, and decides on additional factors and their values. DE approves the formulae.

The formula is applied to each school on the basis of the selected indicators of entitlement, and the resulting budget is delegated to the Governors of the school. Governors are required to produce an annual financial plan to indicate spending decisions for the financial year and there are arrangements to allow the carry-over of approved savings or deficits. For the funding generated through the formula, virement between budget headings is permitted.

2.3 Schools’ Budget Shares

For illustrative purposes, we include two examples of schools’ budget shares. The first relates to a small Primary school and the second to a large Post-Primary school. This information permits ease of comparison of formula funding across two sectors and phases. The general similarities of the process (layout, the importance of the AWPU element, general factors, etc.) are apparent, as are the contrasts (different factors, different weightings and levels of funding for pupils of different ages).

table 1: SCHOOL A: SMALL PRIMARY SCHOOL (South-Eastern Education and library board area)

Number on roll, October 1999	117, including 5 Reception class pupils
Weighting for each pupil in Reception class	1.30
Weighting for each pupil in Primaries 1–7	1.00
Total Number of AWPUs	121.08
Funding for each Age-Weighted Pupil Unit in Reception class	£1,641.51
Funding for each Age-Weighted Pupil Unit in Primaries 1-7	£1,262.70
AWPU factor sub-total	£152,892

	£	Funds Allocated
Premises – AWPU-related (Amount per AWPU)	60.25	£7,295
Small Schools’ Protection	Assessed	£22,942
Special Needs (15 pupils qualify)	148.95 per pupil	£2,235
Social Deprivation (3 pupils qualify)	315.67 per pupil	£947
Premises – Non-AWPU related (Amount per square metre)	9.60	£4,291
Teachers’ Salary Protection	Assessed	0
Transient School Population (no pupils qualify)
Formula Budget Share		£190,602
Supplements – Curriculum Reserve Fund		0
Total Budget Share	£190,602

Source: Annual Budget Statement 1999/2000 of the South Eastern Education and Library Board.

Table 2: SCHOOL B: LARGE POST-PRIMARY SCHOOL (VOLUNTARY GRAMMAR SECTOR

Number on roll, October 1999	1269
Weighting for each pupil in Years 8–12	1.68
Weighting for each pupil in Years 13–14	2.29
Total Number of AWPUs	1,963.03
Funding for each Age-Weighted Pupil Unit in Years 8–12	£2,354.91
Funding for each Age-Weighted Pupil Unit in Years 13–14	£3,309.97
AWPU factor sub-total	£2,755,446

	£	Funds Allocated
Small School Curriculum Protection	Assessed	0
Social Deprivation (34 pupils qualify)	299.51	£10,183
Premises and Grounds (including pre-1960 premises, temporary accommodation, pitches, other grounds, & VAT)		£184,292
Forces Children (no qualifying pupils)		0
Detached Sports Facilities (627 units)	16	£10,032
Swimming Pool	10,000	£10,000
Total Budget Share	£2,969,954

Source: Annual Budget Statement for Voluntary Grammar Schools produced by the Department of Education.

2.4 The Outcomes of Current Arrangements

Research during the 1990s, and in particular the study recently undertaken to investigate the effects of the selective system of post-primary education (DE, 2000b) has demonstrated that the combination of open enrolment and formula funding has had uneven funding effects across the school system. In a bipartite system in which one group of (Grammar) schools is generally perceived to have higher status than the larger group of (Secondary) schools, the expression of parental preference in association with selection at eleven has since 1991 accentuated the size, and thereby the funding, of the preferred sector.

In particular, the Area Study of the Selection research (DE, 2000b, SEL4.11) has shown that, in a case study of one market town area of Northern Ireland there has been a pattern since 1991 of growing enrolment in the Grammar and Integrated schools accompanied by a steady decline in the enrolments of most Secondary schools. This pattern is also apparent across the Northern Ireland system as a whole: the proportion of the age cohort attending Secondary (non GMI) schools has decreased since 1991.

The DE Compendium of Northern Ireland Education Statistics – 1987/88 to 1999/2000 shows that enrolments in Grammar schools rose by c. 6500 (c. 12%); Secondary enrolments also rose by 6%, but these included figures for the steadily-growing Integrated sector.

Table 3: SCHOOL ENROLMENTS 1991/92 AND 1999/2000

	1991/92	1999/2000
No. of Schools
Primary	964	917
Secondary (incl. Integrated)	166	166
Secondary (excl. Integrated)	164	149
Integrated Post-Primary	2	17
Grammar	70	72
No. of Pupils
Primary	180,954	172,591
Secondary (incl. Integrated)	87,525	92,603
Secondary (excl. Integrated)	86,613	84,912
Integrated Post-Primary	912	7,691
Grammar	55,770	62,361
Average School Size
Primary	188	188
Secondary (incl. GMI)	527	558
Secondary (excl. GMI)	528	569
GMI Post-Primary	456	452
Grammar	797	866

Source: DE, (2001b) and NICIE, personal enquiry.

NOTE: For the purposes of this Table, all Integrated schools have been included, i.e. GMI and Controlled Integrated.

These figures show that the number of pupils attending Primary schools has declined by c. 5%, as has the number of schools. In the Secondary (non-Integrated) sector the number of pupils on roll has decreased by c. 1,500, and while the average size of Secondary (non-Integrated) schools has increased, this is probably the result of the reduced number of such schools. The Voluntary Grammar and Integrated sectors, on the other hand have increased numbers of schools and total enrolment between 1991 and 2000. In addition, the average size of Grammar schools has increased by c. 9%. In funding terms, these figures suggest increasing budgets and increasing flexibility for the Voluntary Grammar and Integrated sectors, accompanied by the likelihood of increasing financial pressure for other sectors.

With a predicted decline in school populations overall, enrolment levels in Grammar schools are likely to be maintained, thereby increasing even further the proportion of the age cohort admitted to that sector. If there is continued growth in the Integrated sector, Secondary schools’ rolls (and their budgets) are likely to be affected disproportionately. Such effects are already being felt in some Secondary schools, leading to teacher redundancies, a reduction of school activities and other financial difficulties (DE 2000b, SEL4.11).

This evidence suggests that the operation of open enrolment linked with formula funding has not created a situation of financial equity between schools. Small schools, schools with declining rolls and schools which employ higher than average numbers of more experienced teachers have all reported difficulties in delivering the full range of the curriculum within current budget arrangements. School development initiatives sponsored by DE and ELBs, such as the School Improvement Programme, provide supplementary funding, but these funds for school improvement are not targeted specifically at schools in financial difficulties, and funding is generally time-limited.

In addition, local variation between ELBs and DE in constructing their formulae has created some other apparent inequities. Paragraph 1.6 of the consultation document outlines the Department’s major concern about the outcomes of current arrangements: that schools in different areas or sectors, but sharing similar characteristics, received different levels of funding, according to which funding body was responsible for their budget. A Figure in paragraph 1.7 gives an illustration of this situation for a small Post-Primary with high levels of FSM entitlement. Such a school funded through one ELB would have received 9% less funding (£95,000) than a similar school in a different area. These figures do not include any disparities in funding between ELB-funded and DE-funded sectors.

A similar, but more detailed Table, using figures from funding authorities’ Annual Budget Statements (2000-2001) displays comparative information relating to medium-sized Post-Primary schools across all areas and sectors.

For the purposes of this Table, funding for any preparatory school pupils and for premises costs are excluded as these are treated differently between ELB-funded schools and others. Also, by excluding premises- related funding, it is possible to avoid the other main differential between ELB-funded and other schools, the liability for payment of VAT by Voluntary Grammar and GMI schools.

Table 4: Comparison of Similar Sized Schools’ Budgets 2000-2001

	BELB– Funded	NEELB– Funded	SEELB– Funded	SELB– Funded	WELB– Funded	GMI (DE– Funded)	VG (DE– Funded)
No. on roll (excl. Prep. Dept.)	665	662	646	646	660	685	645
Total AWPU funding: (£s) (excl Prep. Dept.)	1,529,193	1,227,995	1,304,988	1,327,043	1,486,478	1,689,346	1,629,721
Per pupil AWPU funding (£s)	2,299.53	1,854.97	2,020.10	2,054.24	2,252.23	2,466.19	2,526.69
FSM entitlement (pupils)	277	157	220	3368	33	220	26
Social Disad. Funding (£s)	77,048	50,600	69,448	146,225	11,330	65,758	7,787
Educ. Disadv. Funding (£s)	36,162	53,615	72,265	23,041	None	48,600	N/A
Other factors (excl. premises) (£s)	None	None	None	Special Unit (17 pupils):4,000	None	Sports Facilities: 5,886	Sports Facilities: 2,880
Total budget (£s) (excl. premises/Prep. Dept.)	1,642,403	1,382,171	1,446,702	1,500,309	1,422,556	1,809,590	1,640,388
Funding per pupil (£s) (excl. premises/Prep. Dept.)	2,469.77	2,087.87	2,239.47	2322.45	2,155.38	2,641.73	2,543.23

Source: Annual Budget Statements (2000-2001)

In this example, the per pupil budget differential overall between the highest funded (a GMI school) and lowest funded (a Controlled school) schools was £553.86. This represents a percentage difference of about 21%. Part of this differential may be accounted for by the requirement for GMI and Voluntary Grammar schools to fund for themselves the administrative costs provided for Controlled and Maintained schools by the ELBs.

However, even when comparing only the per pupil differential on the AWPU element of the formulae, the core element of any school’s budget, which funds mainly staffing and equipment costs, the difference between the lowest (a Controlled school) and the highest (a Voluntary Grammar school) is even more marked: £671.72, representing a percentage difference of about 27%.

Top

3. THE PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

3.1 Policies and Priorities

In discussion of the policy context (para. 2 of the consultation document) the Department sets out the policies and priorities which can be most influenced through LMS arrangements. These are considered to be that:

• schools should be funded according to their relative needs. These needs (para.2.2) primarily derive from:
• the number of pupils and their year of study;
• the size of premises;
• the extent of educational and social need within the school; and
• the balance between the costs which a school must meet and costs held centrally;
• the proportion of the GSB delegated to schools should be maximised in order to increase as far as possible the delivery of resources to the classroom. However, there should be no overall change in the responsibilities delegated to schools;
• pupil disadvantage should be tackled through Targeting Social Need (TSN) initiatives, with the expectation that over time, socio-economic differentials between groups in Northern Ireland would be removed;
• small schools should be supported so as to enable them to provide effective education for all pupils. This is a particular issue in Northern Ireland where 36% of Primary schools have fewer than 100 pupils and 10% of Post-Primary schools have fewer than 300 pupils on roll;
• there should be increased investment in Early Learning, so that Primary schools can build on the benefits of pre-school education initiatives; and
• the bureaucratic burden on schools should be reduced. Thus data needed to operate the formula should, as far as possible, be collected using existing data bases and exploiting the CLASS system (para. 2.19).

3.2 The Key Principles

Arising from these policy considerations, para. 3.2 of the consultation document outlines the key principles intended to underpin any funding arrangements for schools. These are that:

• schools should be funded according to their relative need;
• school funding should be based on an objective and fair basis determined as far as possible by objective measures of the various factors which generate unavoidable, significant expenditure;
• the formula should support schools in delivering the curriculum;
• the formula should underpin and reinforce wider education policy and objectives;
• the formula should be as transparent and comprehensible as possible and predictable in its outcome; and
• the formula should be easy to administer and simple to operate in ELBs and in schools.

3.3 The Proposed Major Changes To The Current System

3.3.1 The Distribution of Funding between General Schools’ Budget and Aggregated Schools’ Budget

Given the different levels of the percentage delegation of the GSB in different formulae, DE offers two models of delegation in a common formula. These are the ‘Low’ ASB (the sum of the existing ASBs) and the ‘High’ ASB (using the higher levels delegated in some formulae).

It is proposed that levels of delegation of the GSB through the ASB, by ELBs should use the ‘High’ ASB model, in order to increase school budgets and support policy objectives. Using this model would move c. £15 million into the ASB from the GSB.

This would be introduced without additional funding for the system.

The level at which the ASB is to be set is subject to consultation. (see pp. 17-23 of consultation document).

3.3.2 The Number of Formulae

It is proposed that only one formula be used to fund all Grant-Aided schools. Each ELB would fund all the schools in its area, using the common formula. (see pp.119-120 of consultation document).

3.3.3 Common Factors and Weightings

It is proposed that the common formula be based on common factors, weighted to address the needs of all schools equitably and according to the basic principles of the Review.

• AWPUs: in order to skew resources towards younger children, AWPU weightings should be adjusted. However, Senior High schools should continue to receive a 10% increase in weighting for Key Stage 4 pupils. (see pp. 33 - 44 of consultation document)
• PUPIL COUNT: this should revert to the previous arrangements, i.e. based on the annual school census, with contingency arrangements to deal with changes in enrolment levels within the financial year. (see para. 5.6 of consultation document)
• PREMISES FACTOR: to be based partly on an amount per square metre of area and partly on unweighted pupil numbers. GMI and VG schools, responsible for their own landlord maintenance, to receive an additional amount per square metre. (see pp. 45-49 of consultation document)
• TARGETING SOCIAL NEED: the overall amount of TSN funding should rise from 5% to 5.5% of the total sum available for recurrent expenditure on schools. The social deprivation and educational need factors should be more clearly defined, and funded on a 50:50 basis using clear educational indicators. Primary and Post-Primary schools would use different indicators and schools would be obliged to account annually for their TSN expenditure. (see pp. 10-11 and 51-68 of consultation document)
• SMALL SCHOOLS’ SUPPORT FACTOR: Primary schools of less than 300 pupils and Post-Primary schools with less than 550 pupils should receive extra funding, on a sliding scale, to assist with teachers’ salary costs. (pp. 69-72 of consultation document)
• TEACHER SALARY PROTECTION FACTOR: a sliding scale should be used to extend this factor and provide additional funding for schools with fewer than 25 teachers. (pp. 73-82 of consultation document)
• SPORTS FACTOR (NEW): extra funding will enable all schools to give pupils access to the physical education curriculum, irrespective of whether schools already have facilities. (pp. 83-87 of consultation document)
• ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN VG AND GMI SCHOOLS: applies only to these schools in recognition of their additional spending responsibilities. Amounts between £16,000 and £95,000 will be paid. (pp. 89-91 of consultation document)
• SUPPORT FOR TRAVELLER CHILDREN: funding for qualifying pupils to be brought onto a consistent footing across funding authorities. (pp. 107-109 of consultation document)
• SUPPORT FOR ENGLISH AS AN ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE: funding for qualifying pupils to be brought onto a consistent footing across funding authorities. (pp. 111-112 of consultation document)
• SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN OF SERVICE PERSONNEL: funding for qualifying pupils to be brought onto a consistent footing across funding authorities. (pp. 113-114 of consultation document)
• SUPPORT FOR IRISH-MEDIUM SCHOOLS AND UNITS: funding for this factor to be brought onto a consistent footing across funding authorities. (pp. 103-106 of consultation document)
• SCHOOLS WITH SPLIT SITES: funding for this factor to be brought onto a consistent footing across funding authorities. (pp. 93-98 of consultation document)
• SPECIAL UNIT FACTOR: funding for this factor to be brought onto a consistent footing across funding authorities. (see pp. 99-102 of consultation document)

3.3.4 Transition Arrangements

Since individual schools will gain and others lose under common funding arrangements, DE proposes a 3-year ‘cushioning’ transition period, so that no school will lose more than 2% of its budget per annum. (pp. 121-122 of consultation document)

3.3.5 The Likely Impact of Changes

These will vary according to which level of delegation of the GSB is decided upon. Overall variations, based on assumptions outlined on pp.131-135 and 148-151 of the consultation document, are as follows:

High Delegation: High ASB

Impact by Phase of Schooling (p.132)

• Nursery phase gains by 2%
• Primary phase gains by 4%
• Secondary phase gains by c.1%
• Grammar phase gains by less than 1%
• GMI phase gains by less than 1%.

High Delegation: High ASB

Impact by ELB, VG, & GMI (p.133)

• BELB loses by less than 1%
• NEELB gains by nearly 4%
• SEELB gains by 1.5%
• SELB gains by just over 2%
• WELB gains by c. 5.5%
• VG & GMI gain by c. 0.5%.

High Delegation: High ASB

Impact by School Management Type (p.134)

• Schools under Catholic management gain by c.2%
• Schools under non-Catholic management gain by c.2%
• GMI schools gain by c.0.5%.

High Delegation: High ASB

Impact by School Sector (p.135)

• All sectors, except GMI Secondary schools, gain: Primary sectors gain most, then Nursery, then Post-Primary
• GMI Secondary sector loses by c. 0.5%.

Low Delegation: Low ASB

Impact by Phase of Schooling (p.148)

• Primary phase gains by c2%: all other phases lose.

Low Delegation: Low ASB

Impact by ELB, VG, & GMI (p.149)

• BELB loses by 2.5%
• SEELB loses by c. 0.5%
• VG & GMI lose by c. 1.5%
• SELB gains by c. 0.25%
• NEELB gains by c. 1%
• WELB gains by c. 4%.

Low Delegation: Low ASB

Impact by School Management Type (p.150)

• Very little change for school types, other than GMI, which loses by c. 1.5%.

Low Delegation: Low ASB

Impact by School Sector (p.151)

• Controlled, Maintained and GMI Primary gain (by 1 – 2%)
• All other sectors lose, Nursery least (less than 0.5%), GMI Secondary most (just over 2%).

The Revised Illustrative Outcomes for individual schools are presented in the addendum to the consultation document, issued in May 2001.

3.3.6 Equality Impact Assessment

P.123 of the consultation document sets out the statutory requirements for an equality impact assessment. Subsequent sections indicate that such assessment needs to be conducted for the following groups only:

• between persons of different religious belief;
• between persons of different racial group;
• between persons of different age; and
• between persons with a disability and those without.

Steps to be taken in order to fulfil statutory requirements, including formal consultation, are outlined.

3.3.7 The Implications of Such Changes on the Overall Funding System for Schools

Pages 6 to 7 of the consultation document identify some important implications of the proposed changes in relation to the determination of the Aggregated Schools’ Budget under commonality. At present, although on average 70% of the General Schools’ Budget is allocated to schools through the ASB, the range of delegation is between 67% to 74%. This reflects local ELB decisions about how best to fund local needs. However the Department proposes that, in order to maximise resources available for classroom improvement, the Common Funding Formula should work to bring levels of delegation across ELBs onto a more consistent, higher level. This is described as the ‘high’ ASB model.

The main change will be that, because the Department will set the common monetary values of each factor, the size of the ASB for each ELB will be determined centrally. There will be no opportunity for any ELB, for example, to put additional funding into a locally-important factor such as small schools, or an above-average need for Free School Meals.

A further effect of this change will be that commonality will determine the amount of funding remaining in ELB block grants to fund other services to, and on behalf of schools. In para. xiv.iii of the document, the Department reiterates its commitment to work towards the ‘high’ ASB approach to commonality, and indicates that this is likely to require a substantial realignment of other budgets to move approximately £15 million overall into the ASB. If this decision is implemented, some ELBs will have difficulty in maintaining their services to schools unless additional funding is made available for the GSB.

Top

4. REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE

Evidence to the Committee was presented in three modes. Statutory and other regional bodies were invited to pre-submit a brief paper which indicated their three major concerns. All of those bodies did so, and their papers are presented as Appendix 2 to this Report. In addition, they and other respondents who attended evidence sessions responded to questions from members of the Committee. This oral evidence is presented as Minutes of Evidence at Appendix 4. Finally, some supplementary evidence relating to specific details of the Committee’s investigation was provided by the Assembly Research and Library Service as well as from respondents from a range of bodies, including officers of NISRA, ELBs, DE, regional bodies and two local authorities in Scotland.

This section of the Report focuses on a detailed summary of the evidence presented, both written and oral, highlighting the key issues raised.

4.1 The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

CCMS did not identify three key issues, but presented a distillation of issues agreed between NICIE, CCMS and the Governing Bodies’ Association (GBA). These were:

(a) Support for the introduction of a Common Formula.

(b) Support for the principle of as much delegation as possible to schools, but not to include non-educational matters such as school meals, transport, redundancy payments etc., which should be centrally administered.

(c) The review of funding should take account of other major ongoing reviews of the education system.

(d) The targeting of resources to early years should not be at the expense of the post-primary phase. Re-prioritisation or re-allocation of non-school resources should be the mechanism for managing this; equally, support for small schools should not be at the expense of larger schools.

(e) Any removal of teacher salary costs from delegated budgets or any central determination of teacher complements for schools would be unacceptable.

(f) TSN allocations should be accounted for. Also, centrally-held TSN resources should be allocated by the Department and ELBs within a framework agreed by all of the education partners.

(g) Schools with large numbers of disadvantaged pupils on roll must be funded to recognise the difficulties of their situations.

(h) The proposals do not adequately reflect differentials in school provision and school context. CCMS supports the intention to benefit as many schools as possible, and notes that 35% of schools provide education for 70% – 75% of the school population.

4.2 The Governing Bodies’ Association

The submission of the GBA also itemised a number of points:

(a) The introduction of LMS has been beneficial to schools, and the determination of teacher staffing levels, pay structures and performance management must be retained within schools.

(b) The targeting of resources to early years should not be at the expense of other sectors of schooling.

(c) School Governors need adequate resources to meet the needs of their schools. The acceptability of proposals for the common formula will be dependent on whether the AWPU value provides adequate resources.

(d) The proposal to increase the overall level of TSN funding needs to be clarified.

(e) The proposals should have provided school-level data to inform schools of the impact of the various funding models, and the weightings of factors proposed. Schools must be given detailed figures in order to fulfil the requirement for transparency. The proposals also lack clarity about the amounts of money to be withheld at the centre and the purposes to which it will be put.

(f) The lack of information about the condition of the school estate and the failure to take account of age, construction and other property-related matters continues to create inequality of treatment.

(g) The introduction of a common formula should pave the way for the creation of a central funding agency for schools. This would reduce the amount of duplication of services and associated administrative costs.

4.3 Belfast Education and Library Board

The Belfast Board (BELB) has engaged in wide consultation about the proposals with Board members, Governors and Principals. It considers the three major issues emerging from consultation to be:

(a) The Proposals for the ‘high’ and ‘low’ ASB models of Funding.

The ‘low’ ASB model:

• because of BELB’s tradition of maximising the size of the ASB, significant cuts have already been made in centrally-held budgets, in particular resources on Headquarters’ services;
• if this model is adopted, schools in the BELB area will lose funding of about £2.4 million to bring them down to the Northern Ireland average; and
• BELB is totally opposed to the ‘low’ ASB model because, even on higher levels of funding, growing numbers of schools are operating in a deficit situation (64 out of 143, in 2000/2001). Falling enrolments are likely to exacerbate this situation, and it is likely that c. 80 teachers will have to become redundant.

The ‘high’ ASB model:

• the introduction of this model will require careful management. In particular, it will require the provision of additional funding or a realignment of existing funding of c. £15 million to divert into school budgets. The method of achieving this additional finance must be transparent, especially in the determination of the Annual Assessment of Relative Needs Exercise to allocate funding between the five ELBs;
• the implementation of commonality will have to address whether funding for centrally-held funds is adequate to provide proper support for these services to schools; and
• the model will transfer funds between ELBs, and from Post-Primary to Primary schools. In consultation, Principals of Primary schools welcomed additional resources, but without exception they felt that this should not be achieved at the expense of the other phase.

BELB supports the ‘high’ ASB model, subject to reassurances about the points immediately above.

(b) The Proposals for Targeting Social Need

Many BELB schools lie at the heart of severely disadvantaged communities where there are obvious inequalities in employment, health, housing, social inclusion and educational achievement. Levels of educational achievement in the area are below the Northern Ireland averages at Key Stages 1 and 2, transfer test results, GCSE scores and post-16 results. There are also significant differences in attainment between boys and girls.

BELB believes that TSN funding should be increased from 5% to 5.5% of the total schools’ recurrent budget, and raises a number of related points:

• in order to deal with the complexity of identifying social disadvantage, alternative and additional indicators to the current Free School Meals indicator should be explored;
• the proposal to use end of Key Stage 2 (KS2) or Key Stage 3 (KS3) results to identify special educational needs is neither reliable nor valid;
• current changes to the Northern Ireland Curriculum and to assessment processes will require ongoing review of appropriate indicators of educational need;
• any use of end of Key Stage results to identify educational need will penalise schools with improving levels of educational attainment; and
• in qualifying for TSN funding in Nursery schools, the current indicators are too restrictive and should be supplemented by other Government schemes or training programmes.

(c ) Proposals for the Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries

Evidence from BELB schools shows that the proportion of school spending used to fund teachers’ salaries can vary from between 52%–100%, giving some schools considerable flexibility in spending on non-teaching costs whilst others have little or no such opportunity.

Proposals to continue to fund teachers’ salaries at average, rather than actual costs should be reviewed. A move to such a system has considerable support from schools and would not remove teaching costs from LMS budgets. Instead, agreed teaching complements would be funded at actual costs and Governors would have flexibility to make local decisions on whether to employ more or less than the agreed complement. Thus, local accountability can be retained.

The need to extend the teacher salary protection to greater numbers of schools is an indication that the current average cost-based system is flawed. In BELB 69 schools are currently eligible for support under this factor. In the new arrangements, 113 schools (80%) would qualify, suggesting that funding on an average cost basis is unsuitable for the great majority of schools.

The Board recommends that the implementation of commonality should be preceded by a detailed examination of the desirability of funding actual, rather than average teacher costs.

4.4 Comhairle Na Gaelscolaíochta

The Comhairle identified three general areas of concern:

(a) The Added Workload of Teachers in Irish-Medium schools

In general these are generated by the need for teachers to translate materials into Irish, and to work more closely with parents who do not speak Irish.

It is therefore recommended that the sum of £100 proposed in paragraph 14.9 of the consultation document should be raised to £350 to take account of such costs. For Post-Primary schools the sum of £25 proposed should be raised to £100 to allow for additional staff for translation and substitute cover.

(b) The Pupil-Teacher Ratio in Irish-Medium schools

It is considered that, to ensure the success of Irish-Medium schooling, a small Pupil-Teacher Ratio is essential. Classes should not contain more than 20 pupils.

In addition, the introduction of English as a fourth core subject in Key Stage 2 adds to the need to protect low Pupil-Teacher Ratios in the upper Primary school.

It is recommended therefore that Pupil Teacher Ratios in Irish Medium Schools and Irish-Medium Units should not be more than 15:1 in composite classes, and 20: 1 in single year classes.

(c ) Issues relating to Irish-Medium Units attached to English-Medium schools

Because Irish-Medium units operate as self-contained provision under the management of the host schools, they have additional administrative costs due to the need to provide documentation in both Irish and English. In addition, these units suffer all of the same difficulties as small schools with teaching Principals.

To address these issues, the Comhairle recommends that the lump sum figure payable to Irish-Medium units should be raised in line with that paid to other small schools (from £31,918 to £34,819), and this should be available to units from the time of their start-up.

In order to ensure that the management of Irish-Medium units is effective, funding should be provided to appoint a designated coordinator of the unit to the Senior Management Team of the host school.

4.5 Western Education and Library Board

The Board identified three main issues arising from the consultation proposals:

(a) The Proposals for the Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries

The proposals fail to clarify the full extent of the variances in cash terms which can occur between the staffing costs of similar schools. From an illustration of two 5-teacher schools, provided by the Board, it can be seen that when the proposed arrangements for dealing with above-average salaries are taken into account, there remains a net difference of c.16% (£22,000) between the teacher salary costs of the two schools in a likely overall budget of £170,000.

WELB believes that such differential outcomes between two otherwise similar schools demonstrates that the proposed arrangements cannot be said to be funding schools ‘according to relative need’. Instead, the Board believes that the interests of schools in general would be served best by the removal of basic salary costs from delegated budgets, even though this would be inconsistent with the principles of LMS. Further, the Board would wish that a careful study be taken of alternative arrangements used in Scotland, since these enjoy a wide degree of public acceptance.

(b) The Funding of Small Schools

Under the proposals for commonality, small schools in both phases will receive substantial extra support. WELB is, however, concerned that this arrangement will skew disproportionate amounts of already-limited resources to these schools. Instead the Board suggests that the lump sum payable to small schools should be pitched at a more modest level, with provision for extra resources to be allocated for earmarked centrally managed funds in cases of clearly identified need.

In addition, commonality should include funding, preferably on a ring-fenced basis, to release teaching Principals from teaching duties for one day per week.

(c) The Need for the Common Formula to be matched by a New Mechanism for the Distribution of Resources by the Department of Education among Funding Authorities.

WELB agrees that more funds should be delegated to schools provided that any such increase does not lead to a reduction in the funding available to the Board itself for the range of services for which it retains central responsibility. If the Common Funding Formula identifies a need for additional classroom resources, the necessary additional funding must be made available to ELBs. Otherwise, the Board will experience insuperable problems in sustaining its existing level of centrally provided services to schools.

Thus the Common Funding Formula must be matched by a completely new mechanism for the sharing out of resources by DE between funding authorities.

4.6 North Eastern Education and Library Board

The three major issues identified by NEELB were:

(a) The Implications of a Common Funding Formula on ELB Services and Resources.

The Board believes that the consultation document does not give sufficient consideration to the implications of the proposals:

• the Department has failed to explore either the implications of the ‘high’ ASB model or possible sources for the £15 million additional funding to go into school budgets;
• the introduction of commonality should mean a standardisation of ELB central services to schools, as well as of formula factors and weightings; and
• the absence of necessary details in the proposals means that schools are unable to establish whether they will ‘gain’ or ‘lose’ under the proposals.

(b) The Proposals for the Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries

Current funding arrangements penalise schools with mature teaching staffs and ELBs have made representations to the Department on this issue over several years. A better arrangement, recommended by all the ELBs would be one which would provide in full the cost of an approved teaching cohort for a school, with the balance of the school’s delegated resources being available to deploy appropriately.

Common Funding Formula proposals do not address this issue. This means that two schools of similar characteristics will receive similar funding, but where the teaching costs of the school differ significantly, then what those schools can afford to buy will also differ significantly.

(c) The Proposals for Targeting Social Need

The Board has not yet seen evidence to demonstrate that existing TSN funding is having the desired impact on defined outcomes. Without such evidence, the Board is opposed to the extension of TSN funding from 5% to 5.5%.

In establishing the levels of educational need in schools, the Board supports the use of educational indicators, rather than the use of FSM entitlement. However, this is an appropriate indicator for establishing levels of social disadvantage.

4.7 The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education

NICIE, in identifying three key themes, has restricted its response to items specific to Grant Maintained Integrated (GMI) schools. The main themes identified were:

(a) Age-Weighted Pupil Units

Under either the ‘high’ or ‘low’ ASB models proposed, the level of AWPU funding for pupils in GMI schools will be reduced, either by £181.53 (‘high’), or £214.34. This will lead to an overall substantial reduction in funding for GMI schools.

Although NICIE welcomes the Common Funding Formula in principle, it argues that additional support costs for GMI schools should be built into the proposals since these schools do not benefit from the full range of ELB expenditure.

In the setting-up process of a new school, where additional non-pupil costs are incurred, funding based on AWPUs may not be an appropriate funding mechanism.

NICIE feels that the proposals for a 10% increase in enrolment to be the trigger for additional contingency funding is not appropriate for growing schools. Instead, the trigger point should be set at 5%.

The level of the AWPU should be set three years in advance, in order to facilitate forward planning. In addition, Key Stage 3 and 4 pupils should be weighted more heavily vis-à-vis pupils in Sixth Forms.

(b) Administration and other costs unique to GMI Schools

The proposals to fund GMI schools for such costs cannot be mutually agreed at present from expenditure figures. Thus, the GMI sector believes that this element of the Common Funding Formula should accurately reflect the needs of the sector and that all additional costs should be met. Information to provide indicative per pupil costs for administration in GMI schools were provided for two schools.

The proposal to base funding for VAT payments through the premises factor of the Common Funding Formula was not considered appropriate and this would be likely to cap necessary expenditure. Instead, GMI schools’ liability to pay VAT should be removed.

(c ) Transitional Funding Arrangements

NICIE considers that the proposed three year transition period for full budget adjustment is inadequate, and recommends a five year period instead.

(d) Other General Issues

• NICIE would wish to see further delegation of responsibilities and associated funding to schools, to include curriculum and staff development;
• the Council stressed the need for funding changes to be considered in tandem with other major revisions of the education system;
• the Council does not consider that the proposals will make school funding arrangements more transparent or more simple. In particular, the absence of school-level data makes it impossible to compare current funding levels with proposed ones; and
• NICIE would welcome the creation of a centralized funding agency for all schools.

4.8 Southern Education and Library Board

SELB has been engaged in a wide ranging consultation about commonality with Board members, Governors and Principals. Six sessions were held in May for discussions with Governors and Principals, and the proposals were also discussed in the Primary and Secondary Teachers’ Consultative Committees. The Board itself discussed the proposals at its September meeting.

The Board identified three main issues arising from the consultation proposals:

(a) The Policy Context

Because the Department has not made available any information about the source of additional resources and the consequences of re-directing resources through commonality, the Board does not have the necessary information to make a meaningful reply. While the Board is very supportive of increasing the level of resources delegated to schools, it needs to understand where these resources will come from and what the possible impact of this will be on other essential Board services, in particular those arising from the provision of schooling to a widely dispersed rural population.

(b) Rural Schools

Because of demographic trends, more and more schools will fall into the small schools category and will be funded through this factor and the teacher salary protection factor. The Board’s policy is to provide a viable network of rural schools, which because of diseconomies of scale, require relatively greater support for effective management and for delivery of the full curriculum. It is therefore supportive in general of the proposals for small schools and teacher salary protection but has some concerns.

At present, 96% of SELB Primary schools and 17% of Post-Primary schools have less than 25 teachers. In the primary sector of 144 schools, 78 are in deficit. The Board therefore questions whether current and proposed arrangements to fund teacher salaries at average costs should be reconsidered. If salaries were to be funded on actual cost basis, using a centrally-determined Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) for schools of different sizes in different sectors, this would permit the replacement of the present AWPU, small schools protection and teacher salary protection factors, and thus simplify and make more transparent the overall system.

SELB would therefore encourage the Department to explore proposals already provided to it about the need to fund teacher salaries at actual cost and to provide the necessary statistical/consultancy support, in order to provide evidence for a rigorous debate on the issue.

(c ) Special Units

SELB is unique in Northern Ireland in that provision for pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties is totally organised within 66 Units attached to mainstream schools. There are no special schools for such pupils. Each Unit is centrally funded for the full costs of teachers and classroom assistants and additionally each pupil is weighted 0.9 AWPU, and each Unit receives a £4000 lump sum annually. This currently generates to the Board an additional cost of £531,655 per annum. The consultation proposal is to remove the lump sum and to reduce the per pupil funding. In addition, SELB provides c. 400 places in Special Schools for children with Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD).

The SELB arrangements are based on a commitment to the inclusion of these pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties to be educated as far as possible with their peers. All children in these units have statements of special educational needs and recent inspection by the Education and Training Inspectorate has commended the Board’s integration policies. However, such good practice is the result of adequately funding the efforts of committed members of staff in the Units and is unlikely to be sustained with the proposed reductions in funding levels.

Such cuts may also result in the withdrawal of support for Units from the mainstream schools which presently accommodate them. As provision for pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties in Special Schools is significantly more expensive that that in Units, SELB argues that the funding of Units should continue as at present in its formula.

4.9 South Eastern Education and Library Board

The three major issues identified by SEELB were:

(a) The Proposals for the Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries

The current practice of funding teachers’ salaries at average cost causes significant anomalies and financial pressures to many schools and should be reviewed.

In addition, the proposal to extend the salary protection factor to a larger number of schools means that this ‘exceptional’ factor is likely to apply to the majority of schools in Northern Ireland. If the proposed formula cannot allocate to the majority of schools without an adjustment for teachers’ salaries, then the basis of the formula must be questioned.

Although the Association of Chief Executive’s of ELBs has requested that the Department carry out research into different methodologies of funding teachers’ salaries, this has not happened to date.

SEELB notes that the Teacher Unions also support a review of how teaching costs are treated.

(b) The Proposal to use Key Stage 2 Results in allocating funding for Educational Underachievement.

The Board feels that these tests are unsuitable for such use: they were not designed to underpin the allocation of funding, and will penalise schools which make significant improvement to pupil attainment. A funding formula should not encourage poor standards and low achievement.

Instead, in the primary phase, baseline testing should be used to identify educational underachievement.

(c ) The Introduction of a New Scheme with no Additional Funding for Education

In proposals for both ‘high’ and ‘low’ ASB models, it is likely that without additional funding the 4% of monies transferred to the primary phase will be to the detriment of the post-primary phase.

Under the proposed new arrangements, central determination of the ASB will, by extension, also determine the GSB for each ELB. This could lead to a situation in which ELBs have a statutory duty to provide services, but no ability to determine the level of funding deemed necessary to support these.

Such centralisation will prevent ELBs from exercising discretion to meet the needs and priorities of children in their areas.

4.10 The Equality Commission

The Commission welcomes the proposals to simplify school funding arrangements through the introduction of a Common Funding Formula. It recommends that the review process is used to ameliorate as far as possible the effects of social disadvantage on educational outcomes, in particular that the funding system should address issues of multiple disadvantage which are underpinned in the Northern Ireland school system by social class disparities, combined with dimensions of gender, disability, religion and ethnicity. It expresses concern at the potential pressures on ELB services to schools under any ‘high’ ASB model of funding and wishes to be assured that these will not be threatened.

Specific issues and concerns were also identified:

(a) Additional Principle

The Commission supports the inclusion of an additional key principle to underpin the proposed changes, i.e. that schools should be funded to assist with mitigating the effects of social disadvantage.

(b) AWPU Factor

The Commission supports the proposal to increase overall funding to the primary phase of schooling but finds unacceptable the proposal to continue to fund c. 30% of the teaching costs of the Preparatory Departments of Grammar Schools; such funding is not in accord with the objective of delivering equality of opportunity

(c) Grounds and Premises Costs

The Commission recommends that the differential outcomes of per pupil spending in Protestant and Catholic Grammar schools under the present premises and grounds factor should be carefully reviewed.

(d) Targeting Social Need

• the Commission is concerned that the amount of overall funding for TSN should be sufficient, and that funding for individual schools should as far as possible compensate for social disadvantage, in order to improve the educational achievement of disadvantaged groups. The Commission questions whether the proposed increase in TSN funding from 5% to 5.5% will be adequate;
• the Commission does not accept the principle that it is necessary for schools to relate the amount of per pupil spending to address social disadvantage directly to those matters which actually give rise to extra costs. Schools should be free to put in place strategies appropriate to their particular circumstances, using available funding from any element of the budget;
• in considering the proposed arrangements for funding pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, the Commission notes the increased difficulties for schools with high numbers of such pupils. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the additional funding per qualifying pupil should rise as the proportion of children entitled to FSM increases, e.g. as the school has FSM proportions of 10%, 20%, 30%, etc.; and
• in the funding of educationally disadvantaged pupils, the Commission would wish the Department to consider whether the proposed indicators are the best available options.

(e) Sports Factor

In the proposals for the introduction of a Sports factor, the Commission supports the proposal to relate funding to the school’s enrolment.

(f) Units for Children with Special Educational Needs

The Commission strongly supports the integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream education, and supports the proposal to continue to fund such units. In addition, funds to support such integration into mainstream classrooms should be provided through the AWPU factor.

(g) Support for Children from Traveller Families

The Commission welcomes the proposal to standardise support for schools educating children of Traveller families and recommends that the adequacy of the proposed per pupil amount is kept under review.

(h) Support for Children with English as an Additional Language

The Commission welcomes the proposal to standardise support for schools educating children for whom English is an additional language but feels that the two-year support period is too limited. It recommends that research is undertaken to provide evidence about children’s progress in the use of English.

4.11 Principals of Primary Schools

Mr M Lombard, Holy Trinity Primary School, Belfast

Holy Trinity is a recently amalgamated co-educational school, with accommodation for 1,600 pupils. Sixty-five percent of pupils are entitled to Free School Meals, and thirty-five percent of pupils are from Traveller families. The main issues highlighted by Mr Lombard included:

• although Local Management of Schools was imposed on schools in Northern Ireland, and required Principals to develop new skills, they have now become accustomed to it. A favourable aspect is the independence when deciding on the number of teachers in the school. However, since c.90% of the budget is spent on salaries and utilities, there is little room for local discretion;
• the small schools lobby is able to exercise undue influence in funding decisions. While 65% of schools are small, they serve only 25% of pupils; 35% of schools serve 75% of pupils. More rationalisation of small schools should occur;
• Free School Meals eligibility is a good indicator of social need, but there may be other needs in schools with lower levels of deprivation and these are not acknowledged through the formula at present;
• weightings for nursery pupils should be at the same level for Nursery schools and for units attached to Primary schools. Otherwise, the Primary school is subsidising the Nursery unit children;
• the proposal to use Key Stage Two results, as an indicator of educational need is not appropriate. There are reservations about the internal validity and reliability of the tests and whether they achieve their purposes. In addition, for Primary schools, there would be a punitive element; with greater improvement in educational attainment, a school’s funding for educational need will decrease; and
• part of the formula funds should be reserved for schools with high concentrations of pupils with special needs. The Warnock formula should perhaps be applied to all schools, since, for a variety of reasons, it is difficult in some schools to raise children’s IQ levels.

Mrs D Ferguson, Loanends Primary School, Co. Antrim

This rural school has 134 pupils on roll, in a 93-year old building. Four of the six classrooms are in mobiles, and the school is very stretched for accommodation. Pupils largely come from farming families, who although they have a limited academic tradition, are supportive of the school. No child is entitled to Free School Meals. The main issues highlighted by Mrs Ferguson included:

• the current system makes it very difficult to manage the budget, and although the proposal to allocate more money to the primary sector is welcome, it is unlikely to be adequate. Although Primary schools are required to provide a broad balanced curriculum, a primary pupil only attracts 65% of the funding of a post-primary pupil;
• Primary schools deal with the whole range of pupil abilities, so class sizes must be small enough for teachers to do so. Children’s attitudes to learning are adopted while at Primary school, so needs must be identified as early as possible;
• the monies currently targeted at educational needs are inadequate. At present, teachers must spend their lunch break doing extra work with children. This cannot address the problem. The school has had to bid for additional funding in order to develop a Reading Recovery programme;
• children in the school are experiencing failure, and the school has neither time nor resources to address these issues. There are no funds for a specialist teacher. One explanation for this is that, because the school has no entitlement to Free School Meals-based funding, high levels of educational need are not recognised. Educational need funding should be based on the numbers of pupils involved in each stage of the Code of Practice; and
• under a ‘high’ ASB model of Common Funding Formula, the school might gain £10,000, under a ‘low’ ASB about £6,000. Neither amount would be adequate; at least £30,000 is necessary. In the school at present, staff understand the financial difficulties and work as a team to provide the best education they can. Even so, in order to make savings, the Principal is not paid on the recommended scale, the school has no Vice-Principal and there is only one promoted post. There is a need to bid for money from all new initiatives, and it has required staff sacrifices and commitment to get as much money as possible into the classroom.

Ms J Houston, Hazelwood Integrated Primary School, Belfast

This was the first planned Integrated Primary school. Initially, the school was not grant-aided for two years, then was maintained for two years, and became Grant-Maintained following 1989. There have been advantages and disadvantages from that status. Governors have freedom to meet local demands to meet the aims of integration, and can carry money forward to create 3-year plans which work. A new school building in 1996 has been wonderful. Since then, the school has been over-subscribed, and now has more than 1,200 pupils on roll.

Some disadvantages relate to the misconceptions about GMI schools among other sectors. Largely this is because the GMI sector has not properly explained the needs for additional funding, e.g. for items such as VAT liability, audit, payroll and insurance. Without increased funding for these items, the sector could not operate. Another disadvantage is the lack of statutory support for the Governors or the Principals, who need expertise across a range of sectors relating to these responsibilities.

The school attracts a high number of challenging children and children with special needs. Many have come because of the child-centred ethos of the school, and this has not been recognised in the system. Under the current budget, 2 or 3 classroom assistants have been made redundant this year. This causes difficulties, especially if, towards the end of the financial year, additional funding is made available, but too late to save the posts. Other issues highlighted included:

• the new proposals are equitable across sections, but the school is unlikely to gain additional funding. Since the school has now been in existence for 16 years, the age and experience of the teaching staff has increased salary costs, leaving significantly less disposable income. The school cannot afford a Reading Recovery teacher;
• pupil safety is an issue in north Belfast, and the school has been subjected to vandalism following rioting. This has created difficulties in claiming compensation from the Northern Ireland Office, especially since there seems to be no support for the Principal;
• through the Common Funding Formula, the Principal’s job will be easier if others perceive that the GMI sector is being treated fairly, in light of its additional responsibilities. However the school’s budget is very tight. Class sizes of 30 are uniform, but too large when children are disaffected and exhibiting challenging behaviour;
• if GMI schools are to be protected, there must be sufficient funding to meet the needs, and schools must be treated equitably across Northern Ireland. A central funding agency might be a fairer system than 5 ELBs; and
• the growth of the school in a divided area of Belfast has demonstrated the success of integrated education. This has been due to unbelievably hard work from individuals who have worked way beyond their call of duty.

Mr M Crudden, St. Nicholas’ Primary School

Mr Crudden is a teaching Principal in a school of 133 pupils, which has a declining roll. There are two composite classes in the school (P1/P2 and P2/P3). There are five teachers and an inherited budget deficit of £52,000. The teaching Principal teaches 4 days each week and uses the fifth day for administrative duties. Although the school is described as a small rural school, its proximity to Belfast negates that.

The school’s current budget allocation is £245,000, some of which comes from special initiatives funding for Primary 1 and special needs. However, because of wider financial difficulties, the initiatives funding is not spent to its intended purposes. Staffing and maintenance costs use 98% of the budget, leaving c.£45 per pupil to cover classroom needs. This is not sufficient.

However, continuing financial pressure requires ongoing savings, including teacher and secretarial staff redundancies. These have damaging effects. Teacher redundancy creates composite classes, which are unpopular with parents and damage enrolment. Lack of secretarial support adds to the burden of the teaching Principal’s duties. Teachers are also encouraged to contribute to reducing costs, by undertaking additional, unpaid duties, by turning off heat in classrooms and by economising on classroom materials. Only the professionalism and dedication of the staff allows the school to operate. Other issues Mr Crudden highlighted included:

• using only Free School Meals eligibility as an indicator of need is often limiting. It does not address the range of problems of deprivation, and means that some schools with low FSM levels do not get the necessary help;
• if an additional £15 million is to be included in delegated budgets, this money must not be taken from elsewhere in the system; it must be genuinely additional;
• no further responsibilities should be delegated to schools; and
• schools with teaching Principals should receive additional support to enable them to fulfil their administrative role. The money currently spent to do this could then be freed up for the benefit of children.

Ms A Andrews, Gaelscoil na bhFál, Belfast

This is an Irish-Medium Primary school, founded in 1987, the second such school in Belfast. The Principal has been involved in Irish Medium education since 1978. The school was funded by parents until 1991, when it gained maintained status. In 1999 the school moved to purpose-built accommodation. There are 175 children on roll at present and the school is still growing. Free School Meal entitlement is 57% and all pupils come from English-speaking families.

The school’s financial situation is relatively healthy at present, due to lower-than-average teacher costs. The school is also over-cautious about spending as a result of its early history and there is a shortage of services in Irish available to buy into. All of these factors contribute to the current comfortable financial situation.

However, that situation is about to change, partly due to the increasing salary commitment as teachers move up the salary scale, partly because of increased overheads on the new accommodation and partly because of the growing availability of Irish-Medium services to buy into. Other issues highlighted by Ms Andrews included:

• the school welcomes a more equitable distribution of funds, but stresses the additional needs of the Irish- Medium sector. There are three levels to this: the second language situation, English as a further core subject at Key Stage 2, and the need for Irish-Medium materials. Taken together, these place heavy burdens on class teachers, which necessitates a low pupil-teacher ratio in both KS1 and KS2. Also, school clerical staff are involved in the production of curriculum material as well as their usual duties; and
• the Common Funding Formula should provide support for these expenditure needs in the long term.

4.12 Principals of Post-Primary Schools

Mrs G McCafferty, St. Cecilia’s College, Derry

The school is an 11 – 18 all-girls’ school with 930 pupils on roll. It is in a typical inner-city area. 59% of pupils are eligible for Free School Meals, so the school has a relatively high level of social deprivation. However, the school is over-subscribed and has examination results well above the Northern Ireland average for Secondary Schools. Other issues highlighted by Mrs McCafferty included:

• although supporting the proposal to move to a common funding formula, the school is very opposed to any proposal to remove teacher salary costs from the delegated budget. To do so would be to undermine the purpose of formula funding. The school has used productively the flexibility given under LMS to reduce class sizes and to introduce post-16 courses;
• the Common Funding Formula proposal to enhance funding for the primary phase is welcome. Early intervention in issues such as literacy, numeracy and attendance will benefit the secondary phase ultimately;
• there is a need for increased TSN funding. Social deprivation has a high and increasing impact on pupil attainment, motivation, attendance, self-esteem, literacy, numeracy and social development. The costs to the school of putting in pupil support systems to address these issues is very high. These include pastoral care initiatives, such as counselling and parental contact. Other initiatives include an internal reading centre, parent reading initiatives and the employment of special needs classroom assistants. In addition, the costs of the Special Needs Code of Practice have been high. Such initiatives are very worthy and good for pupils, but are generally instituted without additional funding to schools;
• it is important that the premises factor of the formula includes a weighting for the condition of buildings. The school has 23 electrically-heated mobile classrooms and the main building, too, is energy-inefficient;
• the introduction of a new sports factor is also welcomed. Without its own facilities, the school has had to hire facilities at considerable cost;
• the proposal for a 3-year transitional period is unfair. When LMS was introduced, larger schools subsidised that transitional period, and this should not happen again;
• current special initiatives funding arrangements operate to the financial disadvantage of schools with high examination results. Schools with similar levels of pupil deprivation, and low attainment are eligible for additional funding through all sorts of initiatives, but successful schools with these levels of deprivation do not qualify. This is unfair to teachers who feel that their hard work and success is being penalised, while lack of success is financially rewarded; and
• the need for additional funding to accompany policy changes is very important. A recent DE requirement to re-evaluate technician and ancillary posts will generate an increased salary liability for the school of c. £30,000 per annum. Without additional funding, the school will probably have to make a teacher redundant.

Mr G Mullan, Newtownhamilton High School, Co Armagh

At the time of Mr Mullan’s appointment in 1996, there were 103 pupils on roll. It was the smallest school in the SELB area. It serves a wide rural area of south Armagh, with c.80% of pupils travelling to school by bus. Since 1996 the roll has increased consistently and there are now 140 pupils, a 36% growth in five years. GCSE results have also improved: in 2001 72% of pupils gained 5+ GCSE grades A-C. Other issues highlighted by Mr Mullan included:

• the school faces huge financial problems. Out of a budget of £433,480 just over 90% is spent on staff salaries. From the remainder must come all expenditure on utilities, equipment and classroom needs. This requires constant savings, by limiting secretarial assistance and the number of promoted posts, and by always providing internal cover for absent teachers. In addition, the parents are very helpful, and the school provides evening classes for all members of the local community;
• a further mechanism for savings is the employment of part-time rather than full-time teachers. However, this also creates some difficulties for the school. In addition, neither the Principal nor Vice-Principal is paid the full rate for their posts;
• the proposals for the small schools factor generate concerns. The school is smaller than the minimum indicated for a Secondary school, and even with further growth in enrolment, could not accommodate 200 pupils;
• teachers’ salary costs should be retained within delegated budgets. This arrangement allowed the school to introduce Music as a GCSE option through the employment of a part-time teacher;
• the accommodation and amenities of the school building are so poor as to be described as depriving the pupils of opportunities. There is a lack of facilities for careers education, for sports, and for music. The condition of elderly mobile classrooms is also bad, but DE has not responded to information sent a year ago;
• it would be helpful if schools had advance financial information in order to plan ahead for 3 years. Current arrangements for threshold assessment for teachers illustrate the difficulty, as funding is only guaranteed for two years. Further, with threshold, a senior teacher at the school will be earning more than the Vice-Principal; and
• in general, the consultation document is to be commended.

Mr M Doherty, Ballynahinch High School, Co Down

The school has 366 pupils on roll, with 37 eligible for Free School Meals. This low proportion suggests that the school is likely to lose financially if commonality proposals give added emphasis to TSN. The school’s budget for 2002-03 will be c. £1,130,000, of which salaries will use c. 80%. Other issues highlighted by Mr Doherty included:

• the proposal to increase resources for the primary phase is necessary. However, Secondary schools will lose out if funds are shifted. Secondary education will always be more expensive to provide because of the specialist requirements. If commonality is to be implemented, there should be additional funding for the overall budget, otherwise some schools will be disadvantaged;
• the proposal to move to funding based on enrolment in the previous school census is welcomed. This will remove the need to forecast intake, which is difficult for small schools;
• staffing is a major problem in small schools. The small size of subject departments causes problems. Very often a department is staffed by only one teacher, and this situation can create curriculum and management difficulties in the event of teacher absence. The need to provide teaching staff to cover the full curriculum also generates high teacher costs;
• the proposal to focus on schools’ delegated budgets creates the proper emphasis but it is also necessary to look at the bigger picture. As a small school, there is a dependence on ELB central services, and any cut back in ELB services will create uncertainty. For example, if the costs of transport fell on the school, rather than the ELB, this would significantly reduce resources going into classrooms, even though the parent group attached to the school raises money for items which the budget does not cover; and
• the school is in competition for pupils, so it is important for the Principal to market the school among the 17 potential feeder Primary schools. A reduction of even a few pupils has a large impact on the budget, so commonality may mean reduced funding through AWPUs and Free School Meals. This is because there is a resistance among some rural families to claiming FSM, even when eligible to do so. Thus, any use of FSM eligibility as an indicator of need will not benefit the school.

Mr D O’Kelly, Lumen Christi College

The school opened in 1997 and is oversubscribed with A-grade transfer pupils.

Mr O’Kelly was on the original LMS Steering Committee when an officer of CCMS. The main issues highlighted by Mr O’Kelly included:

• in allocating funding, it is important to look at a school’s commitment, rather than at what a school gets, and Grammar schools have distinctive commitments. The absence of real data about the impact of Common Funding Formula proposals means that schools cannot yet determine whether they will ‘win’ or ‘lose’ under new arrangements. Once that information becomes available, there is likely to be strong debate;
• the Voluntary Grammar sector is very efficient in using its resources. Proposals for TSN are a particular concern, especially what the balance between social deprivation and educational need funding should be. It is inevitable that Catholic Voluntary Grammar schools will lose out under TSN proposals, as the level of educational need is low and any enhanced funding for that element will remove money from budgets. Such a development might constitute indirect discrimination;
• the weighting for post-16 pupils is a major concern for Grammar schools, as it does not reflect the change in the curriculum. More teacher time is now needed to deliver Key Skills and AS levels. This will also affect Secondary schools. Lumen Christi does not yet have Sixth Form classes, but other Voluntary Grammar schools will be affected badly;
• more money should be spent on schools. More curriculum and advisory support service money could be spent on bigger schools, although this could create difficulties for smaller schools which might not be able to afford to purchase in-service training;
• as a Voluntary Grammar school, the school is responsible for the provision of school meals. The school makes a profit from the meals service, and this is put back into the school; and
• any suggestion that teacher appointments or salaries should rest with the ELBs would be unwelcome. As managers of the Controlled sector, the Boards’ neutrality may be in doubt. It will be possible to pick up budget differences between schools from out-turn statements, but these will not show whether additional funding has been allocated for teachers.

4.13 Other Oral Evidence

Two further Committee sessions were held with the Minister of Education and officials from the Department, and with the Director of Educational Services of Angus Council, Scotland. The Minutes of Evidence of both sessions are attached to this Report at Appendix 4.

The session with the Department was mainly based on responses to Committee members’ questions, and the evidence of the Angus Director of Educational Services, Mr Craig Clement, is presented in detail in the section of this Report which deals with arrangements for the Treatment of Teachers’ Salary costs through Formula Funding.

Top

5. FINDINGS

The Committee derived the following findings from the consideration and analysis of the written and oral evidence before it.

5.1 General Issues Identified from within the Consultation Proposals

5.1.1 General Principles which should underpin a Common Funding Formula

While there appears to be general agreement around the appropriateness of the principles articulated by the Department of Education to underpin school funding arrangements, the Equality Commission proposed an additional principle: that school funding arrangements should work to ameliorate the effects of pupil disadvantage. The wording proposed (written evidence of the Equality Commission to the Education Committee, p.3) was:

"Schools should be funded to assist with mitigating the effects of social disadvantage."

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the proposed principle in the document that reads ‘Schools should be funded according to their relative need’ should be expanded to read ‘Schools should be funded according to their relative need including mitigating the effects of social disadvantage.’

5.1.2 The Effects on Education and Library Board Central Services

Given the Department of Education’s preference for a ‘High ASB’ model of delegation, which will put an additional £15 million into delegated school budgets, witnesses wished to know the source of this money, given that no transfer of responsibilities from ELBs to schools is proposed.

There were grave concerns at the effects on pupils if these monies were simply to be removed from the centrally-funded services to schools, provided at present by the ELBs and instead redistributed to schools through the formula. Such services include curriculum and other advice and support, home-to-school transport, psychology service, school meals, landlord maintenance services and some funding for special educational needs etc.

Education and Library Boards expressed extreme concern at these proposals, as did some Principals of small schools and the Equality Commission. These witnesses argued that if £15 million is to be added to delegated budgets, it should be additional to the current funding for the General Schools’ Budget, so that core services to schools do not suffer. However, in his evidence to the Committee, the Minister indicated that there was a possibility that the ELBs would be required to make some efficiency savings to contribute towards further delegation into school budgets.

RECOMMENDATION

While the Committee supports the need to target resources as far as possible into school classrooms, it is very concerned at the likely negative impact on ELB central services to pupils and classrooms of the Department’s proposal to transfer £15 million from the General Schools’ Budget into schools’ delegated budgets.

The Committee recommends that if additional monies are to be delegated to schools, these should not require any transfer of funding from existing General Schools’ Budgets and should be without detriment to current levels of ELB central services to schools.

5.1.3 Changes in the Distribution of Responsibilities between Education and Library Boards and Schools

The consultation document (paragraph 2.11) expresses the Department of Education’s view that there should not be any change in the current distribution of responsibilities between Funding Authorities and School Governing Bodies. However, there was some divergence of views between witnesses on this matter.

Principals of small Post-Primary and Primary schools were reluctant to accept any further delegation of responsibilities. However, Principals of large schools and officers of CCMS, NICIE and the GBA indicated a wish for some further delegation of responsibility with associated funding, in particular that of curriculum and staff development, which is currently provided by the ELBs’ Curriculum and Advisory Support Services.

Education and Library Board witnesses expressed the view that Controlled and Maintained schools’ tenant responsibility for the maintenance of premises might be transferred back to the ELBs, because the condition of the school estate had deteriorated as a result of expenditure of maintenance monies on other elements of expenditure. This view was confirmed by evidence from a Principal.

RECOMMENDATION

While acknowledging views about the added flexibility which might result for some schools from delegating further responsibilities and associated funding into school budgets, the Committee is concerned that this may lead to diseconomies of scale in the provision of these services. The Committee also expresses its concern about the pressure on some schools to divert funding allocated for premises maintenance into other areas of spending and the associated deterioration of the school estate.

The Committee therefore agrees with the Department that the division of responsibilities between ELBs and schools should not be altered at present. The Committee, however, recommends that the division of responsibilities should be reviewed in due course in light of the results of the forthcoming Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland.

5.2 Targeting Social Need

5.2.1 The Basis of the Levels of Funding for TSN

The Department of Education’s assumptions underpinning the proposed changes in the levels of TSN funding have been generally questioned by witnesses, in particular, the justification for the percentage of recurrent funding allocated to TSN and the proposed increased percentage under commonality; the basis for arriving at these percentages is unclear. In particular, the proposal to increase the level of TSN funding will reduce funding for other elements of school budgets, but the implications of such change have not been identified for discussion. Many witnesses expressed a view that, in order to target funding more effectively, the Department should publish more information about TSN funding and outcomes, in order to permit a more informed discussion of these important issues.

Findings in 1997 of the House of Commons Select Committee for Northern Ireland Affairs (HoC, 1997), indicated that the 5% level of top-slicing for TSN used by DENI was simply the summing, at the time of the introduction of TSN policies, of existing expenditures on TSN-related items. The Select Committee criticised this approach to funding.

Further, while the Department of Education’s analysis of educational outcomes for pupils entitled to Free School Meals since the introduction of TSN (DE, 2001a), indicates improvements in the levels of attainment for these pupils, spending levels and initiatives do not appear to have eroded the existing differentials between these and other pupils; in general, educational outcomes have improved for all pupils (paragraph 3.2).

In addition, Figure 11 in that document suggests that between 1994/95 and 1998/99 there was a very slight percentage increase in the differential (paragraph 4.1) between all school leavers and those entitled to FSM, whose first destination after school was an Institute of Higher Education.

The Department has provided evidence to the Committee about the numbers of schools which have now exited from the Schools’ Support Programme.

In the Department of Education’s 2000 New TSN Annual Report and Action Plan, Objective DE3(b) proposed as a target that research and additional data would be collected by June 2001 to address gaps in knowledge about the effectiveness of different interventions in combating social disadvantage and low achievement. The Department has indicated to the Committee that its Report on this investigation is likely to be published in either December 2001 or January 2002.

It is also unclear what the proposed additional ½% is intended to achieve and a range of witnesses suggested that, without such information, additional spending may not be effectively targeted. This was considered an important issue, since any increase in TSN funding will reduce the level of monies available to schools through the Age-Weighted Pupil Unit factor of delegated budgets.

The Department has indicated to the Committee that the proposal to increase the funding for TSN from 5% to 5.5% of recurrent funding is a ‘judgement of the resources needed to enable schools to support pupils with educational and social need while at the same time seeking to ensure that the impact on other schools is manageable’. Subsequently, the Department in a written reply to the Committee indicated that no specific targets will be set for individual schools, although it is expected that schools will set their own targets through the School Development Planning process. The Department’s role will be to set overall targets for improvement in the context of its own plans, and will monitor progress by means of Inspection and its ongoing analysis of Key Stage and examination results. Increased TSN spending is expected to support schools in addressing low educational achievement, regardless of pupils’ social background, so the Department anticipates continued improvement in the performance of schools, especially those where there is a high incidence of social or educational need.

RECOMMENDATION

Whilst the Committee fully supports the TSN policy it shares the reservations expressed by witnesses about the lack of information currently available to inform decision-making around the most effective levels of TSN funding.

The Committee therefore recommends that before any change is made to the current 5% level of top-slicing for TSN funding, a more informed discussion based on additional information about current and anticipated outcomes should be undertaken.

5.2.2 Addressing Issues of Multiple Disadvantage

Several witnesses (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, Belfast Education & Library Board, the Equality Commission and a Principal from a school with a very high level of pupil disadvantage) argued for a fuller recognition within the Common Funding Formula proposals of the damaging effects of high levels of multiple forms of family and neighbourhood deprivation on certain schools and on pupils’ educational outcomes. These witnesses felt that a simple per-qualifying pupil additional sum cannot address these needs adequately. They suggested that, instead, the social disadvantage factor of the formula should operate some form of stepped basis, which would provide some additional funding through the formula for all qualifying children, but which would increase the per pupil amount as the level of entitlement to FSM rises within a school. This might operate using some form of banded levels of social disadvantage entitlement. Alternatively, an additional lump sum might be payable to any school in which the entitlement level passed a set percentage.

The Department, too, in the consultation document (paragraph 7.17) acknowledges that problems in the daily management of pupils and their pastoral care become more difficult as levels of pupil deprivation rise within a school. In paragraph 7.15, DE indicates that the Schools’ Support Programme is intended to provide further intensive professional and financial support for self-improvement measures in addition to TSN resources.

The Department’s proposed arrangements in the Common Funding Formula for funding social disadvantage use a linear funding system ie the per pupil amount for qualifying pupils will be the same, regardless of the level of disadvantage within the school. Given that the total amount of money available for TSN will be the same whatever system of distribution is adopted, the proposed arrangement would maximise the amount per pupil.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee acknowledges the additional needs in some schools arising from higher than average incidence of socially deprived pupils but notes that there are other forms of funding available to provide extra support.

The Committee recommends that schools should receive social deprivation funding for all qualifying pupils as proposed by the Department of Education in the consultation document.

5.2.3 Specific Concerns in Relation to TSN

Great concern was expressed by the Southern Education and Library Board as to the effects of the proposed TSN funding levels on arrangements for pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties in the Board’s area. SELB, uniquely, has no separate Special Schools for such pupils, but pursues a policy of inclusion in units attached to mainstream schools, on the grounds that this provides a better experience for these young people. The pupils who attend these units are identified through the Special Needs Code of Practice. The Board believes that these units are more efficient and effective than full Special Schools and that they sit well within Objective (DE16) of DE’s TSN Action Plan (DE, 2000c), which seeks ‘to promote the inclusion in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs’. It may be the case that this model of inclusion is an example of good practice, which might be disseminated more widely.

The Common Funding Formula proposals would mean the loss of £500 - £700 per SELB unit pupil, per annum, and Principals have indicated to SELB that, if implemented, the proposal would be likely to lead to the closure of many of the Special Moderate Learning Difficulty units, attached to mainstream schools. If these closures were to take place, the effects on pupils would be damaging, and the financial implications of providing Special School places for these pupils would be very large. Any such development might be difficult to justify under Best Value principles.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is concerned about the possible impact of the Common Funding Formula proposals on SELB units for children with Moderate Learning Difficulties, partly because this appears to run counter to current initiatives to include, as far as possible, such pupils in mainstream schooling, and partly because of the likely financial implications if new Special Schools have to be built.

The Committee therefore recommends that DE should reconsider the relevant Common Funding Formula proposals, to establish whether current practice in the SELB area should be protected, and whether such practice might be appropriate for extension to other ELB areas.

5.2.4 General Issues Relating to how TSN Funding should be Targeted

There is not universal support for the proposals for the indicators to be used in the allocation of TSN monies, nor as to how TSN funds should be divided between social and educational disadvantage. The Committee therefore addressed a number of questions:

(a) Is the current Free School Meal Indicator adequate to identify the complete cohort of children from socially-disadvantaged backgrounds?

Some doubts have been expressed about the use of FSM entitlement as the sole indicator of socio-economic disadvantage. Evidence suggests (paragraph 7.4 of the consultation document) that FSM eligibility is correlated with poor educational achievement, however, as it is presently defined, eligibility is based on families’ entitlement either to Job Seekers Allowance or Income Support. Witnesses have suggested that the financial circumstances of many low wage families are such that family income may not exceed the income of families living on benefits, so these low wage families could also be categorised as disadvantaged. Their children, too, should be included in FSM entitlement, perhaps through the mechanism of Working Families Tax Credit, or other arrangements. Figures from DSD (DSD, 2001) indicate that at present, 44,500 families are entitled to Working Families Tax Credit, compared with 40,007 claimants for Job Seekers Allowance and 173,500 entitled to Income Support. Of the latter group, c. 43% are elderly.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is concerned that current arrangements for identifying pupils who are socially disadvantaged may not include the whole cohort of such pupils.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department of Education gives further consideration to whether and how children from low waged families may be included in entitlement to Free School Meals.

(b ) What supplementary or alternative indicators of social disadvantage might be appropriate?

If FSM entitlement is considered incomplete as an indicator of social disadvantage, entitlement to a range of other benefits might appropriately supplement the FSM indicator. As suggested in a preceding paragraph, the children of low waged families might be identified through the Working Families Tax Credit, or the identification of pupils’ home post codes would enable the creation of indicators based on the Child Poverty indicators derived by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA, 2001). In addition, evidence presented by the Director of Educational Services of Angus Council in Scotland indicated that the qualifying indicator of social deprivation used in that authority is entitlement to a uniform allowance. He also suggested that the take-up rate of this benefit is high.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee, as indicated above, supports the view that supplementary indicators be derived by the Department to ensure that the whole cohort of socially disadvantaged children is identified.

The Committee recommends that such supplementary indicators be arrived at in consultation with appropriate bodies, including schools.

(c) Do all eligible families claim Free School Meals?

In addition, evidence suggested that some families may feel stigmatized in claiming the FSM allowance and so do not take up their entitlement. Research conducted on behalf of DfEE (DfEE, 2001) by Pamela Storey and Rosemary Chamberlin shows that in England, c. 20% of children eligible for free school meals do not take up this entitlement. This research briefing also suggests a range of strategies by which schools, local education authorities and benefit providers may encourage levels of take-up. DE’s New TSN Action Plan (DE, 2000c) shows awareness of this issue: objective DE18(a) of the Plan indicates the Department’s intention to put in place arrangements to establish patterns of benefits and entitlement to FSM so as to create an action plan to improve the accuracy of DE targeting through FSM entitlement. In written evidence to the Committee, DE indicated that this process is underway, in co-operation with DSD through the medium of the Family Resources Survey in April 2002.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is concerned that many families whose children are eligible for Free School Meals do not claim these, thus depriving these children of their entitlement, and depriving their schools of additional funding based on FSM eligibility.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department, in conjunction with all appropriate authorities and with schools, take steps as soon as possible to assess and maximise the take-up rate of FSM entitlement.

(d) Should the Free School Meal (or other social disadvantage) indicator be partly ‘double-counted’ to establish levels of educational deprivation, as proposed?

There is clear evidence of correlations between Free School Meals entitlement and lower levels of educational attainment (DE New TSN paper, May 2001). However, this evidence does not distinguish between pupil under-attainment resulting from social deprivation and under-attainment with its origins in a lesser capacity to learn, irrespective of socio-economic background. DE, in the consultation document, also makes a distinction between educational and social disadvantage (paragraphs 7.7, 7.8, 7.11). It is therefore somewhat unclear as to which of these sources of under-attainment is the most important one and where the balance of TSN funding between social deprivation and educational need should lie.

If needs generated by social disadvantage can be adequately funded, even for schools in which there are high levels of multiple deprivation, then it may be more appropriate to fund reduced capacity to learn using only indicators directly related to this. In this way, both elements of TSN funding can be targeted specifically to meet the needs arising from either social or educational deprivation, whether these overlap for some pupils or are distinct for others.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee supports the view that funding for the social deprivation factor should be distinct from that for the educational deprivation factor.

The Committee recommends therefore that levels of educational deprivation should be funded using only an indicator or indicators deriving from levels of educational attainment.

(e) What Might Be Appropriate Indicators Of Educational Need?

Most reservations have been expressed around the issue of what should be the indicators of educational need, especially in Primary schools. There are several dimensions to this:

The proposal to use Key Stage 2 attainment levels of Primary 7 children as an indicator for levels of educational disadvantage in Primary and Post-Primary schools. Two main issues have been identified:

First, some doubts were expressed as to the reliability and validity of the KS2 tests. Further, the limited curricular range of the tests (only English, Mathematics and Science are tested) meant that witnesses viewed KS2 tests as unsuitable for use as an indicator of educational need. A similar doubt existed as to the use of KS3 results as indicators of educational need in Senior High schools.

In essence, witnesses felt that end of Key Stage tests have not been designed for such use and it is therefore not appropriate to use them for such purposes.

Second, in relation specifically to Primary schools, many respondents suggested that the use of these tests, taken by pupils in their final year of primary schooling, are likely be a disincentive for Primary schools to improve learning outcomes; schools which had provided excellent ‘added value’ to disadvantaged pupils would, in effect, be financially penalised for their success. It was thought more appropriate to use an indicator which provides information about levels of educational disadvantage of pupils entering the school, or at an early stage in their school experience.

Witnesses offered a range of proposals for ‘better’ Special Educational Need indicators in the Primary sector. These included the numbers of pupils involved at different stages of the Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs, baseline testing of Primary 1 children, or annual attainment testing for specified groups of children within the school. This is currently the practice in one of the Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards. It is considered that since most Primary schools currently use standardised testing on an annual basis in order to monitor pupil progress, data from the existing test systems might also be used as an indicator of educational need. Alternatively, the Warnock indicator or some of the educational disadvantage indicators produced by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA, 2001) may be suitable for such use, since Primary schools tend to have a ‘local’ catchment.

The Education Funding Strategy Group set up by DfEE(2000) to develop a new funding strategy for local government in England and a timescale for its implementation has also given consideration to the development of indicators of additional educational need in the primary phase. These include:

• Primary school children with English as an additional language; and
• Absenteeism at Primary school.

DE (DE 2000c), in the New TSN Action Plan (Objective DE8(c)) identified a target to explore the use of baseline assessment for evaluating the targeting of resources to Primary schools with high levels of social disadvantage. However, the consultation document (paragraph 7.28) suggests that the use of data from baseline assessment of pupils entering Primary One does not lend itself to incorporation in a Funding Formula partly because the future of such assessment is under review, and partly because the assessment is not designed for the purpose of targeting resources.

Practice in local authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom varies. Swansea uses reading tests for pupils perceived to have educational needs. Wokingham uses standardised reading tests for pupils in Years R, 3 and 7, and Surrey uses Year R baseline screening tests in combination with reading tests to establish any above-average incidence of pupils with a reading quotient of less than 85.

For Post-Primary schools, it was suggested that national standardised attainment tests on entry to Year 8 (or Year 11 in Senior High schools) might provide more robust indicators of educational need than KS2 or KS3 tests.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee shares the views of many respondents that the use of end of Key Stage attainment tests to identify educational need is unsatisfactory. In particular, the use of Key Stage 2 results to fund educational deprivation in Primary schools is likely to provide perverse incentives in some schools.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department gives further consideration to the use of more robust and appropriate indicators such as standardised testing or baseline screening as a basis for the funding of educational need.

For Primary schools an appropriate indicator will be one that identifies levels of need as soon as possible after entry to school.

5.3 The Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries

Currently the LMS Formula, through the Age-Weighted Pupil Unit factor, provides to schools’ delegated budgets the average costs of employing teachers, but school budgets are then charged with the actual costs of their employment. This conforms to the model implemented under education reform in England and Wales and is based on a ‘top-down’ approach to per pupil funding (DfEE/Education Funding Strategy Group [EFSG], 2000). The Committee is aware of at least two current methods of calculating the average cost of a teacher by Northern Ireland Funding Authorities. One uses an average, by phase, of all teachers in Northern Ireland using figures supplied by DE. Another uses only the costs of teachers in the Funding Authority’s own area, again by phase.

Funding at average, and charging at actual cost levels has created difficulties for a large number of schools since the introduction of Formula Funding and it has been necessary to supplement the budgets of many schools through the Teachers’ Salary Protection Factor of the Formula in order to protect classroom provision. However, the consultation document (paragraph 9.16) proposes to continue to use this system but to extend the Teachers’ Salary Protection Factor to a greater number of schools on a uniform basis across Northern Ireland.

The purpose of this salary protection factor in the LMS Formula is to assist qualifying schools with the costs of employing teachers in circumstances where the Age-Weighted Pupil Unit factor of the LMS Formula does not generate enough income for the school to meet the requirements of the statutory curriculum. At present each of the ELB, Voluntary Grammar and GMI formulae identify differing groups of qualifying schools, based on differing cut-off points for qualification (see Table 9, p.74 of consultation document). Under commonality treatment the funding of schools will be consistent across all Funding Authorities.

Some evidence suggested that current arrangements of funding average teachers’ salary costs through the Age-Weighted Pupil Unit factor and then charging schools for actual costs have failed to meet ‘core’ funding requirements of schools. As DE has indicated in the consultation document (paragraph 9.5) factors outside the control of the school, such as agreed pay scales, curriculum requirements and class size policies, determine the number and costs of the teacher complement, so the concept of local flexibility in spending applied only to a very small percentage of the budgets of most schools – the amount remaining after the payment of staff costs—and was more apparent than real. Thus core funding for salary costs through the AWPU must frequently be supplemented by additional Formula factors, by Curriculum Reserve top-up funding, or by earmarked funding for special initiatives, which in practice fund many core school development activities.

Some witnesses doubted the capacity of the Common Funding Formula proposals to improve this situation (BELB and SELB provided figures to suggest that over 80% of all schools (BELB), and 96% of Primary schools (SELB) would need supplementary funding to cover teachers’ salary costs under Common Funding Formula proposals).

Views about the treatment of teachers’ salaries varied more widely than about most other issues and raised important issues about the basis of Local Management of Schools and the nature of the relationship between schools and funding authorities.

There was general agreement on several issues:

• the extent to which teacher salary costs dominated most schools’ spending, leaving a proportion of schools with less than 5% of ‘disposable’ spending;
• the particular difficulties of above-average salary costs for some schools, including small schools, schools with a high proportion of long-serving teachers and those with declining rolls. In the consultation document, the Department of Education acknowledges (paragraph 9.11) that any problems of above-average salary costs are more prevalent and generally more severe in smaller schools; and
• the extent to which the age and experience profile of a school’s teaching complement was likely to drive large cost variations between otherwise similar schools. Various exemplar materials were produced by ELBs to show the wide variation in salary costs for similar-sized schools of varying teacher profiles. (DE, in the consultation document, did, however, suggest that some of this variation might be due to School Governors’ decisions about school promotion structures—the extent of this is unclear).

However the interpretation of these issues and proposals to remedy them generated very divergent views.

Discussions centred around two major issues:

• whether teachers’ salaries should be retained within the schools’ delegated budgets; and
• whether they should be funded on an average, or actual cost basis.

(a) Retention within Schools’ Delegated Budgets?

Most responses wished to retain teachers’ salary costs within schools’ delegated budgets in spite of the limits this usually imposes on overall flexibility.

Some members of the Primary School Principals’ group welcomed the autonomy over staffing decisions embedded within the LMS arrangements. Others indicated that autonomy was in practice non-existent. Factors such as school size and teacher profile meant that funding was inadequate to staff their schools as they would wish. Examples included:

• being forced to introduce composite classes because of teacher redundancy;
• avoiding teacher redundancy by the non-teaching Principal returning to class teaching;
• an inability to employ Reading Recovery/other SEN support teachers;
• skimping on necessary maintenance; and
• an incapacity to reward, through the allocation of responsibility points, hard-working teachers who had taken on additional duties.

Post-Primary Principals also wished to retain salary costs within delegated budgets, although two from small schools indicated considerable financial pressures, including an inability to reward senior managers appropriately. Worries were expressed that, with new threshold payments to teachers, some Vice-Principals would earn less than more junior colleagues.

RECOMMENDATION

In spite of some schools’ difficulties in funding an adequate cohort of teachers, the Committee believes that given the dominance of salary costs within school budgets, the removal of such costs from budgets would undermine the principles of Local Management of Schools.

The Committee therefore recommends that the costs of teachers’ salaries should be retained within delegated budgets.

(b) Average or Actual Costs of Teachers’ Salaries within the Delegated Budget?

As an alternative to the present mainly ‘top-down’ model of per pupil funding through Age-Weighted Pupil Units, the EFSG set up by DfEE has explored alternative approaches to per pupil funding including a ‘bottom-up’ approach which is activity led. In this model, the funding required to deliver the statutory curriculum in a school is determined according to categories in which the costs of teachers, non-teaching staff, materials and premises are addressed separately. Common Funding Formula proposals adopt a mixed model, but much evidence to the Committee suggested that an activity-led approach might be considered more appropriate for funding teachers’ salaries.

Varying views were expressed about whether teachers’ salary costs should continue to be funded at average levels, through the Age-Weighted Pupil Unit element of the Formula, with protection for above-average costs, or whether school budgets should be funded at actual salary costs. The latter option would mean that the current AWPU factor would no longer be the major financial element within the Formula. It would probably be replaced by two factors:

• a teacher salary factor for all schools; and
• a smaller age-weighted per capita factor to provide for non-teacher costs, non-capital equipment, consumables etc.

The main advantage of moving to some form of actual costs would be the simplification of the Formula. By adequately funding the most important element of school spending, the need for the teacher salary protection ‘top-up’ factor, which actually applies to the majority of schools would be removed. Given necessary core funding, it is thought less likely that school budgets will run into deficit. A move to any such system will require the creation by DE of some form of teacher staffing standard, against which allocations to schools will be made.

A number of witnesses referred to the Devolved School Management system operating in Scotland, as a potential model for addressing the difficult issue of funding all schools to deliver the full curriculum, while preserving some flexibility in school-level decision-making.

The ELBs, as Funding Authorities for the Controlled and Maintained sectors, had met with Principals and Governors in their areas. They wished schools to be funded for the actual costs of teachers’ salaries, rather than average costs, based on an agreed annual minimum teaching complement for each school, weighted according to banded pupil numbers, or to agreed Pupil-Teacher ratios. NEELB evidence argued that ‘commonality, as defined by the proposals to mean equitable inputs of monies to schools, cannot lead to equitable treatment of pupils overall, since differences in individual school circumstances mean that equitable purchasing power is not available to all. A more appropriate way to achieve equitable funding would be by means of ensuring that schools were funded to allow equal purchasing power to meet pupil needs, once the costs of teachers’ salaries had been deducted.’

These funds would continue to be within schools’ delegated budgets. This, it was argued, would:

• create more stability and transparency for Governors in making staffing decisions;
• retain flexibility at the local level, since Governors might choose to employ fewer or greater numbers of teachers than the agreed ‘core’, and could employ some staff on permanent or temporary, full-time or part-time contracts, according to school needs, rather than for financial reasons;
• tie the school’s budget allocation for salaries directly to a teacher complement based on curriculum needs for the pupil cohort, rather than simply on pupil numbers;
• protect the range of curriculum provision in small and/or declining rolls schools;
• simplify funding arrangements: one teacher salary factor would allocate funding currently provided by two factors (AWPU & teacher salary protection). This would remove the need within the Common Funding Formula proposals to use the teacher salary factor as an ‘addition’ to the main AWPU factor - an ‘addition’ which would in practice apply to very large numbers of schools; and
• solve the problems of the reduced purchasing power available to those schools with above-average salary costs.

However, some respondents, mainly Principals of larger schools, and witnesses from CCMS, GBA & NICIE, felt that the existing situation was appropriate; any change would be likely to limit local autonomy.

The Principal of a Voluntary Grammar school questioned whether an annual ELB-determined teacher complement for each school would be equitable to schools not in the Controlled or Maintained sectors.

In order to obtain more information about alternative methods of funding teacher costs, the Director of Educational Services of Angus Council in Scotland, a member of the recent Scottish Review Body for Devolved School Management, was invited to meet the Committee. His evidence was that:

• in Angus schools, as in almost all Scottish council areas, the authority calculates the average salary costs for teachers, according to primary or secondary phase;
• an authority staffing standard, based on banded pupil numbers, determines a school’s overall entitlement to teaching staff;
• within this, national agreements allocate the number of promoted posts, according to school roll and these are funded in full through the delegated budget;
• schools are allocated the average costs of the Basic Grade (i.e. non-promoted) teaching staff; and
• school budgets are charged only the average costs of Basic Grade teaching staff.

Thus, in practice, the actual costs of teachers’ salaries are met in full for individual schools, enabling them to appoint the most qualified teachers to posts, irrespective of financial considerations, and ensuring that above-average salary costs do not generate budget deficits. There is also a degree of flexibility within the system for schools to vire additional monies into the salary budget in order to appoint more teachers than their basic entitlement. Additionally, within certain safeguards, schools may employ fewer than their agreed teacher complement but retain the funding for these posts.

The main differences between this DSM system and that operating in Northern Ireland are as follows:

• in practice, schools are funded for the actual costs of the teachers they employ. This enables them to fund core teaching requirements without ‘top-up’ funding through additional factors;
• the numbers of teachers and the numbers of promoted posts within schools are centrally determined, either according to banded pupil numbers on roll (Basic Grade teachers), or through national agreements between Government and the Teacher Unions (promoted posts);
• because, in practice, actual teaching costs are funded for the core allocation of teachers, schools do not have to confront difficulties created by above-average salary costs. Nor are they obliged to appoint younger teachers, or teachers on part-time or temporary contracts simply for financial reasons;
• the roles of teachers in promoted posts are protected unless school numbers decline sharply and the post is lost;
• additional entitlement to teacher posts is also available to support special educational needs;
• in the event of a school having lower-than-average costs, the school will benefit financially for that year;
• schools are not authorised to plan budget deficits because they are unable to meet their commitments; and
• teacher redundancy for financial reasons is cushioned by the banded staffing standard.

Similarities with the Northern Ireland system include:

• teacher salary costs are retained within delegated budgets;
• the provision to schools of monthly financial statements enables monitoring of expenditure according to plans;
• schools have some flexibility to determine the size of their teacher complement: some savings may be made by temporary non-appointment to vacant posts, and additional teachers may be appointed by vireing into the salary budget savings made from other budget areas; and
• schools have flexibility within their staffing to determine how and where teachers will be employed, across subjects or classes.

Overall, in Scotland, the recent Report (October 2001) of the Working Group to review DSM arrangements found that of 1,622 responses, 92% indicated that DSM was considered to be successful in improving school decision making and the management of teaching and learning, and that 83% of DSM schemes provided schools with sufficient flexibility to meet changing needs and priorities at local level.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee believes that the current arrangements for the allocation and charging of teachers’ salary costs create difficulties for too many schools in fulfilling core curriculum requirements, and therefore require too much ‘top-up’ to provide for these requirements. Although part of this ‘top-up’ funding is already available for distribution through the Teacher Salary Protection Factor of the Formula, the requirement for an additional factor adds complication to the Formula. It appears, too, that the protection factor may have to be applied to a majority of schools overall, thus bringing into question the adequacy of basic funding arrangements for teachers’ salaries. These issues might be addressed more effectively through the use of alternative arrangements.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department of Education undertake further investigation of alternative methods of providing schools with the actual costs of employing teachers in order to inform discussion on Common Funding Formula proposals before a final decision is made. Such investigation should include consideration of those methods currently in use in Scottish local authorities, such as Angus Council.

5.4 Small Schools’ Issues

The rationale for additional support for small schools is outlined on pages 69 – 72 of the consultation document. Most aspects of the rationale refer to the need to provide additional teaching support to provide the statutory curriculum. Also mentioned is the need to ensure the effective functioning and management of the school.

At present, (Table 8, p.70) each Funding Authority offers different funding through this factor, although the trigger points for support for schools in each phase are almost identical.

Under the Common Funding Formula, a single factor is proposed, with common funding and common trigger points for Primary and Post-Primary phases (paragraphs 8.9 – 8.13). Numbers on roll would be determined through a single census date, as proposed for AWPUs. Pupils in nursery classes, special units and Irish-Medium units would be excluded from the count.

There was a range of views around the issues of the level of staffing and curriculum protection for small schools, especially since the decline in pupil numbers overall and the decline in the size of the rural community are most likely to affect these schools.

One group of respondents argued strongly for the protection of pupil needs in small and growing schools, and supported the relatively greater costs of doing this. This group included NICIE, the Irish-Medium sector, and small school Principals. A particular concern was for the pressures generated on teaching Principals in a situation of very limited funding. SELB, with many small, rural schools in its area, confirmed that the general decline in pupil numbers is being experienced most severely in such schools.

A further concern, referred to earlier in this Report, was that if ELBs are obliged to cut back on centrally- provided services to schools because of DE’s proposal to delegate an additional £15 million into school budgets, small schools will be likely to suffer most from this. Extra amounts delegated through any form of per capita funding would not generate enough additional revenue in small schools to compensate for a decline in the level of service.

However, WELB, also with many small, rural schools, expressed anxieties that under the Common Funding Formula proposals, additional support for small Primary and Post-Primary schools in its area was likely to skew funding away from larger schools, and might create financial difficulties overall. The Board would prefer that under commonality, additional support for small schools would be set at a more modest level, with the availability of supplementary funding from a Board-retained central fund, if the need arose.

Others acknowledged the relative needs of small schools, but argued that these should be seen in the context of the relatively smaller number of pupils who attend them; protection for these schools should not be at the expense of the larger schools which educate most children.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recognises the difficulties for many small schools in providing for the full curriculum and in creating effective management arrangements. It is also concerned at the likely longer-term impact of demographic change on small, rural schools and their communities and feels that the funding system must provide stability for them as far as possible.

The Committee recommends that the Funding Formula should continue to provide additional support for small schools and teaching Principals, as proposed by DE.

The Committee also anticipates that the recommended review of arrangements for the funding of teachers’ salaries will provide a more secure financial footing for curriculum delivery and effective management in small schools.

5.5 Proposals for Dealing with Premises and Grounds Costs

At present, schools in different sectors have varying responsibilities for the maintenance of grounds and premises. Schools funded by the ELBs have responsibility only for tenant maintenance, while GMI and VG schools must also fund landlord maintenance. GMI schools are also responsible from their own budgets for the payment of rates, although Voluntary Grammar schools are exempt from these.

The Department’s proposals under the Common Funding Formula are outlined in the consultation document (pages 45 – 49). It is suggested, first, that, for the funding of tenant maintenance responsibilities, all school premises should be funded on an amount per square metre of all areas of the premises, with a matching amount distributed to all schools on the basis of unweighted pupil numbers. Second, VG and GMI schools should receive an additional £14 per square metre to assist with landlord responsibilities (as compared to the current ELB average rate of £11.79), third, any school liable for the payment of rates should have these costs met centrally and fourth, (paragraph 11.9) that to take account of the requirement on VG and GMI schools to pay VAT, these schools should receive an additional premium of 33% of the amount generated under the premises factor to meet these payments.

The consultation document also seeks views as to whether additional funding through this factor, based on the condition and energy efficiency of buildings, should be included at some future date when appropriate data becomes available.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes that there is no need for either a condition of buildings or energy efficiency weighting within the premises factor for new schools.

The Committee recommends that the issue of including weightings for condition of buildings/energy efficiency within the premises factor for other schools should be kept under review by the Department.

With regard to the exercise of tenant responsibility for premises and grounds by Controlled and Maintained schools, the ELB witnesses argued that funds allocated for maintenance were often deployed to other purposes. As a result, there is concern about the condition of the school estate. To remedy this, the ELBs suggested that the responsibility and funding for tenant maintenance should be taken back into the Boards’ centrally-retained budgets.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is concerned that financial pressures within the delegated budgets of some schools may lead to inadequate expenditure on the maintenance of buildings and premises by some schools. However, the Committee is also of the view that there should not be any change in the distribution of responsibilities and funding for these between ELBs and schools pending the outcome of the Review of Public Administration.

The Committee therefore recommends that the existing division of responsibilities for landlord and tenant maintenance should be retained in the short term. However, to protect the condition of the school estate, all schools should be required to provide an annual statement of expenditure on maintenance.

As outlined earlier in this Report, NICIE objected to the proposal to base the VAT allowance on the amount of funding generated through the premises factor. This, it was felt, would be likely to cap expenditure of items subject to VAT even if such expenditure was deemed necessary and was affordable within school resources. NICIE also proposed that liability for the payment of rates should be removed from GMI schools.

GBA, NICIE and the Principal of a Voluntary Grammar school expressed dissatisfaction with the proposals for funding grounds and premises. These witnesses objected in particular to the proposal to use unweighted, rather than weighted pupil numbers to establish 50% of the funding entitlement as they argued that older pupils would be likely to cause more wear and tear on premises than younger children. Also, the proposal to apply the same amount per square metre of premises areas was considered ‘illogical’. That some schools have a need to protect ‘legacy’ grounds and premises was considered important, although it was acknowledged that new premises should not require the same levels of maintenance funding as older ones.

A number of these issues have been addressed in the Coopers and Lybrand Review of Formula Funding for the Department of Education undertaken in 1997. The Review recommended that only an area factor should be used to fund grounds and premises, and that if a school has higher than average premises costs due to its conditions, these should only be funded at a marginal rate (paragraph 306) in order to provide an incentive for such schools to reduce costs. In the same way, the Report (paragraph 318) does not support the use of an energy factor, since it views this as a disincentive to reduce energy costs and penalises those schools which have done so.

Coopers and Lybrand also suggested that (paragraph 328), while larger-than-average grounds will generate additional costs for some schools, such grounds are also likely to be regarded as assets by parents of prospective and present pupils and by the wider community and may attract more pupils. As such, the retention of such assets is subject to a cost which must be balanced against the wider value to the school. Such grounds should not be ‘retained courtesy of a subsidy from other schools which have fewer such assets’.

The Review considered how VG and GMI schools should be reimbursed for their VAT liability, and suggested that it would be inappropriate to fund this through the premises factor (paragraph 337), since this would distort the effect of the premises factor on the Formula as a whole and provide perverse incentives to the schools involved. Instead, it recommended that this liability be funded through an percentage enhancement, based on a calculation of likely liability, of the total LMS budget for each of the schools concerned.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes both NICIE concerns about funding for VAT liability, and the discussion in the Coopers & Lybrand Report about how VAT might be funded.

The Committee recommends that the Department should explore further the Coopers and Lybrand suggestion that GMI schools’ VAT liability should be funded through an enhancement related to each school’s total LMS budget, rather than through the premises factor alone.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes that in the proposed provision for premises expenditure by VG and GMI schools, there is an allowance for landlord maintenance responsibilities. The Committee does not share the Department’s view that this allowance should be greater than that expended by the ELBs for comparable responsibilities for Controlled and Maintained schools. The Committee also notes that at present one GMI school has agreed to purchase all services from the area ELB. The Committee is of the view that this higher than average funding would be better deployed in funding core classroom activities in all schools.

The Committee therefore recommends that in the interests of promoting Best Value and funding transparency, allowances for landlord responsibilities should be comparable across all sectors and areas. In order to assist with economies of scale for Voluntary Grammar and GMI schools, the Department may wish to consult with the ELBs as to whether they would also be able to sell landlord services to schools in these sectors.

5.6 Equality Issues

The Department of Education’s Equality Impact Assessment was criticised by witnesses on a number of grounds:

• the decision to exclude issues of gender for impact assessment was considered unsustainable; and
• concerns were expressed as to the base information used by DE in making its assessment, as details of this were not included.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes the concerns about the Department’s Equality Impact Assessment in the consultation document.

The Committee recommends that the Department should address these concerns and provide full details of the base information used in its Equality Impact Assessment.

In addition, some respondents believed that the impact of the Common Funding Formula proposals might well generate equality issues for some schools and groups of pupils, which the consultation document does not fully explore. These included inequities between Primary and Post-Primary phases, between schools under and under other-than Catholic management, and between small and larger schools. In particular, any transfer of £15million from ELB to school budgets might be expected to have disproportionate effects on certain types of school.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes concerns that the Common Funding Formula proposals may lead to inequalities between phases of schooling or groups of schools.

The Committee recommends that the Department keeps these issues under careful review. It anticipates that earlier recommendations in respect of small schools, TSN and the funding of teachers’ salary costs will assist in this process.

The Equality Commission’s written submission to the Committee also identified areas of concern in proposals which have not fallen within earlier Committee discussions. These included the Common Funding Formula proposals for the funding of the additional educational needs of Traveller children and children for whom English is a second language.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes the views of the Equality Commission that levels of funding for the additional educational needs of Traveller children and children for whom English is an additional language should be kept under review, and that, for the latter group, annual evidence of their progress in English should be obtained.

The Committee recommends that the Department keeps these issues under review, and should publish the evidence collected.

A further issue identified by the Commission, that of the funding of Preparatory Departments of Grammar schools will be addressed in the next section of the Report.

5.7 Special Sectoral or Area Concerns

During evidence sessions, witnesses from the five Education and Library Boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, the Irish-Medium sector and the Governing Bodies’ Association identified what they believed to be the three major concerns of their sector. A number of these (including TSN issues, the payment of VAT, premises costs in Voluntary Grammar and GMI schools) have been separately identified earlier in this Report.

Most of the issues discussed in this section are those which relate specifically to pupils attending schools in the ‘regional’ sectors. In general, these involved requests for additional funding to protect the interests of pupils in these sectors, although the Principal of one Voluntary Grammar school indicated the possibility of generating additional profit for these schools through exercise of such extra responsibilities. In his school this had been achieved through the provision of school meals. In addition, as mentioned by one Primary Principal, voluntary parental contributions to some Voluntary Grammar schools might make a substantial annual donation to school funds, in contrast to the levels of contribution available to schools serving high proportions of pupils entitled to Free School Meals.

Some of the themes emerging were:

(a) Administrative costs unique to GMI and Voluntary Grammar schools

The need for adequate funding for additional administrative costs (NICIE, GBA), due to the extra responsibilities carried by schools in these sectors, including payroll, insurance, etc. It was considered doubtful that the proposed amounts, based on equivalent ELB costs, would be adequate.

In opposition to this, one ELB argued that under ‘Best Value’ arrangements, these services for these schools should not be funded at rates higher than those operating for ELB administrative services to Controlled and Maintained schools. If these private providers were more expensive than the ELBs, then GMI and VG schools should negotiate to buy ELB services instead.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes the views of NICIE and the GBA that the proposed amounts allocated for the purchase of administrative services in these sectors, based on equivalent ELB costs may not be pitched at an adequate level. The Committee also notes that at present one GMI school has agreed to purchase all services from the area ELB.

The Committee recommends that, in order to promote Best Value and transparency, funding for administrative services specific to Voluntary Grammar and GMI schools should be provided at the level of equivalent ELB costs for Controlled and Maintained schools. The Department, NICIE and the GBA may wish to consider whether these services may be purchased from the ELBs or through other arrangements which provide for economies of scale.

(b) Support for Growing Schools

A more sensitive funding formula to support growing schools was requested by NICIE and an Comhairle Na Gaelscolaíochta. The Department’s proposals in the consultation document for the allocation of funding based mainly on the annual school census, with contingency funding payable on a 10% increase in enrolment, was not thought to be adequately responsive for growing schools. A figure of 5% was suggested instead.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee acknowledges the concerns of NICIE and an Comhairle Na Gaelscolaíochta as to whether the Department’s proposal for a 10% growth in enrolment is appropriate as a trigger point for additional funding for growing schools, or whether a 5% growth should be substituted. The Committee believes, however, that to plan for a 5% trigger might require the retention of overly large funds centrally and that that would militate against the Committee’s principle that as much funding as possible should be directly deployed to support core classroom activities.

The Committee recommends therefore that the Department may wish to consider whether a rolling 3-year average of enrolment, rather than a percentage-based trigger point, might provide a more appropriate basis of funding for any Formula Factors which use a per capita indicator. Any such modification would apply to all schools.

(c) Additional funding for the Integrated Sector

NICIE representatives argued for the special needs of their sector, whose inclusive nature generates additional financial commitments, e.g. specialist in-school training for teachers. They believe also that the sector admits greater than average numbers of pupils with special educational needs, so that the costs of administering the Code of Practice are disproportionately high.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes the views expressed by NICIE as to the special teacher training needs and additional costs of its sector arising from its inclusive principles. However, the Council did not support its argument with evidence.

The Committee recommends therefore that the Department keeps this issue under review and anticipates that earlier recommendations about Targeting Social and Educational Need are likely to address this.

(d) Additional Funding for the Irish-Medium Sector

An Comhairle Na Gaelscolaíochta representatives argued that the additional sums payable to Irish-Medium schools and units would be inadequate to meet the extra curriculum and teacher support costs of the sector, particularly those related to the production of teaching materials in Irish, and those associated with the introduction of English as a new core subject at KS2.

THE COMMITTEE’S VIEW

The Committee notes the views expressed by an Comhairle Na Gaelscolaíochta as to the special demands on teachers and additional costs of its sector arising from the need to translate materials and to introduce a new core subject at Key Stage 2. The Committee is aware that support for the translation of teaching materials is available through a special facility at St. Mary’s University College and for curriculum extension through the facilitation of teacher working groups by the Curriculum and Advisory Support Services of the ELBs. The Committee also notes that, in public responses to the Common Funding Formula consultation, the proposals to support Irish-Medium education received more opposition than other proposals.

The Committee notes the Department of Education’s proposals but was unable to reach agreement on this issue.

(e) Extension of Transition Period

NICIE and CCMS also expressed concerns for their sector in respect of the proposals for transitional ‘cushioning’ of the budgets of schools which would ‘lose’ under the proposals. A 5-year transition, with initial tapering would be preferred to the 3-year transition proposed by the Department.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes the concerns of NICIE and CCMS about the length of the transition period. It also notes that any extension of transition will penalise those schools which will gain through the introduction of commonality.

The Committee recommends that the proposal for a 3-year transition period should be adopted, provided that the c.£15 million of funds to be added to schools’ delegated budgets is provided from outside the current General Schools’ Budgets. Otherwise, a 5-year period should be adopted.

(f) The Funding of Preparatory Departments

The proposal for the support for Preparatory schools attached to some Grammar schools was contrasted unfavourably by the Governing Bodies’ Association with the proposals for support for Primary schools, and GMI and Irish-Medium schools and units.

In opposition to this, the Equality Commission argued that all subsidy to children being privately educated in Preparatory schools should be removed. Such subsidy is inconsistent with an explicit TSN principle of school funding to target finite public resources in accordance with objective need. DE figures obtained on 4 October, 2001, showed that the pupil: teacher ratio in Preparatory schools was 16:1, much more favourable than that available to Primary pupils in general, 20:1.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes the views of the GBA and of the Equality Commission in respect of the funding for Preparatory Departments. It also notes the Department’s evidence about pupil: teacher ratios in Preparatory Departments.

The Committee recommends that the Department’s proposal for funding Preparatory Departments should be adopted.

(g) The Extension of Central Funding Initiatives

More generally, CCMS proposed the extension of current central initiatives (classroom assistants, the reduction of KS1 class sizes) to address issues of pupil disadvantage; any such expansion would apply to all schools.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes the proposal made by CCMS about the extension of current central initiatives, for example, to reduce Key Stage 1 class sizes, and notes that such initiatives apply to all schools. The Committee wishes to re-state its view that as much funding as possible for core classroom activities should be included in delegated budgets.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department should consider whether funding for generally-applicable initiatives should continue to be allocated centrally, or whether, in this instance for example, an increased formula weighting for Key Stage 1 pupils would allow schools more flexibility in the determination of how best to provide for these children.

5.8 Strategic Issues, some of which are not discussed within the Consultation Document

The Committee is aware of the complexity of the proposal to move to a Common Funding Formula. The difficulty of achieving equitable outcomes across all school sectors and phases is enormous, and although, for convenience, the consultation document separates areas for discussion, these areas are inter-related to a very great extent: a proposed change to one element of funding will have effects throughout the Formula and on the budgets of most schools. The Committee has noted that the Welsh Assembly has made a decision not to move to commonality, and that in England, little progress has been made, although school funding arrangements in both have been on a broadly similar basis to that in Northern Ireland.

However, in the interests of equity and transparency, the Committee generally welcomes the Department’s initiative to move to a common funding system and its recommendations are intended to assist with this process.

5.8.1 General Issues of Allocating Funding to Support Stated Principles

There is uncertainty as to the nature and purpose of the Common Funding Formula exercise: whether commonality is intended to explore fundamental aspects of education funding, or whether it is merely intended to ‘tinker’ with aspects of current principles for funding. Some discussion of such issues is likely to have been undertaken by the Department even though the issues are not raised in the consultation document, since in the Coopers & Lybrand Review of Formula Funding (1997) for the Department, a number of relevant points were made about the effects of a move to commonality:

• the definition of commonality as the same cash value for a child on Free School Meals (or any other factor) is attractive because of its transparency and apparent fairness, and because it is easy to justify. However experience in England of attempting to create a National Funding Formula provides an illustration of how difficult it is to move to such a situation (page 9); and
• commonality in the form proposed will affect (Coopers & Lybrand, pages 10-11)
• the overall arrangements for the ARNE exercise: under commonality, funding authorities will have no discretion as to the size of the Aggregated Schools’ Budget. In practice, this will be arrived at by summing the amounts payable to all schools, as prescribed by the Department of Education, through the common factors in the formula. At present, the Department can allocate different quanta of recurrent funding, and expenditure for TSN to each Board, based on factors including pupil population, Free School Meal entitlement, school floor area, taxi mileage and the numbers of small schools in each ELB. However, each ELB’s capacity then to target its own GSB resources in accordance with ARNE factors will have been largely removed once there is a Common Formula.
• the present power of each ELB to determine arrangements for pupils requiring statements of Special Education Needs and the level of funding attributed to those statements.
• the present pattern of special schooling in the different ELB areas, which have different cost implications.
• the present power of the ELBs to determine expenditure levels on services which are not part of the Schools’ Budget, such as home to school travel, curriculum advice and support, school meals, education welfare and the Psychology Service.

In the event of a ‘high’ ASB model of delegation being introduced, without additional funding for the system as a whole, these issues will be greatly sharpened, both for ELBs and for the schools which they serve.

The Committee is aware that ELBs have been required to make year-on-year efficiency savings for a number of years, and believes that the scope to achieve further substantial savings in order to fund increased delegation is likely to be very limited. The Committee believes that without additional funding into the GSBs, services to schools will suffer.

The Committee has already considered this issue and has recommended that, if a ‘high’ ASB model is implemented, this should be without damage to existing ELB central services to schools.

Some of those giving evidence have indicated their views on more radical questioning of the system, for example:

• whether a ‘market’ system in which there are ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ is appropriate, given the need to support all children in all schools and given the evidence that the introduction of open enrolment since 1991 has generated great financial problems for many small schools, and for schools in a situation of declining enrolment;
• whether the overall education budget is adequate in the changing circumstances of schooling;

The Committee notes these points. It feels that, within a context of equality policies and human rights legislation, it may be difficult to justify any funding arrangements which create advantage for one group of schools over any other group. In particular, the needs of pupils in less ‘popular’ schools with declining enrolments must be fully addressed.

• whether the ‘local autonomy’ underpinned by the Local Management of Schools arrangements actually exists in practice, given the very large percentages of school budgets inescapably spent on items beyond the control of individual schools (salaries and salary levels, heating and lighting costs, etc.). In information to the Committee from the Department figures were provided for the average percentages of school budgets spent on teacher salary costs: 80% of total costs in the Primary phase, 76% of costs in the Post-Primary phase. These figures did not include non-teaching staffing costs;

Arising from the evidence presented, the Committee notes the considerable difficulties for some schools in making proper provision after salary costs have been deducted. The Committee agrees that for many schools, Local Management of Schools arrangements to date have not created any real flexibility in spending decisions.

The Committee anticipates that its recommendation to the Department to explore further arrangements which fund the actual costs of teachers’ salaries will address this issue.

• how the overall percentage figures for TSN allocations in the past and in the current proposals have been arrived at, and what are the anticipated impacts of additional funding. This issue has been considered by the Committee within the TSN section. Evidence published earlier this year by the Department about participation and educational attainment among socially disadvantaged young people demonstrates improvements in performance, but since performance has improved throughout the system, the differential between disadvantaged young people and their peers remains the same, in spite of TSN expenditure;

The Committee’s view, shared by many respondents, and already expressed, is that without much more detailed evidence about the impact of current levels of TSN spending, and more information about anticipated improvements arising from increased expenditure, no increase in the overall level of TSN spending should be made at present.

• whether the disproportionate effects of population decline on the growing number of small schools has been addressed within the proposals;

As indicated earlier, the Committee is aware of this issue and is particularly concerned that increased delegation into school budgets should not damage services provided centrally by ELBs, since witnesses have indicated that any such damage would have disproportionate effects in small rural schools.

• whether, since the introduction of commonality will effectively remove most decision-making capacity from ELBs, there should be a central funding agency for all schools;

As indicated above in the section on sectoral concerns, the Committee is of the view that, pending the forthcoming Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland and the outcomes of the Burns proposals for the reorganization of Post-Primary education, no such change should be introduced.

• in addition NEELB suggested that, rather than focusing exclusively on a principle of equitable inputs of monies to schools, commonality should also attempt to create equitable purchasing power for schools, especially in relation to issues of teachers’ salaries; and

The Committee addressed this issue more fully in the section on the funding of teachers’ salary costs. The Committee considers that its recommendation to the Department to explore the possibilities of funding the actual salary costs of teachers, rather than the average costs, would be helpful in creating more equitable purchasing power.

• witnesses considered that an important limitation of the current funding arrangements is demonstrated by the way that key policy initiatives, such as the limitation of class sizes, or school improvement, which should be met from ‘core’ funding to schools through the Formula, are at present the subject of additional central funding initiatives. These centrally-funded DE or ELB initiatives, providing monies additional to the LMS Formula, are considered by some witnesses to fund school failure and demonstrate the inability of present arrangements to provide for the core needs of pupils and schools. LMS funding should provide for such needs within the Formula, and arrangements should also be made to ‘reward’ schools which are successful in adding value to levels of pupil attainment as proposed by the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (1999).

The Committee supports these views and has already recommended that DE should give some consideration as to whether and how this situation should change.

The absence of ‘real’ school-level data has made it impossible for respondents to contextualise their evidence in a way which is properly informed e.g. the likelihood of increased TSN funding for an individual school might not outweigh losses accrued through the reduction of funding through AWPUs. The Department has provided for the Committee actual school budget figures under both the High and Low ASB models, but has pointed out that these will be subject to change.

The Committee believes that the absence of ‘real’ school-level data has limited the scope of the consultation process, and regrets that the Department has not provided these.

5.8.2 The Relationship of Changes in School Funding at a Time of Other Major Changes in the Education System

Several witnesses argued the need for Common Funding Formula proposals to be related to and integrated with other major areas of current education policy consultation and change. These include the Review of Post-Primary education, Curriculum and Assessment Review, and the Review of Public Administration. Respondents appeared to believe that there would be little purpose in implementing commonality, if other initiatives would render these changes obsolete in the near future.

In his evidence, the Minister believed that if, in future, further changes to school funding were required, it would be easier to change one Formula rather than seven.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes these views. However it feels that progress may be made in moving to more equitable and transparent funding arrangements while other changes are still in process: funding arrangements can later be adjusted, if necessary.

The Committee recommends that the Department should consider and bring forward for discussion, whenever appropriate, the implications of the various Policy Reviews which will affect funding arrangements for schools.

5.8.3 Transfer of Funding between Phases of Schooling

Increased spending on younger children was welcomed, but there was a general consensus that such funding should not be at the expense of other sectors, or phases of schooling. Some views were expressed that the proposed increases in the budgets of individual Primary schools were still likely to be inadequate to meet pupil needs in full, or to address current levels of deficit.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recognises the need to provide additional support for Early Years education. However, the Committee also believes that if this support damages Post-Primary schooling, then the purpose of the move to commonality will have failed.

The Committee therefore recommends that additional support for Early Years education should not lead to a reduction of support for any other phase of schooling.

5.8.4 How should Decision-Making be shared within the School System?

The discussions around these issues suggest some tensions between the relative importance of school-level autonomy, ELB capacity to set priorities at area level and central direction by the Department. Reasonable arguments can be advanced to support the pre-eminence of any of these, but the eventual balance between the levels should emerge as the result of informed debate which is not simply based on central direction or on special group or sectoral pleading. Instead, it should be the agreed balance which is likely to be most effective in meeting the broader needs of all children in the school system.

Discussion of change proposals which are likely to affect the current balance of decision-making should be explicitly framed in this way, so that respondents to consultation are fully aware of the strategic, as well as the technical implications of what is proposed. Particularly when an expressed intention of change is to shift resources between phases, it is important that the voices of those who will be affected are listened to carefully.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee believes that these are important issues which should be addressed in order to provide a sound basis for eventual decision making. It feels that these issues should have been more explicitly and fully explored through the Common Funding Formula proposals than they have been in the current document.

The Committee recommends that the Department give some consideration to this issue, and take appropriate steps to promote such debate.

5.8.5 Are the Proposals likely to meet the Expressed Objectives of Fairness, Simplicity, Ease of Operation and Transparency?

Will the Proposals Help to Improve the Learning of all Pupils, according to their Needs?

The explicit objectives of the move to a Common Funding Formula were outlined in the consultation document. These included fairness, simplicity, ease of operation and transparency. Therefore, during oral evidence sessions, witnesses were invited to comment on the extent to which the proposals outlined would in practice meet these objectives.

This final section of the Report summarises the most frequently raised relevant issues. Most of the identified difficulties have been addressed by the Committee in earlier sections of this Report.

(a) Fairness, Simplicity, Ease of Operation and Transparency?

Although the proposed changes are likely to rationalise funding arrangements to some extent, evidence from the ELBs and some schools suggests that more simplification and ease of operation are possible e.g. if a Small Schools or Teachers’ Salary Protection factor is likely to apply to a large proportion of schools, then there is an argument that such factors are unnecessary, and protection should be provided for through the main component of the Formula. As discussed by the Committee, the payment of the actual salary costs of teachers into delegated budgets would accommodate this issue. This solution is strongly supported by the ELBs, who are currently the Funding Authorities for the majority of Grant-Aided schools.

In addition, some concerns were expressed about the possibility of over-simplification of the funding process through commonality. Several witnesses provided evidence about the distinctiveness of need for individual schools, according to factors such as size, teaching staff profile, conditions of the premises, the age and family background of pupils.

Thus, while it is important that schools are funded according to explicit, equitable principles, it is most important that a desire for simplicity and ease of operation do not create situations of financial and management instability for many schools.

The consultation document’s failure to provide actual figures to Boards and schools of the impact of the proposed changes on their annual budgets was considered to lack transparency. Respondents’ capacity to make an informed response to the proposals was hampered.

Proposals for TSN indicators are considered to be complicated, and are felt to be incomplete and inappropriate by many witnesses. Issues were raised about:

• the need to include within the Free School Meal factor some indicator, such as entitlement to Working Families Tax Credit, which would identify children from families with very low earnings in order to target help to all children from families with low income; and
• the desirability of allocating educational need funding from indicators of educational need.

In addition, the proposed arrangements for the identification of educational needs are not considered robust, valid or equitable to schools.

Witnesses also considered, that in spite of a number of years of top-slicing the schools’ budget to target resources at socially and educationally-disadvantaged children, the differentials in educational attainment between these pupils and their peers does not appear to have been eroded. The lack of detailed information provided to show the impact of existing TSN spending or to show the anticipated impact of increasing such spending did not allow them to make a properly informed response, nor to judge whether proposals would increase equity for disadvantaged pupils.

The provision of additional funding to the Primary phase is welcomed in general, but no witness felt that this should be at the expense either of the Post-Primary phase, or of the services provided directly to schools by ELBs. In the interests of fairness to all, any additional funding needed should come from outside the current education budget.

As indicated through its main recommendations, the Committee supports these views and has suggested alternative arrangements which should address these concerns.

(b) Will the Proposals help to Improve the Learning of all Pupils, according to their Needs?

Since any system of school funding is only a means to the end of facilitating children’s learning, most witnesses, towards the end of the oral sessions, were asked to say whether the proposed funding system would assist schools to meet better the learning needs of all pupils. There was a range of responses to this question. None was unambiguously positive about the potential of the current proposals to improve learning throughout the system, although some aspects were welcomed. On the other hand, a number of witnesses were emphatically negative in response to the question.

The responses of those witnesses are given below:

"What we are getting at present is totally inadequate, and under this system is not going to change very much. … Any amount of money will help us, but it is not going to give the children the education that we really want to give them"

(Primary Principal)

"We hope that the more money we have in schools, the better education we can give. However, the quality of education will only improve if I start off on an equal footing to other schools in a similar situation. In other words, what is going to happen to the £52,000 deficit that I inherited?"

(Primary Principal)

"… the budget allocation to deliver the curriculum effectively has been insufficient. There needs to be an increase overall. We do not want the situation to develop where money is being moved around to make it look as if extra money has been put into people’s budgets."

(Primary Principal)

"Nothing is perfect, and it is not possible to design something that will please everyone, but these are steps in the right direction."

(Post-Primary Principal)

"Formula Funding may be a major part of the total funding that schools receive, but it is only a part. … We need a broader review of the entire funding arrangements, to address the needs of schools in whatever Board area, or part of a Board area, they happen to be."

(ELB Officer)

"If we were forced to give a one-word answer, it would be "No"."

(ELB Chief Executive)

"The answer is "No", and my colleagues agree with that."

(ELB Chief Executive)

"I have a one-word answer, and on balance it must be "No". That sounds negative, and I do not mean it in that way. More money can be pumped into schools’ budgets directly, but if they are not given the services they need – transport, special needs, etc. – then the approach does not represent a balanced way forward that will be in the best interests of the learning experience in schools."

(ELB Chief Executive)

"If there were a diminution in the empowerment of schools at local level, we would see a decline in standards. There is no doubt about that."

(Chief Executive, CCMS)

The Committee is grateful to all of those who have made written submissions and who have attended sessions as witnesses. The Committee has taken note of these views, and in its discussions and recommendations has taken steps to confront the difficult issues involved.

Top

REFERENCES

Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion CASEbrief 12 (1999) Schools, Education and Social Exclusion. London, LSE.

Department of Education, Northern Ireland (1997) Coopers and Lybrand Review of Formula Funding. Bangor: Department of Education.

Department of Education, Northern Ireland (2000a) The New TSN Annual Report: New TSN Action Plans. www.newtsnni.gov.uk/makingitwork/action_plans/de_1.htm

DE Northern Ireland (2000b) Research into the Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland. Gallagher, T and Smith, A, Main Report and Volumes 1 and 2, Bangor: Department of Education.

DE Northern Ireland (2000c) New TSN Action Plan. www.newtsnni.gov.uk/makingitwork/action_plans/de_2.htm

Department of Education, Northern Ireland (2001a) New Targeting Social Need (NTSN): Analysis Of Existing Information On Education Participation, Achievement And Outcomes For Disadvantaged Individuals And Groups. May. Bangor: Department of Education.

DE (2001b) Compendium of Northern Ireland Education Statistics - 1987/88 to 1999/2000. Bangor: Department of Education.

DE (2001c) Analysis of Responses to Consultation. Bangor: Department of Education.

Department for Education and Employment (2001) Improving the Take Up of Free School Meals. Research Brief, No 270, by Storey, P & Chamberlin R, Institute of Education, London. www.dfee.gov.uk/research

DETR (2000) Modernising Local Government Finance: A Green Paper, London.

DFP (2001) Measures of Deprivation in Northern Ireland. Belfast, DFP/NISRA.

DSD (2001) Social Security Summary Statistics Northern Ireland. October. Belfast, DSD/NISRA.

Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee (1997). Underachievement in Northern Ireland Secondary Schools: Report, together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. London, HMSO.

Scottish Executive Education Department (2001) Review of Devolved School Management: Working Group Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Top

APPENDIX 1

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
COMMITTEE RELATING TO THE REPORT

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 18 JANUARY 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr J Fee
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Mrs P Lewsley
Mr B McElduff
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs J McMurray
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 10.30 am in private session.

5. Discussion with officials from the Department of Education on the Review of the Local Management of Schools (LMS) Funding Formulae

The Chairman welcomed Dr Mark Browne, Mr John Caldwell and Mr Garth Manderson, officials from the Department of Education, to the meeting. A detailed presentation was made followed by a question and answer session. The key issues discussed included current LMS arrangements; the rationale and principles for a Common Funding Formula for schools; proposals for factors in the proposed Common Formula; the impact of the Common Formula particularly in relation to small schools; the proposed methodology and timetable of the consultation process; and the overall timescale for the implementation process.

The Chairman thanked the officials for a useful and informative presentation and the officials left the meeting. Members agreed to submit their views and comments regarding the proposals, the methodology and timescale of the consultation process and the overall timescale of the review and implementation process to the Clerk by Monday 22 January for inclusion in a draft Committee response.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
ThursDAY 25 january 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mr J Fee
Mr O Gibson
Mrs P Lewsley
Mr B McElduff

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs J McMurray
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 10.53 am in private session.

6. Committee Response on the Review of LMS Funding Formula

Members agreed that the Clerk would circulate the draft Committee response on the Review of LMS Funding Formula for comments/views.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Ms P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr B McElduff
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs J McMurray
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 10.30 am in private session.

2. Matters Arising from the Minutes of Proceedings

(iv) The Committee response on the Department of Education’s proposals for the Review of the LMS Funding Formula had been circulated.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 1 MARCH 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr J Fee
Mr T Gallagher
Mr T Hamilton
Mr B McElduff

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs J McMurray
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 2.00 pm in private session.

2. Matters arising from the Minutes of Proceedings

(v) The Minister for Education had replied to the Committee response on the Review of a common LMS Funding Formula and copies had been circulated.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 5 APRIL 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr O Gibson
Mr T Hamilton
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs J McMurray
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 11.30 am in private session.

5. Discussion of Committee Work Programme

Members noted the Launch of the Review of LMS Funding Formula and agreed to write to the Minister of Education regarding the delay in taking forward the consultation exercise and the timetable for the Review.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 26 APRIL 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr T Gallagher
Mrs P Lewsley
Mr B McElduff
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs J McMurray
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 10.45 am in private session.

2. (iv) The Committee noted the Minister of Education’s letter regarding the LMS Briefing Conferences. Members agreed to write to the Minister of Education requesting further information regarding the percentage of LMS Funding accounted for by teachers’ salaries and a reply to the Committee’s letter regarding the timescale of the Review.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 3 MAY 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Mrs P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs J McMurray
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 10.25 am in private session.

2. (iii) The Committee noted two responses from the Minister of Education regarding the Review of LMS Funding Formulae and agreed to write back seeking further clarification on a number of points. The Committee also resolved to appoint a Specialist Adviser and instructed the Clerk to initiate the procedures.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 17 MAY 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr O Gibson
Mr T Hamilton
Mr B McElduff
Mr G McHugh

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Mrs J McMurray
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 10.35 am in private session.

2. (i) The Committee noted that the Chairman had written to the Minister regarding the proposed Statutory Rule on the General Teaching Council and the Review of the LMS Funding Formulae. The Chairman advised members that the Department had written highlighting errors in some of the illustrative outcomes in the consultation document and providing revised tables. The Committee agreed to write to the Minister expressing serious concern and seeking an assurance that every effort is being made to bring the mistakes to people’s attention immediately.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
TUESDAY 22 MAY 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr J Fee
Mr O Gibson
Mr B McElduff

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 11.27 am in private session.

2. Matters arising from the Minutes of Proceedings

(i) The Committee noted that the Chairman had written to the Minister of Education expressing concern regarding the errors made in the Illustrative Outcomes, which were part of the LMS consultation document.

The Chairman advised members that he had received a joint letter from NICIE, the GBA(NI) and CCMS seeking a meeting with the Committee to discuss the Review of LMS Funding Formulae. Members agreed that the Clerk should arrange a meeting with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, which other members would attend if available.

(ii) The Committee discussed and agreed the proposals for the appointment of a Specialist Adviser for the Review of LMS Funding Formulae.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 21 JUNE 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Mr T Hamilton
Mrs P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone
Ms A Montgomery

The Committee met at 10.30 am in private session.

2. Matters arising from the Minutes of Proceedings

(iii) The Committee noted a response from the Minister of Education confirming that the consultation period for the Review of LMS Funding Formulae had been extended to 21 September 2001 and that primary legislation would be required. The Chairman advised members that he had written to the Minister requesting further clarification on the proposed timescale for the legislation and implementation process. The Minister had also highlighted a further error in the Illustrative Outcomes in the consultation document on the Review of LMS Funding Formulae and provided revised tables.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 28 JUNE 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr O Gibson
Mr T Hamilton
Mrs P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss J Adair
Ms C Angelone
Ms A Montgomery (Assembly Research Directorate for item 6)

The Committee met at 10.30 am in private session.

3. Chairman’s Business

(iv) The Chairman informed the Committee that the Minister of Education had replied confirming that primary legislation would be required to introduce a Common Funding Formulae. Members noted that the Minister would provide a copy of the policy memorandum relating to the proposed Bill as soon as possible.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 5 JULY 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr O Gibson
Mr T Hamilton
Mrs P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 10.25 am in private session.

2. Matters arising from the Minutes of Proceedings

(i) Copies of the Chairman’s letters to the Minister of Education regarding the Review of LMS Funding and the Northern Ireland Teaching Council’s call for an independent inquiry into pay levels, salaries, conditions of service and workload of teachers and principals/vice-principals had been circulated.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 13 SEPTEMBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Mr B McElduff
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Ms J Adair
Ms C Angelone

The Committee met at 10.40 am in private session.

6. Consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula For Grant Aided Schools

The Chairman outlined the arrangements for the forthcoming evidence sessions. He then welcomed the Specialist Adviser on the Review of Post-Primary Education, Ms Penny McKeown, and the Assembly Researchers, Ms Alison Montgomery and Ms Gillian Kane to the meeting. The Specialist Adviser briefed the Committee on the key issues surrounding the proposals including:

• The current arrangements
• The rationale and principles on which the proposals are based
• The proposed main changes
• The likely impact of the proposed changes
• The main issues arising from the proposals

This was followed by a question and answer session. The Committee agreed to seek further information from the Department on the proposals.

Ms Montgomery then outlined the systems for the distribution of resources to schools in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr J Fee
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Ms J Adair
Ms C Angelone
Ms Alison Montgomery (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 10.25 am in private session.

The Committee went into Public Session

4. Evidence Session with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and the Governing Bodies Association (GBA) on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

Mrs Bell joined the meeting at 11.05 am.

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mr Flanagan, Chief Executive and Mr McArdle, Deputy Chief Executive of CCMS and Mr Miskelly, Clerk and Mr McCallion, Deputy Chairman of the GBA to the meeting. They gave oral evidence on the CCMS and GBA submissions to the Committee on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. Areas discussed included:

• Teachers’ Salaries
• Targeting Social Need Factor
• Pupil weightings: Primary v Post Primary
• Buildings and Grounds
• The possibility of the proposals creating a system which will assist Boards, Principals, teachers etc. to improve the learning of all pupils.

Mr Wilson left the meeting at 11.25 am.

5. Evidence Session with Primary School Principals on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

Mr Wilson rejoined the meeting at 11.55 am and Mr Fee joined the meeting at 11.58 am.

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mr Lombard, Ms Houston, Mr McCrudden, Ms Ferguson and Ms Andrews to the meeting. They gave oral evidence on the implications of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. The main issues discussed included:

• The size and characteristics of their school
• Their experience of operating the current LMS scheme and the benefits/difficulties encountered
• The implications of the proposed changes may have for their type of school
• The possibility of the proposals establishing a fair and transparent system, easy to operate and understand

Mrs Bell left the meeting at 12.25 pm.

6. Evidence Session with the Belfast Education and Library Board on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mr Cargo, Chief Executive, Mr Megaughin, Chief Finance Officer and Mr Todd, Assistant Senior Education Officer of the Belfast Education and Library Board to the meeting. They gave oral evidence on the Belfast Education and Library Boards submission to the Committee on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. The areas discussed included:

• The Low and High ASB Models
• Targeting Social Need
• Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries
• The possibility of the proposals creating a system which will assist Boards, Principals, teachers etc. to improve the learning of all pupils according to their needs.

7. Evidence Session with Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

Mr Gallagher left the meeting at 1.20 pm.

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mr Ó Muireagain, Development Officer, Mr MacCionnaith, Principal and Mr Gribben, Principal to the meeting. They gave oral evidence on Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta’s submission to the Committee on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. The areas discussed included:

• The proposal that Irish Medium schools should receive an extra amount in addition to their AWPU allocation and how this should be calculated
• The creation of an Irish-Medium Unit factor in the proposals
• The cost involved in the translation of material and the possible benefits a central unit, to facilitate translation, would have on costs
• The possible changes in the areas of responsibility currently divided between ELBS and schools under the new arrangements

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mr J Fee
Mr T Gallagher
Mr T Hamilton
Ms P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr B McElduff
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Ms J Adair
Ms C Angelone
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 10.40 am in private session.

The Committee went into Public Session

2. Evidence Session with the Western Education and Library Board on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

Mr Robinson joined the meeting at 10.45 am and Mr Hamilton joined the meeting at 11.00 am.

Mr McElduff declared an interest, registering that he is a member of the Western Education and Library Board.

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mr Martin, Chief Executive and Mr Rainey, Senior Education Officer. They gave oral evidence on the Western Education and Library Board’s submission to the Committee on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. Areas discussed included:

• The Funding of Small Schools
• The Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries
• The Equitable Distribution of Resources
• The need to move forward in conjunction with the other major reviews currently ongoing
• The possibility of the proposals creating a system which will assist Boards, Principals, teachers etc. to improve the learning of all pupils.

3. Evidence Session with the North Eastern Education and Library Board on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

Ms Lewsley left the meeting at 11.30 am and Mr Fee joined the meeting at 11.35 am.

Mr Robinson declared an interest, registering that he is a member of a Board of Governors of a school in the North Eastern Education and Library Board area and he took no part in the session.

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mr Topping, Chief Executive, Mr McCurdy, Chief Finance Officer and Mr Lynn of the Finance Department to the meeting. They gave oral evidence on the North Eastern Education and Library Board’s submission to the Committee on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. The main issues discussed included:

• The implications for ELB Services and Resources if the high ASB model is implemented with no extra funding provided
• Targeting Social Need and the need for evidence that targets are being achieved
• Treatment of Teacher Costs
• The possibility of the proposals establishing a fair and transparent system that will be easy to operate and understand

4. Matters arising from the Minutes of Proceedings

(iii) Copies of the Chairman’s letter to the Minister of Education requesting further information in relation to the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula had been circulated.

(iv) Further information provided by Assembly Research Directorate on a range of issues relating to the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula had been circulated for members information and consideration.

(v) Three submissions on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula received by the Committee from Primary Schools in the Dungannon/Cookstown area had been circulated.

6. Evidence Session with the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mr Wardlow, Chief Executive, Mr Sheeran, Public Affairs, Ms Frost, a Primary Principal and Mr Dolan, a Post Primary Principal. They gave oral evidence on the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education’s submission to the Committee on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. The areas discussed included:

• Age weighted pupil units
• Administrative and other costs unique to Grant Maintained Integrated Schools
• The Transitional arrangements
• Clarification of contingency arrangements for pupil growth
• The possibility of the proposals creating a system which will assist Boards, Principals, teachers etc. to improve the learning of all pupils according to their needs
• The experiences of operating the LMS system
• The main issues affecting a Post-Primary Grant Maintained Integrated School under the Proposals

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 4 OCTOBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Ms P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Ms C Angelone
Ms Gillian Kane (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 10.25 am in private session.

2. Matters Arising from the Minutes

(i) Copies of a response from the Minister of Education to the Chairman’s letter requesting further information on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula had been circulated. The Committee noted that the enclosures which accompanied the response were to be treated as strictly confidential. The Minister was due to attend the Committee meeting scheduled for 11 October and the Committee agreed that further questions could be dealt with at that time. The Committee also agreed that the meeting should be in public.

(ii) Copies of a letter from the Minister of Education informing the Committee of his intention to postpone the implementation of a Common Funding Formula until April 2003 had been circulated. The Committee agreed a press release welcoming the announcement.

The Committee went to public session.

4. Evidence Session with the Southern Education and Library Board on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mrs McClenaghan, Chief Executive, Mr Heron, Head of Corporate Services and Mr Burke, Assistant Senior Education Officer. They gave oral evidence on the Southern Education and Library Board’s submission to the Committee on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. The areas discussed included:

• the impact of redirecting resources on essential services;
• the funding of small schools;
• teacher costs – actual/average;
• special unit funding; and
• different methods of calculating funding for TSN.

5. Evidence Session with Post-Primary Principals on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals on a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mrs McCafferty, Mr Mullen, Mr Doherty and Mr O’Kelly to the meeting. They gave oral evidence on the implications of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. The main issues discussed were:

• the size and characteristics of their school;
• their experience of operating under the current LMS scheme and the benefits/difficulties encountered;
• the implications the proposed changes may have for their type of school; and
• the possibility of the proposals establishing a fair and transparent system, easy to operate and understand.

6. Evidence Session with the South Eastern Education and Library Board on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals on a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Mr Fitzsimons, Chief Executive, Mr Sloan, Senior Education Officer for Curriculum and Mr Brown, Chief Finance Officer to the meeting. They gave oral evidence on the South Eastern Education and Library Board’s submission to the Committee on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. The main issues discussed were:

• the treatment of teachers’ salaries;
• the use of Key Stage 2 results as an indicator of Special Educational Needs;
• the need for increased funding for primary schools but not at the expense of post-primary schools;
• funding for small schools; and
• possible changes in delegation of responsibility to schools and the need to fund those services to be retained by Education and Library Boards.

Mrs Bell left the meeting at 12.30 pm and Ms Lewlsey left the meeting at 12.50 pm.

7. Evidence Session with the Equality Commission on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, the Chairman welcomed Ms Collins, Chief Executive, Ms Lavery, Director of Policy and Research and Professor Bob Osborne, Commissioner to the meeting. They gave oral evidence on the Equality Commission’s submission to the Committee on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula and this was followed by a short question and answer session. The main issues discussed included:

• TSN funding and the rationale for the increase from 5% to 5.5%;
• the need to ensure that TSN funding is being used effectively;
• funding of preparatory units;
• support for children for whom English is a second language; and
• the equality impact assessment.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 11 OCTOBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Mr T Hamilton
Ms P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms C Angelone
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate for item 2)

The Committee met at 10.15 am in private session.

The Committee went into public session.

2. Discussion with the Minister of Education and officials on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula – Public Session

The Chairman welcomed the Minister of Education, Mr Martin McGuinness, Dr Browne, Head of School Funding and Administration, Mr Caldwell and Mr Anderson in the meeting. A detailed discussion on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula took place. The key issues raised included:

• transitional arrangements;
• the use of Free School Meals as an indicator for TSN funding;
• the need to ensure that TSN funding is being used effectively;
• use of Key Stage 2 results as an indicator for SEN funding;
• the funding of Irish Medium schools;
• teachers’ salary costs;
• funding for small schools;
• the additional funding required if the high ASB model was implemented and possible implications for centrally provided services;
• the need for equitable treatment of schools; and
• funding for the children of service personnel and the children of travellers.

The Chairman informed the Minister that the Committee had welcomed the decision to postpone the implementation of a Common Funding Formula until April 2003 and thanked him for attending the meeting. The Minister offered to attend the Committee again if any further issues arose during the Committee’s deliberations. The Minister left the meeting.

The Departmental officials continued with a presentation on the results of the consultation exercise on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula. This was followed by a question and answer session during which the following issues were discussed:

• the limited response to the consultation exercise by schools;
• the method of assessing the responses to the consultation exercise;
• the responses to the proposals regarding teachers’ salaries;
• a graph showing Teacher Costs as a percentage of total resources;
• the responses to the proposal to skew resources to Primary Schools; and
• the responses to the proposals regarding TSN Funding.

The Chairman thanked the officials and they left the meeting.

Given that the implementation of a Common Funding Formula for schools has been deferred until April 2003, the Committee agreed that its response to the Minister of Education on the proposals should now be completed by the end of November 2001.

The Committee returned to private session.

3. Briefing on the main issues arising from the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

A paper by the Specialist Adviser Mrs Penny McKeown on the main issues arising from the proposals for a Common Funding Formula had been circulated. The Committee agreed to consider the paper at the next scheduled meeting of the Committee.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 18 OCTOBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Mr T Hamilton
Ms P Lewsley
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms C Angelone
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 10.30 am in private session.

5. Briefing by the Specialist Adviser on the main issues arising from the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula – Private Session

The Chairman welcomed the Specialist Adviser on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, Mrs Penny McKeown, to the meeting. Mrs McKeown briefed the Committee on her analysis of the written submissions and evidence sessions. This was followed by a short discussion of the main issues to be included in the Committee response.

The Committee agreed that the Specialist Adviser should prepare a paper expanding the issues discussed and highlighting possible recommendations for consideration.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr T Gallagher
Mr T Hamilton
Mrs P Lewsley
Mr B McElduff
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms C Angelone
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 10.25 am in private session.

6. Briefing by the Specialist Adviser, Mrs Penny McKeown, on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula – Private Session

The Chairman welcomed Mrs McKeown, the Specialist Adviser on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula to the meeting. Mrs McKeown briefed the Committee on the proposals under the Targeting Social Need factor.

Following a detailed discussion the Committee agreed that further information should be requested from the Department of Education on a number of the objectives and targets included in the Department’s New TSN Action plan. The Committee also agreed that the Specialist Advisor should prepare a paper expanding on the other main issues arising from the Proposals and highlight possible recommendations in these areas.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Mr T Hamilton
Ms P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms C Angelone
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 10.30 am in private session.

5. Briefing by the Specialist Adviser, Mrs Penny McKeown, on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

The Chairman welcomed Mrs McKeown, the Specialist Adviser on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula, to the meeting. Mrs McKeown briefed the Committee on the proposals for the Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries. After a short discussion the Committee agreed to schedule an additional meeting for Tuesday 13 November at 12.30 pm to consider the issues further. The Chairman thanked the Specialist Adviser for her assistance.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
TUESDAY 13 NOVEMBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Ms P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms C Angelone
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 12.30 pm in private session.

1. Consideration of Issues for Inclusion in the Committee Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

(i) The Chairman welcomed, Mrs Penny McKeown, the Committee’s Specialist Adviser, to the meeting. Mrs McKeown briefed the Committee on the proposals in relation to the Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries and summarised the evidence received by the Committee on this issue from a number of organisations and individuals. Following a lengthy and detailed discussion the Committee agreed its position regarding this matter. The Committee also agreed that further information should be obtained.

(ii) A paper presented by Mrs McKeown on Small School Issues was discussed and the Committee agreed recommendations for inclusion in the Report.

(iii) Following a short discussion, a number of recommendations regarding the proposals for dealing with Premises and Grounds Costs within a Common Funding Formula were agreed.

(iv) The Committee agreed to meet on Tuesday 20 November at 12.30 pm to continue the discussion on the Premises and Grounds Costs and to cover other issues arising from the Common Funding Formula Proposals.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
TUESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Mr T Hamilton
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms C Angelone
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 12.30 pm in private session.

3. Consideration of Issues for Inclusion in the Committee Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

(i) The Chairman welcomed Mrs Penny McKeown the Committee’s Specialist Adviser, to the meeting. Further information on a number of issues, including the handling of VAT and standardised tests used by the Southern Education and Library Board, was discussed.

(ii) The Committee considered two matters regarding the proposals for dealing with Premises and Grounds Costs within a Common Formula and agreed recommendations.

(iii) The Committee discussed the Proposals for the Targeting Social Need Factor and agreed a number of recommendations.

(iv) Mrs McKeown briefed the Committee on general and strategic issues arising from the proposals, individual concerns raised by different sectors and equality issues. Following a detailed discussion the Committee agreed a number of points and recommendations for inclusion in the Report.

(v) The Committee agreed that a first draft of the Committee report would be considered at the meeting scheduled for 29 November 2001.

(vi) The Committee considered possible options for the printing and publishing schedule for the Report and agreed its preferred option. The Committee also agreed that an advance copy of the Report should be provided to the Minister of Education.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Ms P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms C Angelone
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate for items 3 and 5)

The Committee met at 10.45 am in private session with the Deputy Chairman in the Chair.

The Committee went into public session.

3. Evidence Session with Mr Craig Clement, of Angus District Council, on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula – Public Session

The Deputy Chairman welcomed Mrs Penny McKeown, the Specialist Adviser on the Proposals for a Common funding Formula, to the meeting. As part of the Committee’s consideration of the Proposals for a Common funding Formula, he also welcomed Mr Craig Clement of Angus District Council to the meeting. Mr Clement briefed the Committee on the Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries in Scotland and other funding issues. This was followed by a detailed question and answer session. The main issues covered included:

• The key features of Devolved School Management in Scotland and in particular the use of averages and actuals in the treatment of teachers’ salaries;
• the calculation of funding for repairs, maintenance, furnishing and improvements;
• issues connected with small schools;
• deprivation funding;
• Special Educational Needs units; and
• the outcome of a recent Review of Devolved School Management and issues for future consideration including the outworkings of the ‘McCrone Agreement’.

The Deputy Chairman thanked Mr Clement for attending the meeting and for an extremely useful discussion and he left the meeting.

The Chairman joined the meeting at 11.50 am and assumed the chair.

The Committee returned to private session.

5. Consideration of the Draft Committee Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

Mrs Penny McKeown rejoined the meeting. The Committee discussed the evidence given by Mr Craig Clement within the context of the recommendations already agreed for inclusion in the Committee Report. The first part of the draft Report had been circulated and the Committee agreed to hold a meeting on Tuesday 4 December to discuss it.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
TUESDAY 4 DECEMBER 2001
ROOM 152, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mr T Gallagher
Mr T Hamilton
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 10.45 am in private session with the Deputy Chairman in the Chair.

1. Consideration of Draft Committee Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

(i) The Committee considered the draft of the first part of the Report section by section and, after discussion, agreed it with a number of amendments. The Committee also agreed that a number of bullet points included in Common Factors and Weightings should be reworded and considered again at the next meeting.

(ii) The Committee agreed to reschedule the discussion of the second part of the Report until Tuesday 11 December due to the Specialist Adviser’s circumstances.

(iii) The Committee discussed and agreed the Appendices to be included in the Report.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 6 DECEMBER 2001
ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mr O Gibson
Ms P Lewsley
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley

The Committee met at 10.40 am in private session.

4. Consideration of the Draft Committee Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

(i) Due to circumstances the Committee had agreed at the meeting on 4 December to postpone further consideration of the Draft Committee Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula until 11 December.

(ii) The Committee discussed and agreed the wording of a Motion to be tabled with the Business Committee for a debate in the Assembly on the Committee Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula. The Committee also agreed their preferred date for the debate.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2001
ROOM 144, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs E Bell
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Ms P Lewsley
Mr K Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms S O’Neill
Ms G Kane (Assembly Research Directorate)

The Committee met at 12.45 pm in private session.

2. Matters Arising

(i) The Committee noted that the minor changes to the draft Report that had been agreed at the meeting on 4 December had been made.

(ii) The Committee considered rewording of bullet points included in the Common Factors and Weightings and agreed it with amendments.

3. Consideration of Draft Committee Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

(i) The Committee considered an addition to paragraph 1.2 of the Introduction and after discussion amended and then agreed the addition.

(ii) The Committee considered the draft of the second part of the Report section by section and, after discussion, agreed a number of amendments. The Committee also agreed that the paragraphs and recommendations on addressing issues of Multiple Disadvantage should be re-drafted. After discussion, the Committee agreed to give further consideration to a recommendation on the General Principles.

(iii) The Committee agreed to continue consideration of the draft Report at the next meeting scheduled for Thursday 13 December.

[Extract]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER 2001
BOARD ROOM BT TOWER BELFAST

Present: Mr D Kennedy (Chairman)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairman)
Mr T Gallagher
Mr O Gibson
Ms P Lewsley
Mr B McElduff
Mr G McHugh
Mr K Robinson

Apologies: Mrs E Bell

In Attendance: Mrs C Darrah
Mrs V Artt
Miss P Bradley
Ms S O’Neill

The Committee met at 10.50. a.m. in private session.

6. Consideration of the Draft Committee Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula

(i) The Committee noted that the amendments agreed at the meeting on 11 December had been incorporated into the final draft Report.

(ii) The Committee agreed pages 25 to 36 of the draft Report.

(iii) The Committee considered a recommendation on the General Principles and, following amendment of the wording, agreed it.

(iv) The Committee also agreed revised wording of the section Addressing Issues of Multiple Disadvantage.

(v) The Committee gave further consideration to the section on Special Sectoral or Area Concerns and after a detailed discussion a majority of members agreed to revise the wording of the recommendation regarding Irish-Medium Schools.

(vi) The Committee agreed that a section including all the recommendations should be added to the front of the Report for ease of reference.

(vii) The final draft of the Committee’s Report was circulated and read paragraph by paragraph:

Introduction Paragraphs 1.1 to 1.4 read and agreed

The Context Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 read and agreed

The Proposals for a Common Funding Formula Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 read and agreed

Review of the Evidence Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.13 read and agreed

Findings Paragraph 5.1 read, amended and agreed

Paragraph 5.2 read, amended and agreed

Paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 read and agreed

Paragraph 5.7 read, amended and agreed

Paragraph 5.8 to 5.9 read and agreed

(viii) The Committee agreed –

"That the Report should be the Second Report of the Committee for Education to the Assembly and that it should be printed."

(ix) The Committee noted that the Motion to debate the Report was provisionally listed for Tuesday 15 January 2002.

(x) The Committee agreed that embargoed copies of the Report should be sent to the media prior to the debate.

(xi) The Committee also agreed that copies should be sent to those organisations and individuals who had submitted evidence to the Committee.

(xii) The Committee recorded its thanks to the Specialist Adviser, Mrs Penny McKeown, the Assembly Research Directorate and the Committee staff for the work in preparing the Report.

[ Extract]

Top

APPENDIX 2

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
BELFAST EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARD

INTRODUCTION

The Belfast board welcomes the opportunity to present in detail to the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Education its response to the proposals for a common funding formula.

Since the launch of the proposals, we have been engaged in wide ranging consultation with members, governors, and principals, and we had framed our response for submission on the original deadline of 29 June 2001. The extension to the deadline has given schools the opportunity to give the proposals further thought although the actual time for consideration has been limited by the intervening school holidays. Nevertheless, we will be consolidating additional school comments into our final response on 21 September 2001.

The board’s response deals with very many aspects of the proposals, but there is general agreement that the three main issues within the proposals are as follows.

1. The low and high ASB models (Annex 1)

2. Targeting Social Need (Section 7)

3. Treatment of Teacher Salaries (Section 9)

For ease of reference, these issues are dealt with by way of separate papers.

1. THE LOW AND HIGH ASB MODELS (ANNEX 1)

(a) The low ASB Model

The Belfast board has a long tradition of maximising the amount of its limited and declining funding that is allocated to schools.

The impact of this policy can be seen clearly on page 149 of the proposals. The low ASB model is a simplistic exercise whereby the existing ASB’s are redistributed according to the revised factors. Under this scenario, Belfast board schools would experience reduced funding of around £2.4m, to bring them down to the Northern Ireland average; consequently existing levels must be £2.4m above that average.

The high level of delegated funding has been achieved against a backdrop of declining resources and increasing pressures by restricting the amount allocated to non-school services. Year on year, members have had to make difficult decisions about non-school budgets, and significant cuts have been made to protect the schools position. In particular, the resources expended on headquarters services have been drastically curtailed, but budget holders have managed to maintain a valued level of service delivery to schools.

The Belfast board would be totally opposed to the implementation of this model. Even on existing higher levels of funding, Belfast board schools are experiencing increasing difficulty in managing within their delegated budgets. For instance, in 1997/98, only 29 schools (out of 148) were operating in a deficit situation; by 2000/2001, that number had increased to 64 (out of 143), and there is every indication that falling enrolments could help to perpetuate this situation into the future.

A further serious outcome of the low ASB model would be the enforced reduction in teachers. This would be at least 80 teachers, but probably more given that the reduction in post-primary schools is even greater than £2.4m.

(b) The High ASB Model

The Department of Education states on page 13 that it ‘will be working towards the high ASB model as this will increase levels of delegation and direct more resources to the classroom’. The Belfast board, as stated above, has recognised the priority afforded to the classroom for many years, and is supportive of the Department’s intention. However, the achievement of this worthy objective will need to be managed carefully for a number of reasons.

(i) The model will require additional funding, or a realignment of existing budgets to produce somewhere in the region of £15m to divert into school budgets. The method of achieving this additional finance needs to be open and transparent to ensure that boards that traditionally delegated high levels to schools are not disadvantaged when the new formula is introduced. This will be especially important for the process of allocating resources to boards (the Assessment of Relative Needs Exercise) which is usually finalised in December of each year.

(ii) The ASB is only a part of the total school budget, albeit the vast majority of funding (85%) spent on schools. Boards are required to hold central funds to assist schools with items of expenditure such as teacher substitution, rates and landlord maintenance. The implementation of a common formula will have to address the adequacy, or otherwise, of centrally held funds to ensure that the consistency desired for school funding is replicated in the centrally held items.

(iii) The model results in a transfer of resources within boards. There is a general and marked movement of resources from the post-primary sector to the primary schools. During our consultation, it was clear that these additional resources would be welcomed by primary principals, but without exception, they were of the view that this should not be achieved at the expense of the post-primary sector. If resources are transferred then the budgetary problems which, in the main, affect the primary schools, could simply move across to the post-primary sector.

In conclusion, the Belfast Board is supportive of the high ASB model provided that the necessary assurances are given in respect of points (i), (ii) and (iii) above.

2. TARGETING SOCIAL NEED

We believe that education has an important part to play in targeting social need and it is important that the funding arrangements assist schools in fulfilling this role. Many of our schools lie at the heart of severely disadvantaged communities where the inequalities in employment, health, housing, social inclusion and educational achievement are manifest. Statistical evidence shows that educational achievement in many Belfast schools lies below the Northern Ireland average at years 4 and 7 (Key Stages 1 and 2 results), transfer test results, GCSE scores and post 16 results. Significant differences also exist within Belfast between the achievements of boys and girls. The table below contains statistics on literacy and numeracy achievement which are indicative of the lower levels of achievement in many of our schools.

		BELB	Northern Ireland
Key Stage 1 % Level 2 or above	English Mathematics	94.6 94.6	93.9 94.0
Key Stage 2 % Level 4 or above	English Mathematics	60.6 66.5	69.0 73.9
Key Stage 3 % Level 5 or above	English Mathematics	70.6 68	67.7 70.1
Key Stage 3 Grammar % Level 5 or above	English Mathematics	97.2 98.4	96.9 98.6
Key Stage 3 Non-grammar % Level 5 or above	English Mathematics	47.0 41.1	52.3 55.2

The performance of Belfast pupils in the transfer test also lags behind the Northern Ireland average. In the last transfer test only 66% of pupils gained grades A – C against a Northern Ireland average of 70%.

The Belfast board took account of the need to address these issues in its New TSN Action Plan which took effect from the 1 April 2001. The targets contained therein closely correlate with the plans published by the three central government departments – DE, DCAL and DEL.

We believe that the total TSN funding should be increased from 5% to 5.5% of the total schools’ recurrent budget in order to address the needs of disadvantaged pupils. We also feel that the social deprivation factor and a special needs factor should be used to distribute such TSN funding. However we would make the following points.

(a) Social deprivation is a complex concept and extremely difficult to quantify. Using free school meals as a single indicator does not give a true picture of social deprivation as many parents do not register for free school meals due to the stigma attached to it. Alternative and additional measures should be explored.

(b) We do not feel that the proposal to use the end of Key Stage 2 or Key Stage 3 results as an indicator of special educational needs will be either reliable or valid. These tests were never designed for such purposes and it should be noted that the tests cover a narrow band of the curriculum; English and mathematics at Key Stage 2 and English, mathematics and science at Key Stage 3. The broader multiple intelligences currently recognised and accepted in educational circles at all levels cannot be fully or adequately measured by current key stage tests.

(c) We would also point out that the current review of the Northern Ireland Curriculum may bring significant changes to assessment methodologies within the next few years thus again requiring a re-assessment of this factor.

(d) If key stage results are used as the indicator of special educational needs, schools may become victims of their own success as the allocation of monies under this factor will decrease with improved results.

(e) In respect of TSN in nursery schools we feel that the two benefit categories (Income Support and Income-Based Job Seekers Allowance) are too restrictive and that other Government schemes or training programmes need to be included in the list, for example, New Deal.

3. TREATMENT OF TEACHER SALARIES (SECTION 9)

The proposals identify that teacher salaries can often account for 80% of total funding. In Belfast, we collect this information on a school by school basis, and the ranges for each sector in 2000/2001 are as follows.

Nursery schools 52 – 100%

Primary schools 72 – 100%

Post-primary schools 70 – 86%

It is apparent from these wide ranges that some schools are able to devote a sizeable proportion of their budget to non-teaching costs whilst others have little or no surplus funds once their teaching costs have been met.

We feel that the current system of funding, based on average rather than actual teaching costs, needs to be improved to ensure that all schools have sufficient budgets to pay for their agreed teaching costs, and also to provide adequate funding for non-teaching costs.

The five boards have, for some time, expressed a desire to realign the formula to take account of actual teaching costs. This desire has considerable support within schools, but it is not predicated on the removal of teaching costs from LMS. We recognise that the whole ethos of LMS could be eroded if such a substantial sum was removed from the ASB. Rather we envisage a model whereby agreed teaching complements would be funded at actual costs. In this way, schools would be guaranteed the appropriate level of funding for teachers, but they would still have total control over the number of teachers employed. It would be for the Board of Governors to make local decisions on whether to employ more or less than the agreed establishment. In this way, local accountability would be retained.

There is a further point within the proposals relating to surpluses and deficits and the lack of a direct link between these and teacher salary costs. Whilst we recognise that a surplus or deficit will be impacted by teaching costs, it will also be affected by other decisions made by the school. Therefore, we are not proposing a revision to the funding methodology purely for year-end accounting reasons but to provide all schools with equal opportunity in the use of their resources.

We are firmly of the view that extending teacher salary protection to a greater number of schools reinforces our belief that the current system of average costs is flawed.

In Belfast, 69 schools are eligible for support in the existing formula; under the proposals, 113 schools (80%) would qualify. In our view, a support rate of 80% suggests that the system of funding schools for average teacher costs is appropriate for only a small minority of schools.

In conclusion, we would recommend that the review of the existing formulae within Northern Ireland should not proceed without further detailed examination of an alternative method of funding teacher salary costs on an actual rather than an average basis.

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COMHAIRLE NA GAELSCOLAÍOCHTA

Recognising the added workload of teachers in Irish Medium Schools

The new funding arrangements proposed by the Department need to recognise the additional costs incurred by Irish Medium Schools (IMS). These are brought about due to the additional time commitments required to deliver the curriculum to the standard envisaged by the Department and the additional workload involved.

Translation of materials

There are many added costs incurred by IMS. One of the reasons for these extra costs is the additional time teachers must commit to translation of materials. This is caused by the lack of available resources in the medium of Irish. Teachers are required to translate the accessible English language material. Resources such as audiotapes, textbooks, work sheets, the six-week study programmes and any other materials to be delivered in the medium of Irish must be translated. This can take up many hours of the teacher’s time and not only adds to the costs but also adds to the amount of extra work the already overburdened teacher has to do.

Parent-Teacher Contact

The importance of the relationship between teacher and parent is already known. It is of even more importance in IMSs and contributes further to the workload of the teacher. Teachers need to translate much of their Irish material into English for the parents, many of whom have little or no ability to read Irish. Teachers also need to spend more time with parents explaining their child’s progress and homework.

Post-Primary Schools

The extent of translation is even greater in post-primary schools, which are still very much under resourced as far as textbooks are concerned. These additional expenses need to be properly recognised by the Department and Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta recommends the following:

It is proposed by Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta that the sum in section 14.9 of the Department’s discussion document be raised from £100.00 to £350.00 to cover the extra costs outlined above to help redress the burden on the schools’ budgets in relation to extra working hours of the teachers and added translation costs. This will contribute significantly to facilitating schools to effectively deliver the curriculum by allowing schools and units to avail of substitute cover or additional staff, thereby allowing existing staff to be deployed for translation of materials and homework for parents.

The costs mentioned above for post-primary schools are even greater in relation to extra teaching time and translation costs. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta is of the opinion that the intended sum of £25 per pupil will not adequately cover the extra cost incurred by the post-primary sector and we propose that this sum should be raised to £100 per pupil to allow additional staff for translation and substitute cover.

Pupil Teacher Ratio

A reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio is crucial for Irish-medium schools. It is imperative that the pupil-teacher ratio is kept small to ensure the success of the immersion education system, particularly in Irish-medium Units (IMU). A low pupil teacher ratio allows the children to develop their use of Irish, especially for children coming from an English-speaking environment. This is the case for the majority of children attending IMSs. The immersion-education system is totally reliant on pupil-teacher contact. The majority of pupils depend almost entirely on their contact with teachers to develop their linguistic proficiency, oral, reading and written.

Linguistic Exposure

The levels of language exposure and linguistic interaction required necessitate a reduced pupil-teacher ratio. Class sizes above 21 will severely inhibit the pupils’ opportunities to develop language proficiency at KS 1.

Introduction of English at KSII

The introduction of English as a fourth core subject at year 3/4 provides a incontrovertible argument for maintaining pupil-teacher ratios at this reduced level beyond KS 1. The ratio recommended by Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta will allow smaller schools and units to avoid composite classes mixing children at KSI who have not had formal instruction in English and children at KSII who have begun their formal instruction in English.

The above conditions are further compounded in IMUs where opportunities for linguistic development and reinforcement throughout the school are limited.

The Comhairle proposes that pupil-teacher ratios in IMS and in IMUs in particular, should not be more than 15 : 1 in composite classes and 20 : 1 in single year classes.

IRISH-MEDIUM UNITS

Irish Medium Units

The discussion document indicates the Department’s recognition that IMUs operate as self-contained provision under the management of a host English-medium school (14.2). We agree with this assessment. However, while the development of units is actively encouraged by the DE, the conditions laid down to establish Irish-medium units militate against their establishment.

In addition to translation costs and extra hours worked, units also have additional administration, as they need to have all their documentation in both languages. Their administration staff must have at least one member with Irish to serve the needs of the IMU or alternatively regular substitute cover is required to facilitate the deployment of existing teaching staff.

In essence IMUs incur all the additional expenditure of small schools with teaching principals and accordingly should be treated in a similar fashion.

In respect of Section 14.11 of the discussion document on IMUs, the Comhairle proposes that the lump-sum figure for schools of less than 101 pupils equivalent to 1.1 teacher salary (£31,918) be raised to 1.2 (£34,819) in line with the sum recommended for small schools.

Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta recommends that this amount should be given to the unit from its inception as this is the most important time in the schools development and the time when the most financial assistance for units is required.

Unit Co-ordinator

The Principal has many duties to attend to in the normal running of an English speaking school but these duties are doubled if the school has an IMU. The daily management of the unit needs to have the full attention of the manager if it is to succeed.

The Comhairle recommends that a member of the teaching staff of the unit should be designated as co-ordinator to manage the day to day running of the IMU and have responsibility for educational issues relating to Irish Medium Education within the school. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta recommends that the co-ordinator should be placed at senior-management level within the host school management hierarchy. This will facilitate influence at decision-making level for the unit. Provision for this needs to be taken into account in funding arrangements for units at primary and secondary level.

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
COUNCIL FOR CATHOLIC MAINTAINED SCHOOLS (CCMS)

Please find enclosed a brief paper in respect of the forthcoming meeting with the Education Committee. The paper represents a distillation of the key issues related to the introduction of a common formula as agreed by representatives of CCMS, GBA and NICIE.

I understand that Mr Wardlow will represent the views of NICIE separately but will be in attendance as an observer on 20 September 2001.

DONAL FLANAGH
Chief Executive

LMS CONSULTATION - KEY ISSUES

1. Support the principle of LMS and the introduction of a common formula.

2. Support for the principle of delegating as much as possible to schools but recognise this should not extend beyond "educational" activities to matters such as school meals, transport, redundancy payments etc. Such matters are best administered centrally.

3. The introduction of a common formula and its implementation should seek to take account of the imminent review of the post-primary and local government reorganisation. Both these reviews are likely to have a major impact on the proposals and their implementation.

4. Recognise the benefit of targeting resources to early years. However it stresses that to do so at the expense of post primary sector has the potential to create division between the primary and post-primary sectors. Additional resources or the re-prioritisation/re-allocation of existing non-school resources should be the mechanism for managing this proposal.

5. Recognise the difficulties in small schools and the need for additional funding specifically to support Teaching Principals. However this should not be accommodated at the expense of larger schools who encounter a range of difficulties by virtue of their size.

6. The removal of teachers’ salaries from the formula effectively destroys the concept of LMS. The determination of the staffing complement by a central body would totally erode local autonomy and pave the way to a return to central control. This concept is not only out-dated but also totally unacceptable particularly to those groupings and individuals who have embraced the concept of empowerment.

7. Given that there is agreement to introduce a common formula and the need to create as many winners as possible either through new money or the optimisation of existing resources, there is a compelling logic in moving to create a single funding agency for the entire schools sector. This would not only promote efficiency and effectiveness but also consistency and transparency.

8. All TSN finance, distributed through the formula and held centrally, should be fully accounted for in a clearly transparent and accountable fashion. With regard to resources held centrally, ie TSN and Board initiatives, there should be an agreed consultative framework established which would engage all of the partners in the determination of priorities/initiatives.

9. The Group One Initiative effectively confirms the view that where there are large numbers of socially disadvantaged pupils ie in excess of 60%, then the normal funding mechanisms are not appropriate. The proposals as outlined do not address the concept of critical mass.

10. The proposals do not adequately reflect the differentials in school provision and effectively ignore the impact of pupil density and ecological factors.

11. The notion of creating as many winners as possible is laudable and based on the concept of creating the greatest good for the greatest number. It should be noted that approximately 65% of schools ie small schools, provide an education for approximately 25-30% of the school population whereas 35% ie large schools provide an education for approx 70-75% of the school population.

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
THE EQUALITY COMMISSION

1. The Equality Commission welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the present consultation by the Department of Education on a common funding formula for schools. The Equality Commission is responsible for the legislation on race relations, sex discrimination and equal pay, fair employment and disability. The Commission also has important responsibilities for the statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality and good relations.

2. The Commission welcomes the Department’s proposal to simplify school funding arrangements and to introduce a common LMS funding formula. The Commission believes that schools in similar circumstances should receive similar levels of resources. In particular it is quite inappropriate that separate formula should be operated by each of the Education and Library Boards.

3. The Department’s consultation covers both the key principles of funding and specific, detailed proposals for factors within the funding formulae. The Commission has given detailed consideration to the principles and to the present and proposed factors. The Commission does not have the expertise to reach conclusions on a number of the detailed matters, such as the weightings and specific amounts attached to components of each factor. The Commission’s response therefore concentrates on those proposals in respect of key issues which have major implications for the promotion of equality of opportunity.

4. There now exists in Northern Ireland a considerable body of research examining the disparities in the levels of social disadvantage by school type and by religion. Within the school system, social disadvantage is measured by entitlement to Free School Meals. The Commission concurs with the use of free school meals as a proxy measure of social deprivation. Research has shown that social need is a major factor in differential educational outcomes and these in turn have important impacts on job prospects and labour market status. The Commission therefore recommends that the present review is used to ameliorate as far as is possible the effects of social deprivation on educational outcomes.

In the Commission’s response to the present review of the selective system of secondary education in Northern Ireland we pointed out our concern that the underlying social class disparities combined with the dimensions of gender, disability, religion and ethnicity can create multiple disadvantage for sectors of our society. We are concerned at the evidence that our education system does not moderate the effects of such disadvantage but rather accentuates these effects. We believe that the present review of formula funding should be used to recognise the effects of social deprivation on educational attainment and increase the degree to which expenditure is directed to where social needs are greatest.

5. Policy Context (Consultation points 2a and 2b)

The Commission agrees with the Department’s proposal that delegated funding across Education and Library Boards (ELB) should be more consistent. The Commission notes that it is anticipated that this will increase school budgets. Those services and initiatives provided by ELBs, such as school transport, school meals, curriculum support and special unit costs are especially important to small schools who find it particularly difficult to meet these by formula. We therefore support the continued provision of these services by ELBs and would wish to be assured that they are not threatened.

6. Key Principles (Consultation points 3a and 3b)

The Commission agrees with the funding principles outlined. In addition it is our view that there should be an express objective, namely that:

• schools should be funded to assist with mitigating the effects of social disadvantage.

7. Age Weighted Pupil Units (Consultation Points 5a-5g)

The Commission notes the proposal, in line with government policy, to provide a greater share of the budget to the primary sector, in order to prevent or address problems at an early age. The Commission supports this proposal but notes that in the present selective system in Northern Ireland many secondary schools will have classes in which a large number of children have particular educational needs and there will be a consequent requirement to put in place strategies to address such needs such as the present School Support Programme.

The Commission does not believe that the continuation of a fee paying sector in primary years assists with the objective of delivering equality of opportunity. The Commission does not support the continued funding of the preparatory units of grammar schools. The Commission recommends that the present funding of approximately 30%, of the teaching costs of this pupil group should cease.

8. Premises Factor (Consultation Points 6a-f)

The Commission notes the comparison drawn by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in 1997 which showed that :

"average spending on all grammar school premises and grounds is £178 per pupil in Protestant and £126 per pupil in Catholic schools, a differential of £52. This is greater than the amount Catholic schools gain over Protestant schools through targeting of funding on social deprivation (£47 per pupil)"

Such an adverse comparison does not match the principle proposed by the Commission that schools should be funded to mitigate the effects of social disadvantage. The Commission therefore recommends that the effect of the present proposals are carefully reviewed, especially the appropriateness of the amount of the premises factor.

9. Targeting Social Need Factor (Consultation Points 7a-7i)

The Commission has reviewed the evidence on the link between social disadvantage and low educational achievement, and its implications for subsequent further education, training and job prospects. The Commission considers it essential that schools are funded in a way which allows them to put in place programmes and strategies to mitigate the effects of such problems. The Commission considers that such funding will help those children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds and will raise the achievement levels of the Northern Ireland school system.

Improving the educational output of the schools helps improve employability and equality of access to employment and is important to the development of a successful economy. The Commission is concerned that the amount of overall funding for TSN should be sufficient and that the arrangements by which Boards and the Department allocate funds to schools should as far as possible compensate for social disadvantage. In relation to the amount of TSN funding, the Commission notes that the TSN element of LMS presently accounts for 5% of funding and an increase to 5.5% is proposed. The Commission is concerned that this level may be significantly lower than is actually required.

In relation to the social needs element, the Commission believes that it is unnecessary to seek to relate the amount per pupil to those matters which actually give rise to extra costs. In the review of Formula Funding in 1997 by Penny McKeown and others for DENI, primary and secondary principals both described the heavy costs of providing adequately for pupils with social and educational disadvantage and identified a wide range of strategies which was very wide. This range included matters such as keeping class sizes small, which are not directly funded by the TSN element of the formula at all. Principals often reported spending amounts much larger than those generated by the formula.

The Commission considers that the present arrangements whereby schools are given additional social deprivation funding to enable them to put in place strategies appropriate to their particular circumstances should continue and that it is unnecessary to relate costs to individual pupil requirements.

The Commission has also considered the methods for allocating social deprivation funding, and in particular the use of thresholds, whereby only schools with high percentages of FSM pupils would be allocated resources and such resources would be increased. The Commission considers that high percentages of children from socially deprived backgrounds do create increased difficulties for schools.

Accordingly the Commission recommends additional money per pupil should be awarded on an incremental basis to schools. This would reflect the fact that the costs associated with the management and pastoral care of socially deprived pupils rises disproportionately with the incidence of FSM pupils.

The Commission notes the Departments proposal to achieve this by incorporation of the absence rate into the formula. An alternative would be to increase the amount of money per pupil as the proportion of children entitled to free school meals increases, e.g. as the school has FSM pupil proportions of more than 10%, 20% and so on.

In relation to the special educational need factor, the Commission notes the recommendation that Key Stage Assessment results should be used to identify children in educational need. In the post-primary sector it is proposed that this is based on Key Stage 2 Assessment results and weighted according to the levels within each school. In the primary sector it is proposed that a composite indicator is used based on Key Stage 2 Assessment results and Free School Meals pupil numbers.

In the nursery sector it is proposed that the funding is allocated based on the number of children whose parents are in receipt of Income Support or JSA. It is also proposed that schools should be required to account for TSN funding. The Commission notes the validity of these proposals for distributing social deprivation funding and would wish to consider further if these are the best available options.

10. Sports Factor (Consultation Points 10a-10c)

The Commission notes the present disparities in the sports facilities available to pupils in schools. In particular the Commission notes the more favourable funding for pitches and grounds in Voluntary Grammar Schools. The Commission supports the proposal to relate funding to the schools enrolment to help meet the costs of providing a physical education curriculum.

11. Special Unit Funding (Consultation Points 13a-13c)

The Commission strongly believes in the integration of children with special educational needs in mainstream education. A child in a special unit should as far as possible be integrated with pupils attending mainstream classes. The Commission supports the proposal to continue with the present arrangement whereby the costs of teachers in special units are met in full, as are the costs of facilities to meet individual pupils special educational needs, and that funds to promote the integration in mainstream classes should be provided through the standard AWPU funding.

12. Support for Schools Educating Children of Travellers (Consultation Point 15a)

The Commission welcomes the proposal to standardise funding arrangements for those schools educating pupils of Traveller families. The need to review existing funding arrangements was pointed out in the recommendations of the Promoting Social Inclusion Report of the Working Group on Travellers. The Commission supports the education of children from Traveller families in an integrated way and therefore supports the proposal to provide additional funds to enable schools to provide the support required. The costs of additional support include teacher training, curriculum development, educational strategies and home school liaison. The proposed allocation of £750 per pupil to apply to all types of school may not be sufficient to provide the necessary support and the Commission would recommend that the adequacy of this amount be kept under review. The PSI Report also recommends additional support teachers and the Commission will wish to be assured that this will be given full consideration.

13. Support for Schools Educating Children with English as an Additional Language

The Commission notes that in October 2000 there were 1398 children in 313 schools for whom English is an additional language. It is very likely that with the arrival of migrant workers and asylum seekers in Northern Ireland the number of children within our school system for whom English is an additional language will increase.

The Commission welcomes the proposal to standardise support across all school types and ELBs. We are however concerned that the extra support which black and minority ethnic children require is not just language support. To meet the needs of ethnic minority children schools must make arrangements within the context of the home, language, culture and community. Schools must also put in place strategies to prevent and deal with racial bullying, ensure culturally appropriate assessment procedures and accommodate specific cultural and religious needs.

The current arrangements allow ELBs to provide support centrally for schools via the peripatetic teaching service and there will be a continued need for such a service especially if the number of children in a school for whom English is an additional language is small. At present in some areas the amount of time which peripatetic teachers can offer to each child is very small. The Commission would wish to be assured that there continues to be provision to offer support centrally which is appropriate and sufficient to enable children to feel confident within the school environment and to benefit fully from their education.

The Commission is also concerned at the proposal that the extra support will be withdrawn two years after the pupil has received education in an English speaking country. In situations where the amount of peripatetic support offered has been very small, and where English is not known or not used within the home environment, this will be an insufficient time in which to master the language. The Commission recommends that research is undertaken on the progress of children in the use of English.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION IN RELATION TO EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCHOOL FUNDING)

The following are comments of the Commission in relation to the seven separate elements of an equality impact assessment, as detailed in Annex 1 to the Equality Commission’s Guidelines on the form and content of Equality Schemes.

1. A consideration of available data and research

The following data sources/research were considered by the Department:

• Financial data from ELBs over a three year period
• Review of Formula Funding; Coopers & Lybrand 1997
• ‘An Initial Analysis of the Impact of Formula Funding and LMS on the Management of NI Schools – a School’s Perspective’ (University of Ulster)
• Information on specific factors within the current formulae

A lot of quantitative data has been collected which analyses the effect of the different options, however there is little reference to what other qualitative data/research the Department considered while formulating the new funding proposals. In particular the Commission would ask the Department to take into account the studies carried out as part of the Employment Equality Review by SACHR in 1997.

The Commissioners’ Practical Guidance on Equality Impact Assessments requires public authorities to consider how they will collect information to make a judgement of the extent of the impact on the Section 75 groups. A system of information gathering to supplement available statistical and qualitative research may be required. Although the establishment of a system of information gathering to supplement available statistical and qualitative research is referred to the Consultation Document does not make clear what information the Department gathered regarding the impact of the new funding proposals on the Section 75 groups.

2. Assessment of impacts

Public authorities must use the information gathered to decide whether there is, or is likely to be, a differential impact, whether direct or indirect, upon the relevant group (or groups). The Consultation Document records the view of the Department that the introduction of a common formula will have no direct impact on the following groups:

• persons of different political opinion
• persons of different marital status
• persons of different sexual orientation
• men and women generally
• persons with dependants and persons without.

The Commission finds no evidence to support this view, especially in relation to gender, as there is no consideration of data and research on boys and girls.

In the view of the Department the proposed formulae will have a differential impact on:

• persons of different religious belief
• persons of different racial groups
• persons of different ages
• persons with a disability and those without.

The Consultation Document does not make clear what information/evidence relating to the groups the Department used in order to reach these conclusions regarding differential impact on the Section 75 groups. The assessment of impact is largely restricted to assessment of the TSN factor. The assessment should cover all aspects of the formulae, premises small schools support, sports factor etc.

3. Consideration of measures

• which might mitigate any adverse impact, and
• alternative policies which might better achieve the promotion of equality of opportunity.

The Guidelines state that

"ways of delivering policy outcomes which have a less adverse effect on the relevant groups, or which better promote equality of opportunity for the relevant groups, must be considered."

The aim of the Common Funding Formula is to remove the disparities that exist within the current funding formula in order "to ensure that schools with similar characteristics receive similar levels of funding regardless of the area/sector in which they are located." The Department has sought to assess the potential effect of its proposals by modelling on the basis of a ‘High Aggregated Schools Budget’ and a ‘Low Aggregated Schools Budget’. By outcomes the Department is referring to possible movements in the allocation of funding, ie which schools/sectors will ‘lose’ and which will ‘gain’. However it is not possible for consultees to understand potential outcomes on groups of pupils or even on school types, let alone Section 75 constituencies.

Although the aim of the new funding formula is to remove disparities in the current funding system, the Document does not provide much data/information to support the Department’s very limited conclusions on how it believes the Common Formula will impact on the Section 75 groups.

It is important that the Department clarified what alternative policies have been considered and how mitigating factors were considered. Section 3.4 of the Annex details a series of questions which must be considered.

4. Formal consultation on the actual impact of existing policies and the likely impact of proposed policies.

The Commission notes that the Department has consulted widely on the present proposals, the consultation period was extended, and further, that the Education Committee is also considering the proposals.

The matters in relation to school funding are of course extremely complex and not easily understood and for the consultation to be effective the Department must assist consultees through these complexities.

Although the Department outlines some of the data sources/research material that it considered during the formulation of the new funding proposals, it must ensure that it lists all the information/data/research that was considered.

The Practical Guidance also states that resources must be put into consultation to ensure that it is effective. It is not sufficient to make available a copy of the published report of findings. Instead the public authority must actively engage with consultees to ensure that they have a fair opportunity to present pertinent information so that the public authority may then reach an informed decision.

5. Decision by public authority

As outlined in Section 5.1 of Annex 1 it is essential that in making any decision public authorities take full account of the consultation which has been carried out. The Commission acknowledges the commitment of the Department to this effect in the Consultation Document.

6. Publication of results of equality impact assessments

The legislation, Schedule 9, paragraph 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, requires that published information on impact assessments must include;

• the aims of the policy to which the assessment relates
• details of any consideration given by the authority to measures which might mitigate any adverse impact of that policy on the promotion of equality of opportunity
• details of any consideration given by the authority to alternative policies which might better achieve the promotion of equality of opportunity

It is also important that the published decision clarifies how the views of those consulted were taken into account.

The Department has made a commitment to publish this information in the Consultation Document, although it does not make clear that the published information will include all of the areas listed above.

7. Monitor for adverse impact in the future and publication of the results of such monitoring

As detailed at 7.1 of Annex A, a system must be established to monitor the impact of the policy in order to find out its effect on the relevant group. This must be reviewed on an annual basis. The results of this monitoring must be published.

The Department states in Para (vii), page 130 of the Consultation Document, that current LMS arrangements are monitored and that this monitoring will continue. However, it is not clear that this refers to the monitoring of the impact of the new Funding Proposals across Section 75 categories. The Department needs to establish a system which as far as possible collects data on the categories and monitors the impact of the new proposals.

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
GOVERNING BODIES’ ASSOCIATION (NI)

1. The local management of schools introduced in 1989 has been beneficial to Governors, Staff and Pupils.

The determination of pupil/teacher ratios must remain at school level together with any pay issues (subject to appropriate guidance and support) and performance management. Delegation of resources from the Education and Library Boards should be extended thus enabling a guaranteed quality of service by providers.

2. We recognise the importance of targeting resources to early years, but the skewing of funding in favour of primary schools should occur only if and when additional funding has been allocated for that purpose: it should not be taken from the hard pressed secondary sector.

Governors and Principals (in all schools) who have been delegated responsibility to run their schools, regard as the most significant factor the total amount available to them and indeed whether they will have enough to meet the incontrovertible needs of their school.

The acceptability or otherwise of the various factors will be dependent on the AWPU and its value.

There appears no evidence for the proposal to allow an extra £500,000 for TSN and we seek clarification of the basis for the proposed increase from 5% to 5½%.

3. The Association deplores the failure of the Department of Education to provide all schools with detailed statements setting out the impact of the high and low AWPUs and the proposed changes to the other factors.

Schools of all management types must be given detailed figures and indeed these should be made publicly available for equality impact assessment purposes and thus meet the Government objective of transparency.

There is concern over a lack of total transparency in relation to the amount to be withheld at the centre and the purposes for which any such sums are used.

The lack of information on the condition of the overall schools estate and the failure to take account of age, construction and other property related matters continues to create inequality of treatment.

The introduction of a common formula leaves the way open to the formation of a Central Funding Agency possibly on a ‘lead board’ basis. This concept is supported by sectors other than our own and all schools would benefit from a reduction in duplication of administration and the inherent costs involved. A similar proposal was incorporated in an agreed report on Architectural Services prepared a number of years ago, but apparently shelved by the Department.

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
NORTH EASTERN EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARD

I refer to your letter of 13 August 2001 to the Chief Executive in respect of the Consultation on proposals for a Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools, asking the Board to identify what it believes to be the three most important issues associated with these proposals and to expand upon them in more depth in writing and at a short evidence session.

The three issues which the NEELB would identify as being the most important are:-

• Implications of a common funding formula on ELB services and resources
• Teachers’ Salaries
• Targeting Social Need.

Implications of a Common Funding Formula on ELB services and resources

The Consultation document does not give sufficient consideration to the implications and practicalities of achieving a common funding formula for schools within Northern Ireland.

• The Department has failed to give sufficient consideration to the implications of the introduction of a common funding formula. Whilst the Department has recommended that it should be possible to achieve the High ASB outcome they have given no indication as to the implications of achieving such an outcome or indeed in identifying where these additional resources will actually come from.
• Commonality by definition requires each Board’s operations to be consistent in the means of providing various services to schools. Consequently ‘centre items’ across the Boards will have to be ‘standardised’ so that all schools are required to bear the costs of the same services so as to ensure that the position does not again become distorted.
• Schools have not been given the detail they require to fully appreciate how the various proposals affect their ‘bottom’ line; it is difficult to determine whether or not a school is better off as a consequence of these proposals, especially where the treatment of centre items have not been considered.
• The Department in providing illustrative information in respect of the impact of High and Low ASB outcomes upon ‘model’ schools has sought to assist schools in inferring how they may be affected as a consequence of these changes. However, this does not inform schools of their actual budget shares and as many variables within the formula are inter-dependent, individual consideration of any single proposed change could be easily misinterpreted.

Teachers Salaries

The Boards have, over a period of time, been making representation to the Department about the implications for individual schools who have a mature teaching staff. There are as a consequence differences for individual schools in their relative ‘purchasing’ power due to the ‘cost’ of individual teachers. More mature teachers are more expensive than younger less experienced teachers.

The ELBs have suggested a ‘half-way’ house where the cost of an approved teaching cohort for a school would be met in full with the balance of the schools delegated resources being available for the school to deploy as it feels most appropriate – whether this would be for the estate, teaching materials or indeed to employ more teachers.

The Board is not persuaded that the approach suggested by the Department actually addresses this very important dimension of commonality. If the funding process gives two schools of similar characteristics the same financing, but where the cost of the teachers at those schools differs significantly, then what those schools can afford to buy will also differ significantly (it will be noted that teacher salaries are the single most significant aspect of a schools expenditure, accounting for 80%+ of most schools expenditure).

Targeting Social Need

This Board has consistently argued for evidence to demonstrate that the continued skewing of resources from one school to another, through the application of the TSN factor within the LMS formula, was having the desired impact upon defined outcomes. The Board is not opposed to the promotion of TSN, but rather seeks an assurance that that which is already being redirected is having the impact that is intended through the operation of this aspect of the formula. In the absence of this evidence this Board is unable to support the extension of this particular aspect of the formula.

If tackling educational underachievement is what the Special Education Need aspect of TSN is about, then use of educational measures (such as Key Stage 2 for the post primary sector) must be a more objective means of targeting resources than the use of Free School Meals.

The Social Deprivation aspect of TSN is about more than just tackling educational underachievement and this Board would therefore accept the validity of Free School Meals as a proxy for social deprivation.

The Board would welcome the opportunity to discuss our response to the Commonality proposals and indeed to elaborate upon the matters referred to here. To that end we look forward to the opportunity to discuss these matters with the Committee in due course.

S N S McCURDY
Chief Finance Officer

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
NORTHERN IRELAND COUNCIL FOR INTEGRATED EDUCATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) is pleased to present this response on the Local Management of Schools: Common Funding Formula to the Northern Ireland Assembly Education Committee.

1.3 The Education Committee have asked NICIE to highlight three key issues in this response. NICIE has commented on the following items that are specific to Grant Maintained Integrated Schools.

• AGE WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS
• ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER COSTS UNIQUE TO GRANT MAINTAINED INTEGRATED SCHOOLS
• IMPLEMENTATION - TRANSITIONAL FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

1.4 In addition, NICIE has included a short section on the general workings of the proposed Formula covering other LMS issues.

2.0 AGE WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS

2.1 Key Elements

• The Department has announced that the indicative AWPU levels used in the Formula are High ASB model £1,236.72 and Low ASB model £1,203.91.
• The existing AWPU for GMI schools is £1,418.25, so this is a substantial reduction in funding per child.
• While there may be additions available through premises and other costs, there will be substantial reductions in the funding available to GMI schools.

2.2 Comments

2.2.1 NICIE believes that a common funding formula, that recognizes the financial demands on all schools, is a valuable contribution to Education in Northern Ireland.

2.2.2 NICIE considers the proposed AWPU values to put a significant strain on existing budgets. At some level the ASB is determined by the expenditure of ELB’s which is outside the control of independent GMI schools. GMI Schools have little opportunity to benefit from ELB expenditure. NICIE believe that there should be some recognition of this situation, and that support costs for GMI Schools should be built into the equation.

2.2.3 NICIE believes that there may be exceptional circumstances when pupil numbers are not the appropriate attractor for funding, notably when an Integrated School is setting up and incurs additional non-pupil related costs.

2.2.4 NICIE would request a clarification of the contingency arrangements for mid-year claims. This is crucial for growing schools, particularly when school numbers build during the School year. The trigger factor for increase in funding due to mid year increase in pupil numbers should be set at 10 children or 5% of the school population whichever is the greater.

2.2.5 NICIE believes that the AWPU should be a figure set by DE and should not fluctuate during the year. It should be agreed 3 years in advance to facilitate budgeting.

2.2.6 NICIE believes that there should be a greater emphasis towards year 8-12 from years 13-14. Skewing towards years 8-12 will enhance the impact of TSN on attainment among underachievers.

3.0 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER COSTS UNIQUE TO VOLUNTARY GRAMMAR SCHOOLS AND GRANT MAINTAINED INTEGRATED SCHOOLS

3.1 Key Elements

• VGS and GMIS should receive an additional lump sum allocation to reflect their additional responsibilities (para 11.6)?
• The proposed funding level of £16,000 minimum rising in increments of £93.75 per pupil to a maximum of £95,000 (para 11.6)?
• GMIS should receive an additional premium of 33% of the amount generated under the premises factor to meet their liability for VAT (par 11.7-11.9)?

3.2 Comments

3.2.1 It is at present impossible to present a mutually agreeable figure for GMI Additional Costs working from actual expenditure. This is due to

(1) The ability of School Governors to vire across budget headings and hold funds across financial years, making comparison between schools a matter of assumption and assignation rather than fact.

(2) The regular acquisition of slippage monies that distort the picture further.

(3) The difficulty of assigning costs of part salaries to Additional Expenditure, particularly in smaller schools.

3.2.2 Schools involved in our consultation were concerned that this element of the Common Funding Formula should accurately reflect the needs of the sector, and that all additional costs should be met. Not to do this would disadvantage GMI schools solely because of their corporate status.

3.2.3 It was agreed that a formula for additionality would of necessity include a number of key elements. These were:

VAT
Audit Costs
Administration Costs (including Personnel, Advertising and Corporate Issues)
Insurance
Legal Advice
Finance/Bursar
Payroll
Purchasing
BACS

3.2.4 As a result of in depth discussion of these matters, it was agreed that an analysis could only be attempted on an indicative basis, using approximate figures that School Principals were generally in agreement with. Two types of schools were considered, indicative costs assigned, and a per pupil figure calculated. The types of school were.

A. A Primary school with 150 children.

Indicative Costs

VAT	7000
Audit	1500
Admin.	700
Insurance	4000
Legal Advice	750
Finance/Bursar	12000
Payroll	500
Purchasing	750
BACS	200
Total	27400
Per Pupil	182

B. A medium sized Second Level College with 450 pupils.

Indicative Costs

VAT	20000
Audit	30000
Admin.	2500
Insurance	8000
Legal Advice	1500
Finance/Bursar	21000
Payroll	800
Purchasing	1500
BACS	300
Total	58600
Per Pupil	130

3.2.4 These figures indicate the general pattern of GMI schools, and a formula should be devised to cover such costs.

3.3 VAT

3.3.1 The Proposed inclusion of VAT as an addition to the Premises cost is problematic as this could effectively cap expenditure, depending on how the addition is accounted for. Schools have wide variations in expenditure on VAT, depending on the schools growth characteristics. One of the schools involved in our deliberations had significantly higher costs as a result of recent expansion.

3.3.2 It was generally felt that it would be easier to remove GMI schools from the necessity of paying VAT, than to introduce a system that could be even handed to all GMI schools no matter what their age and stage of development. NICIE would recognise that this is an issue for GMI schools alone, however, it is fundamental to the performance of the sector and requires careful consideration.

3.3.3 NICIE would not therefore accept the Department’s apportionment of costs under this factor and request that the Department discuss the issue directly with NICIE and the sector.

4.0 IMPLEMENTATION - TRANSITIONAL FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

4.1 Key Elements

• Transitional arrangements should be put in place to help schools cope with the introduction of a common funding formula (para 20.3)?
• A cushioning approach should be employed (para 20.4)?
• Transitional arrangements should last for 3 years (para 20.5)?

4.2 Comments

4.2.1 Transitional arrangements should be put in place for 5 years in order to cushion the inevitable impact on Pupils. Pupils should not be seen to be significantly disadvantaged by any change in funding policy for the sake of sectoral compatability.

5.0 OTHER LMS ISSUES

5.1 LMS is central to providing Education relevant to existing local conditions.

5.2 NICIE would support the delegation of as much as possible to schools other than non-educational matters such as school meals, transport and redundancy payments etc.

5.3 Consideration should be given to the delegation of funding to schools for the provision of Curriculum Advice and Support. Schools should be able to buy in support from a range of providers. This will focus training on school needs more directly.

5.4 It is important that the Common Funding Formula should mesh with developments in relation to the Review of Post Primary Education, the Curriculum Review, and the review of Local Government.

5.5 While accepting the need for equity of treatment across the educational sectors, NICIE believes that the proposed system makes the formula less transparent, more difficult for schools to plan budgets, and does not provide a method for comparison with previous systems. The proposed system includes, in many cases, an overly complex approach to school funding by equating expenditure to budgetary elements more related to administrative issues than pupil needs.

5.6 Any proposed LMS system should be capable of being modelled by all schools prior to their agreement to the system. Indeed it should be possible to arrive at a spreadsheet based system to compare the old and new systems. It is unfortunate that an existing unwieldly system is proposed to be replaced by a system that is at present uncontestable because it is untestable.

5.7 There is reasonable case, with the introduction of a Common Funding Formula, for the development of a centralized schools funding agency.

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
SOUTH EASTERN EDUCATION & LIBRARY BOARD

The South Eastern Education and Library Board (SEELB) welcomes the opportunity to identify three important issues in the Department of Education’s document and to give evidence regarding those issues at one of the Committee’s sessions on either Thursday 20 September or Thursday 4 October. Please forward details of the date and time when you want the SEELB to be in attendance.

The SEELB also believes that it is important that the views of School Principals are taken into account in the debate on the Common Funding Formula. The SEELB therefore nominates the principal of The High School Ballynahinch Mr Maurice Doherty as a principal of a small rural post-primary school (non grammar) serving pupils with relatively low levels of socio-economic deprivation to attend a meeting in Parliament Buildings on Thursday 4 October.

The SEELB would highlight the following three issues:

1. treatment of teachers salaries;

2. use of Key Stage 2 results in allocating funding for educational underachievement; and

3. the introduction of a new LMS Scheme with no additional funding for Education.

treatment of teachers’ salaries

In the present schemes and the proposed common LMS Scheme average teacher salaries costs are used but schools have to pay actual salaries. This causes significant anomalies and financial pressures to many schools.

Older experience teachers can be discriminated against because often schools are forced to employ ‘cheap’ teachers to balance their books.

The proposal to extend teacher salary protection to 25 teachers per school will be a complex and bureaucratic task and be contrary to some of the key operational principles in the paper.

The vast majority of schools in Northern Ireland have less than 25 teachers. If the proposed formula can not allocate ‘fairly and correctly’ to the majority of schools without an adjustment for teacher salaries then its validity must be questioned.

The Association of Chief Executive of ELBs has requested that the Department carry out research into different methodologies regarding the treatment of teacher salaries in LMS. To date this has not happened and it is unfortunate that the opportunity to examine this matter has so far been missed.

It should also be noted that the Teacher Unions also support reviewing how teaching costs are treated in LMS.

use of key stage 2 results in allocating funding for educational underachievement

Key Stage 2 tests are not designed to identify children with special educational needs.

Key Stage 2 tests are not designed to differentiate the distribution of children with special educational needs across schools so that funding can be allocated accordingly.

Key Stage 2 tests will identify the wrong children who need help.

Using Key Stage 2 tests for Primary Schools will reward failure and penalise schools which make significant improvement to pupil attainment. A funding formula should not be encouraging poor standards and low achievement.

In the Primary sector the SEELB believes that baseline tests which do not place children under additional stress should be used.

the introduction of a new scheme with no additional funding for education

The proposals in both the low and high ASB model are predicated on no new funding consequently money will be moved around the education system – ‘Robbing Peter to pay Paul’.

The proposed shift to primary of 4% will be to the determined of post-primary schools. An increased investment in Education would enable a transfer to the primary sector without post primary loosing in absolute terms but allowing the realignment between the sectors.

If the Department sets the Aggregate Schools Budget ASB in each Education and Library Board (ELB) it by definition is also then determining the General Schools Budget GSB and funding for other areas of the ELB responsibilities. This could lead to a situation where ELBs have a statutory duty to provide services but no ability to determine the level of funding deemed necessary.

Centralising financial decision-making by the Department of Education will stop ELBs exercising discretion to meet the needs and priorities of the children in their areas.

J B FITZSIMONS
Chief Executive

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
SOUTHERN EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARD

INTRODUCTION

The SELB welcomes the opportunity to present to the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Education the views of schools and the Board on the three most important issues in the proposals for a common funding formula.

Since the launch of the proposals, we have been engaged in wide ranging consultation with members, governors, and principals. Six consultation sessions were held with governors and principals on the following dates and locations:

Date	Time	Locations
21 May	3.30 pm	Seagoe Hotel, Portadown
22 May	7.30 pm	Oaklin House Hotel, Dungannon
24 May	3.30 pm	Canal Court Hotel, Newry
	7.30 pm	Canal Court Hotel, Newry
30 May	3.30 pm	Bannville House Hotel, Banbridge
31 May	7.30 pm	Drumsill House Hotel, Armagh

The intention was to provide a forum for exchange of views and debate and to facilitate an informed response to the Department of Education’s proposals. In addition the proposals were discussed by the Primary and Post Primary Teachers’ Consultative Committees and by the Education Committee in June. The intention was to have the final submission approved by the June board meeting, but when the consultation period was extended to September, this was postponed until the new board discussed the proposals on 20 September.

The board’s response deals with all the proposals, but there is general agreement that the three main issues within the proposals are:

1. Policy Context;
2. Rural Schools; and
3. Special Units.

Further details are set out on the attached papers.

1. POLICY CONTEXT - SECTION 2

Question: Do you agree that there should be an increase in the level of resources delegated to schools?

It is not possible to give an informed response to this question without understanding the source of the additional resources and the consequences of re-directing these resources. In promoting the High ASB option, and separating it from the delegation of additional responsibilities, the Department is clearly stating that "most schools and all sectors gain". To arrive at this conclusion the Department must have considered available data and researched the sources and quantity of the re-directed resources. Under the NI Act 1998 Section 75 – Equality Impact Assessment – the Department must share with consultees the impact of this proposed redirection of resources. Until this data is made available, the Board does not have the necessary information to make a meaningful reply to this consultation question.

It is unfortunate that the Department has raised the expectation of additional funding under the Common Formula at the very start of the consultation on a fairer mechanism for distributing the available resources. Consequently the illustrative outcome examples under the High ASB option do not compare like with like and are extremely misleading. The consultation should have concentrated on the fairest possible mechanism for distributing resources rather than the amount of those resources.

The Southern board’s top priority has always been to give maximum funding to the classroom. However the board has also recognised the imperative of adequately funding central services such as those for Special Education, the Psychology Service, the Education Welfare Service; the maintenance of school buildings, with a reduction in the number of mobiles and sub standard accommodation; and the provision of a safe and efficient transport service for our mainly rural population.

As a rural board, the cost of providing services to a widely dispersed population is disproportionately high and this has never been recognised in the process of allocating resources to boards (the Assessment of Relative Needs Exercise). Therefore, while the board is very supportive of increasing the level of resources delegated to schools, the board needs to understand where these additional resources will come from and the possible impact on other essential board services.

2. RURAL SCHOOLS -
SMALL SCHOOLS SUPPORT FACTOR - SECTION 8
TREATMENT OF TEACHERS’ SALARIES - SECTION 9

It should be noted that because of demographic trends, more and more schools will fall into the small schools category and more funding will be used in this way. Given the difficulties related to closing small schools, consideration should be given to funding consortium arrangements.

Rural Schools – Primary

Size of School	Controlled		Maintained
	Total No	No in Deficit	Total No	No in Deficit
< 3 teachers	16	7	10	5
< 5 teachers	34	7	42	18
< 7 teachers	14	4	30	6
<12 teachers	18	6	24	6
<25 teachers	15	7	26	8
<25 or more teachers	3	1	6	3

The board’s policy is to provide a variable network of rural schools throughout its area. Inevitably many rural schools are small and because of diseconomies of scale in effective management and delivery of the full curriculum, they require more support in terms of money and services than larger schools.

The two main proposals which deal with this are Small Schools Factor (Section 8) and Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries (Section 9). The board is supportive of both these proposals, but has some concerns.

The proposal to partially compensate schools in the range of 4-25 teachers for above average salary costs could impact 96% of SELB primary schools and 17% of post primary schools. While this is an improvement on current arrangements it seems unfair to exclude the small number of schools outside this range from any protection.

Alternative – Funding Actual Salaries

The board believes that there needs to be a rigorous debate about whether actual teacher salaries should be funded, and if so, mechanisms could be devised to do this either inside LMS or outside LMS. The methodology for funding actual teacher salaries would be based on a centrally determined Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) for schools of different size in different sectors, similar to the way this was done before LMS. This could replace the AWPU factor which fails all the stated principles of the common formula – transparent, easily understood, predictable, aid to delivering the curriculum etc – with something which everyone understands – PTR. The Small Schools factor and Teachers’ Salary Protection factor could also be replaced by this mechanism.

The Chief Executives of the Education and Library Boards have provided framework proposals on the funding of actual teacher salaries to the Department, but these have been rejected as incomplete. The board would encourage the Department to seriously explore these proposals and provide the statistical/consultancy support required to work out the finer details. The introduction of a common formula could be seen as a necessary first step and should not hinder further debate on mechanisms for funding actual teacher salaries.

3. SPECIAL UNIT FUNDING - SECTION 13

This board is unique within Northern Ireland in that provision for pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD) is totally organised within mainstream schools, the board does not have any MLD Special Schools.

The board maintains 66 MLD Units (Learning Support Centres), 36 in the Controlled Sector and 30 in the Maintained Sector. Each Unit is funded with the costs of teaching and classroom assistants paid for centrally, each pupil is weighted 0.9 AWPU (Primary: £1,169, Post Primary: £1,935) and £4,000 of additional funding is also provided per Unit. The proposal is to totally remove the £4,000 per unit and reduce the per-pupil amount to Primary: £945 and Post Primary: £1,470. The total cost of the additional support within the Southern Board is £531,655.

Educational Philosophy

The board strongly holds the view that children with Special Educational Needs should be maintained in mainstream schools when their educational and other needs can be met in such settings. It believes that all young people have the right to be educated with their peers where such education does not disadvantage the young person and where the young person can grow and develop both educationally and socially with other young people from their own community.

Children with MLD have their Special Educational Needs assessed and appropriate provision identified. In the vast majority of cases such children are physically and mentally well able to take part in a wide range of school activities alongside their more academically able peers.

It is therefore based on a strong philosophy of inclusion that the SELB makes provision in MLD Units rather than in Special Schools. Note that the board also believes that it is absolutely essential to provide around 400 places in Special Schools (Severe Learning Difficulty) for children who have a range of learning difficulties.

Maintenance of MLD Units

In light of recent policy on inclusion in England and Wales the board, through its officers, have examined the future role of MLD Units and are designating these Units "Learning Resource Centres" (LRC) in anticipation of their role in supporting high levels of integration of pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties. The recent Inspection Report "A Survey of Provision for Pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties in Units in Post Primary Schools in Northern Ireland 2000-2001" was complementary of the way pupils were integrated into the life of the schools. Examples were quoted in the report of:

• Inventive and imaginative teaching;
• Evidence of successful integration;
• Achievement of sound educational standards;
• Flexibility of curriculum with young people participating in work experience and accessing vocational courses;
• Strong, inclusive practices;
• Pupils participating in the life of the school.

It is the view of the SELB that such positive comments are the result of the efforts of staff in schools who are totally committed to the education of the young people.

The commitment of staff however can only be guaranteed when there are adequate funding and resources which allow for training, for strong liaison with the pupils’ parents, for liaison with local Colleges and local employment opportunities.

The success of Units in the SELB is a direct result of the current funding arrangements.

Funding

All the pupils in MLD Units hold Statements of Special Educational Needs. The Statements specify the provision to be made. Schools are required to deliver the requirements of the Statements. Schools recognise the burdensome paperwork associated with maintaining Units, particularly in relation to Annual Reviews of pupils’ progress and the completion of Transition Plans at the end of Key Stage 3.

The board does not believe that the new proposals for the funding of Units will allow schools to maintain and develop the current provision. Indeed a number of schools have questioned whether they would continue to support Units if the proposed level of funding is implemented.

The SELB believes that further research is needed in order to establish the real costs of educating a pupil with Moderate Learning Difficulties. The provision available in other Boards includes Special Schools where the costs are significantly higher than for Units. Unless more realistic funding proposals can be made, the SELB argues that the funding of Units should continue as per the SELB formula.

INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS FOR A COMMON FUNDING FORMULA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
WESTERN EDUCATION & LIBRARY BOARD

This paper has been prepared at the request of the Education Committee to highlight the three most important issues addressed by the Board in its response to the Department of Education’s Consultation on a Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools.

The three issues addressed are:

• Treatment of Teachers’ Salaries.
• The Funding of Small Schools.
• The need for the Common Formula to be matched by a new mechanism for the distribution of resources by the Department of Education among funding authorities.

A. TREATMENT OF TEACHERS’ SALARIES

The Document provides evidence of the extent of the percentage variances from the average which can occur in the teachers’ salary costs of small schools. It fails however to clarify the full extent of the variances in cash terms which can occur between the staffing costs of similar schools. For illustrative purposes the Board is attaching in Appendix A two examples of possible variations in salary costs. One of the examples provides a comparison of the teachers’ salary costs of two notional 5 teacher primary schools, identical in every respect except for the salary placements of their respective assistant teaching staff. It can be seen from the illustration that when the proposed arrangements for dealing with above average salaries are taken into account there remains a net difference of almost £22,000 (16.18%) between the teacher salary costs of the two schools. It is necessary to ask whether it is acceptable for the budgets of two identical 5 teacher schools to be expected to cope with a variation of £22,000 in teachers’ salary costs (or more in the event of there being protected salaries) from within a budget which may be no greater than £170,000. This question needs to be addressed specifically in the light of the following Key Principles set out in Paragraph 3.2 of the Document.

• ‘Schools should be funded according to their relative need’ and
• ‘schools should be funded on an objective and fair basis determined as far as possible by objective measures of the various factors which give rise to unavoidable and significant additional expenditure’.

The Board takes the view that in the 5-teacher illustrative example set out in the appendix a difference of almost £22,000 in salary costs represents ‘unavoidable and significant additional expenditure’, and that a formula which fails to address a difference of this magnitude cannot be said to be funding schools ‘according to their relative need’.

Notwithstanding the above, the Board would agree that if salary costs are to continue to be dealt with within the formula the existing arrangements for Teachers’ Salary Protection need to be developed substantially. However, it believes that the proposed arrangements, taking limited account of above average costs but ignoring the incidence of below average costs, are an inadequate response to the major issue of salary cost variations.

The Document recognises that percentage variations in salary costs are likely to be greatest among smaller schools, and the issue of salary cost variations is naturally of particular significance for this Board in view of the very high proportion of very small schools within the Board’s area (see Appendix B, attached). Having considered the issue of salary costs in detail the Board believes that the interests of schools in general would be served best by the removal of basic salary costs from schools’ delegated budgets, so that available funding could be targeted at schools according to clearly identifiable need. The Board feels that this approach would be more likely to achieve best value from the finite resources available for schools’ recurrent costs, even though it is recognised that it would be a major departure from present practice, and would be inconsistent with the basic principles of LMS. It is recommended that a careful study be undertaken of the arrangements in Scotland for the funding and general management of schools, which offer an alternative approach which appears to enjoy a wide degree of public acceptance.

B. THE FUNDING OF SMALL SCHOOLS

The Board is conscious of the fact that small primary and secondary schools will receive substantially increased support within the proposed common formula, taking account of the proposed increases in the lump sums payable under the Small Schools Support Factor and the proposed arrangements for Teacher Salary Protection. While welcoming the prospect of additional funding for small schools the Board is concerned about the possibility that the cumulative effect of these two factors may result in certain small schools receiving a disproportionate share of the available funding when measured against their profiles of actual inescapable costs. The Board believes that the proposals set out in the Document are in danger of taking insufficient account of the wide variations which can occur, mainly as a result of differences in the salary placement of staff, in the cost structures of small schools. It believes that if salary costs have to be managed within formula allocations the standard lump sum payable to all small schools should be pitched at a more modest level, with provision for additional resources to be allocated from earmarked centrally managed funds in cases of clearly identified need. It is worth noting that the Board’s existing Reserve Fund for Curriculum Support has served a similar purpose, and has been widely acknowledged by schools to be an equitable and sensitive means of responding to the particular needs of schools with inescapably high cost profiles.

Notwithstanding the reservations expressed above about the Document’s proposals for Small School Protection, the Board would acknowledge that the arrangements should include funding, preferably on a ring-fenced basis, to allow for teaching principals to be released from teaching duties for one day per week throughout the year.

C. THE NEED FOR THE COMMON FORMULA TO BE MATCHED BY A NEW MECHANISM FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AMONG FUNDING AUTHORITIES

The Board agrees that there should be an increase in the level of resources delegated to schools, provided that any such increase does not lead to a reduction in the funding available to the Board itself for the range of services for which it retains central responsibility. The Board’s support for additional funding for delegated budgets is based on the fundamental conviction that if the common formula identifies a need for schools in this area to receive a higher proportion than at present of Northern Ireland’s education resources, the necessary additional funding must be made available to the Board so that its funds for centrally administered services are not undermined. The Board is extremely concerned at the impression which is created in paragraphs 2.6 – 2.8 of he Consultation Document that where the Common Formula identifies a need for additional funding for schools this can be resourced by a review of Boards’ current spending on non-delegated and non-schools budgets, without any review of the present mechanism for distributing funds among the Boards. The proposals in the Consultation Document would imply that schools in the Western area should be receiving approximately 19.1% of the total resources available within Northern Ireland for delegated budgets, compared with the current figure of between 18.5% and 18.7%. A projection of the position for all Boards is set out in the table below.

	BELB	NEELB	SEELB	SELB	WELB
ARNE %	17.7%	21.6%	19.3%	22.8%	18.7%
Common Formula %	16.8%	22.0%	18.8%	23.3%	19.1%
Variance £m	-£4.8m	+£2.6m	-£3.1m	+£3.1m	+£2.2m

It is imperative that the increase in funding entitlement for Western schools, based on the formula-based assessment of their relative need, is matched by a corresponding adjustment to the Assessment of Relative Needs Exercise which determines the apportionment of funds among the Boards themselves. If this does not happen, the Board will experience insuperable problems in sustaining its existing level of centrally provided services, including those to schools.

Furthermore, if the ARNE mechanism remains in its present form and continues to allocate existing levels of funding to those Boards whose schools are shown to require a reduced percentage of the overall budget, the surplus resources are likely to be spent on non-schools budgets in ways which simply promote inequity and imbalance in the range of services which Boards are able to provide.

It is imperative that the Common Formula is matched by a completely new mechanism for the sharing out of resources by the Department of Education among funding authorities. The new mechanism needs to be structured so as to deliver to each Board:

• funding for the full aggregate cost of the formula based budgets of schools for which it is responsible;
• an equitable allocation of funding for the Schools Centre budget, taking due account of local circumstances which contribute to inescapable costs including schools transport, landlord maintenance and rates;
• an equitable and objectively assessed allocation of funding for Special Education; and
• an equitable share of resources for non-schools services.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion the Board would wish to confirm its support for the basic premise upon which the Department’s policy of Commonality is based, namely that "schools with similar characteristics should receive similar levels of funding regardless of the area or sector in which they are located". It is imperative, however, that full account is taken of the issues identified above if Commonality is to achieve genuine improvement in the arrangements for funding schools in Northern Ireland.

APPENDIX A

NOTIONAL COMPARISONS HIGH V LOW SALARY COSTS 24 MAY 01

Primary: 5 Teachers		School A			School B
		Salary	Sp Pt		Salary	Sp Pt
Principal		£35,064	3		£35,064	3
Vice Principal		£29,499	1		£29,499	1
Assistant Teacher (1 point)		£18,831	4		£26,382	10
Assistant Teacher (1 point)		£17,892	3		£26,382	10
Assistant Teacher		£16,038	1		£28,843	9
Total		£177,324			£142,170
Total inc Employer’s costs		£135,744			£164,491
Difference				£28,747
Average Primary Teacher Costs	£31,114			£155,570
Difference in School B actual and Average Primary					£8,921
LMS Formula Allowance for Above Average Costs				62.00%	£5,531
Net Higher Cost for School B					£23,216
Percentage difference					17.10%
Common Formula Allowance for Above Average Costs				76.00%	£6.780
Net Higher Cost for School B					£21,967
Percentage difference					16.18%
Primary: 10 Teachers		School A			School B
		Salary	Sp Pt		Salary	Sp Pt
Principal		£36,865	5		£36,865	5
Vice Principal		£30,236	2		£30,236	2
Assistant Teacher (2 point)		£27,954	11		£27,954	11
Assistant Teacher (2 point)		£27,954	11		£27,954	11
Assistant Teacher (1 point)		£26,382	10		£26,382	10
Assistant Teacher (1 point)		£23,558	8		£26,382	10
Assistant Teacher (1 point)		£22,035	7		£26,382	10
Assistant Teacher		£20,862	6		£24,843	9
Assistant Teacher		£17,001	2		£24,843	9
Assistant Teacher		£16,038	1		£24,843	9
Total		£24,885			£276,684
Total in Employer’s costs		£287,960			£320,123
Difference				£32,163
Average Primary Teacher Costs	£31,114			£311,140
Difference in School B actual and Average Primary					£8,983
LMS Formula Allowance for Above Average Costs				18.00%	£1,617
Net Higher Cost for School B					£30,546
Percentage difference					10.61%
Common Formula Allowance for Above Average Costs				57.00%	£5,121
Net Higher Cost for School B					£22,678
Percentage difference					7.88%

April 2001 Salary Scales

Top

APPENDIX 3

LIST OF WRITTEN MEMORANDA
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE

(UNPRINTED)

• Craig Clement, Head of Educational Services, Augus Council
• Dungannon and Cookstown Area Learning Support Centres
• Irish National Teachers’ Organisation
• Mr G Mullan, Principal, Newtownhamilton High School
• Mrs G McCafferty, Principal, St Cecilia’s College
• Mr D O’Kelly, Principal, Lumen Christi College
• The Board of Governors, Ballymena Academy
• The Board of Governors, Brownlee Primary School
• The Board of Governors, Dungannon Primary School
• The Board of Governors, The Royal School Armagh

The papers listed above were submitted to the Committee but have not been printed. They may, however, be inspected by Members in the Assembly Library and by the public in the Education Committee Office, by prior arrangement with the Committee Clerk, during normal working hours. (Telephone: (028) 90521629).

Top

APPENDIX 4

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
RELATING TO THE REPORT

CORRIGENDUM

Please note that at page 138 paragraph 34 the figure of £1.5 million should read £7.5 million.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 20 September 2001

Members present:
Mr Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mrs E Bell
Mr Gallagher
Mr Gibson
Mr McHugh
Mr K Robinson

Witnesses:
Mr D Flanagan ) Council for Catholic
Mr E McArdle ) Maintained Schools

Mr J Miskelly ) Governing Bodies’ Association
Mr F McCallion )

1

The Chairperson: Good morning and welcome to the Education Committee. We are considering the local management of schools (LMS) funding formula. We look forward to what you have to say, and we would like to have an opportunity for questions afterwards.

2

Mr Flanagan: We thank the Committee for inviting us to attend this morning. We congratulate the Committee on its interest in LMS and for its request to the Minister to extend the consultation period. We have found that extremely helpful. Thank you for your inclusive approach to LMS; it is one of the most important issues in education, as it affects every school. We welcome the approach you have taken.

3

Our delegation includes representatives from the Governing Bodies’ Association (GBA) and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). During the course of the consultation, CCMS, GBA and the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) met to look at a range of issues on which there was agreement. Arising from that meeting we met with the Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson. We also had a meeting with the Minister and Department of Education officials. I hope that those discussions were helpful to you in asking for an extension to the consultation period and in formulating your thinking on the issue.

4

NICIE was with us in those delegations. However, Michael Wardlow is not with us today because he does not want to forfeit his organisation’s right to a separate hearing with the Committee, and we respect that. NICIE will attend at a future stage in the discussions.

5

We are representing the voluntary/maintained sector. Collectively, we represent approximately 64% of children educated in Northern Ireland schools. We represent the majority of schools and the majority of teachers who teach in those schools. We have sought to address our response today from the strategic and regional perspective, reflecting a culture of empowerment and delegation, rather than of administration and control. Those key factors draw us together as a body.

6

There are five issues that we would like to discuss — teachers’ salaries, the TSN factor, pupil ratings, the premises, grounds and sports factors and the equality issue. We welcome the opportunity to discuss those issues with the Committee after the presentation.

7

Mr Miskelly: I speak from a voluntary grammar school perspective. The local management of schools has been a feature of that sector — in some cases for hundreds of years — and therefore when LMS was introduced in 1989, it was not a new concept. We were used to handling teachers’ salaries.

8

We believe that the whole concept of LMS should be maintained and extended. The document contains a proposal — which has been supported by some people — that responsibility for teachers’ salaries should be transferred to the education and library boards. That, in effect, would destroy LMS.

9

The document states that around £700 million is allocated to the aggregated schools budget (ASB). It you take salaries out of the schools’ budgets, then only £100 million is left. The benefits derived from delegation to schools have been endorsed by school principals and by research published in 1997 by the University of Ulster. As you will know from the document, some schools had problems in coming to terms with the new arrangements, but, by and large, they were regarded as being beneficial.

10

Ultimately, those new arrangements were not only of benefit in the running of the school, but were also beneficial for the children, as boards of governors were able to determine the staffing needs for their own schools. It is essential that responsibility for the employment and payment of teachers — particularly in the voluntary grammar school sector — remain with boards of governors.

11

Mr Flanagan: Historically, the Department of Education has determined teacher complements throughout all schools. That was worked out on the basis of a crass statistical equation. For example, for 52 pupils, two teachers would be allocated, while for 53 pupils, three teachers would be allocated. The figures varied from one year to the next and there was no proper assessment. Some £600 million was held at the centre — that was the maximum amount of money allocated for teachers.

12

The net effect of that could be seen in the picture that developed during the year. The Department of Education found that it had huge amounts of money at the centre, and it then began to release it as a windfall. That resulted in a crazy situation, with education and library board officers informing schools of the equipment and furniture that they believed the schools needed. It was not the best way to manage the funding relating to teachers’ salaries.

13

The introduction of LMS, as part of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, caused some concern. Principals were worried that it would lead to additional work and increased pupil:teacher ratios, resulting in fewer teachers. They were also concerned about a range of industrial relations problems. There was a sense of fear and trepidation, as teachers were unsure how the new system would work.

14

Now, 12 years later, it is useful to reflect on those early experiences. There is still a problem with additional work, but it is much less of a problem than it once was. Most of the additional workload is associated with the bureaucracy surrounding the other reforms of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 — such as open enrolment, the curriculum and so on — and not with LMS. Pupil:teacher ratios have been substantially reduced since 1989. More teachers than ever before are now employed, in all school sectors, throughout the Province. There is much greater flexibility in staffing structures within, and between, schools. We now have a more generic curriculum-led staffing approach, and teachers are appointed on the basis of the children’s needs, not simply on a numbers basis. A tremendous amount of initiative and creativity has been shown by boards of governors and school principals. There is a sense now that LMS was perhaps the single most successful reform to have been introduced under the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

15

To remove teachers’ salaries from the LMS equation would be the death knell of LMS. That would remove initiative, ownership and empowerment from boards of governors at local level. For example, two years ago we were dealing with a large urban school that had a lot of problems and a very stagnant staff. The curriculum offered was not always tailored to the needs of the children. We did substantial work in that school, and nine teachers were declared redundant because some staff were doing jobs that were no longer required. However, following that, we were able to appoint 12 additional teachers. In a very basic way, that indicates the level of flexibility and creativity that was involved. It also provided the board of governors with a carrot for the work that it was doing. Under the previous system, the board would have received nine teachers to replace the nine who were made redundant. That is the CCMS experience of how the teachers’ salary element works.

16

Mr McArdle: The council is concerned about whether the quantum of funding available for TSN is appropriate. It is interesting that the command paper ‘Employment Equality: Building for the Future’ (Cm 3684) raised that issue. In its response on New TSN, the Northern Ireland Economic Council raised questions about whether the quantum of funding is sufficient. Some research needs to be done on that issue.

17

Our second concern is whether the multilayered impact of deprivation is properly recognised. We suggest that the Department’s document does not adequately recognise that. There is clear evidence from research to show that a child from a deprived home will bring a particular difficulty — a cultural deficit. If that child goes to a school where there are considerable numbers of similar children with cultural deficits, the problem multiplies. Dr Peter Daly and Dr Ian Shuttleworth did some research for the Northern Ireland Economic Council, and work has also been done by Raudenbusch and others. Increasingly, the evidence shows that there is a neighbourhood effect — if you attend a school with high levels of deprivation in a deprived area, there will be a "dragchain" effect. That has not been recognised, and the research has been set aside too readily. In 1991, Raudenbusch said that the effect of neighbourhood deprivation is additional to the effects of individual and family background influences, and that, when translated into employment prospects, it may be of real significance in determining the future life chances of young people.

18

Sir George Quigley came to speak to CCMS about work that had been undertaken in a series of reports on school improvement and performance. Committee members will probably know of those reports. The area at the top of the Shankill, which is possibly the most deprived area in Northern Ireland, was studied. Mount Gilbert Community College has very high levels of deprivation and is set in an intensely deprived area. We do not believe that the straight-line-graph approach recognises such deprivation. It is interesting that the principle of a contextual element was accepted by everyone on the Department’s subgroup. However, you will not be surprised to know that we could not agree on what the weightings should be. The principle is accepted, but no research is done on that area. The Group 1 initiative is clear evidence of the recognition of that factor and its impact. Group 1 schools are all characterised by the factors that I have spoken of.

19

We are also concerned about Key Stage 2 results being used as a mechanism for deciding certain funding. Key Stage 2 was designed for an entirely different purpose — it is a teacher-led process with periodic quality assurance. However, Mr Tom Shaw’s parting inspection report gives us greater cause for concern. He said that English and Maths assessment is satisfactory and good in 60% and 55% of schools respectively. That means, conversely, that there is cause for concern in 40% and 45% of schools respectively.

20

We do not have a difficulty with the concept, but perhaps there is a problem with the mechanism that is being used.

21

We have no difficulty with schools being made accountable for TSN funding. However, we think that accountability should be extended to all TSN funding that is held at the centre, by the boards or by any other body.

22

Mr McCallion: I am here to talk about the premises factor. Possibly we should not be discussing that aspect at all, but we are concerned about low funding and about the overall amount of money in the system. We get the impression that money is being moved from one sector to another but that no new money is coming in. We must look at each of the pieces and try to see what funding is being suggested for them, and what effect it will have.

23

I will deal mainly with proposals 9.3 and 13.3. Proposal 9.3 suggests that there should be a premises factor, which should be tied to a fixed amount of money per square metre and be based on unweighted pupil costs. That suggests that a primary one child in a huge primary school with only thirty children causes as much wear and tear to the building as a 16-year-old boy in an urban school that is full of pupils. That is what unweighted means — that there is no difference in the damage or general wear and tear caused by different types of pupils.

24

People take the view that some schools have little wear and tear, and some schools have huge amounts of wear and tear. The present situation in Northern Ireland is that all schools have wear and tear. It is caused by pupils, the age of the buildings and the condition of the buildings. Yesterday I was in Portstewart, and I admired the beautiful grammar school there, which is being repainted. I suggest that the paint job on that school — Dominican College — must cost a fortune. The school sits on top of O’Hara’s castle only 10 yards away from the sea. The winds blow in from the sea and the only thing between the school and the Atlantic Ocean is a bit of Malin Head. Dominican College must have maintenance conditions different to those of every other school in Northern Ireland. However, the proposal suggests that its premises factor is identical to that of a tiny primary school in the warmest part of Northern Ireland.

25

I also want to consider proposal 13.3. It says that the board formula will be used and that it will also be used for sports grounds. One thing that people can say about Belfast Education and Library Board — I use Belfast as an example, because my school is in that board, but the same would apply to any other board — is that we have never put a huge amount of money into school maintenance. Traditionally, we have done a really bad job on maintenance. We pursued many issues, but the premises factor was not one of them. The major issue now is determining how to get an average — what is the average and is it adequate?

26

I have been a principal of a maintained school. The grass gets cut 10 or 13 times per year. That will be done when the contractor wants to do it — usually after two days of torrential rain, when you could plant rice in the playing fields. The contractor then wonders why the principal looks at him as if to say "Do you expect me to sign this off, when there is more mud than grass?"

27

The Chairperson: I thought I was a cynic, Mr McCallion.

28

Mr McCallion: When you deal with premises costs, you become absolutely cynical. There are huge problems. The formula is based on the handbook. The handbook was fine when it was written in 1970. Where are we today? What does it say in the handbook about the maintenance of technology suites, science labs, home economics rooms or physical education facilities? Those things have changed significantly over time. Corrections have been made, but there has been no root and branch overhaul.

29

I suppose that people will say that looking at the premises is difficult. However, we have an estates survey in progress. My understanding is that the estates survey is almost at an end. Jimmie Cousins has been seconded to the Belfast Board to complete an estates management database. We will therefore have a detailed survey of all the controlled and maintained schools in Northern Ireland within the next year. However, the assumption is currently being made that they are all the same. If that is the case, why did we need an estates survey? Why did we spend all that money? It was because we felt that there was a difference between the buildings; a difference in age; a difference between urban and rural schools; and a difference between a school situated at O’Hara’s castle in Portstewart and a school in the nicest part of Northern Ireland. There is an issue there. The formula appears to be simple, and a simple formula is difficult for people to deal with in Northern Ireland.

30

Mr Miskelly: I want to add to that. On several occasions when departmental officials have talked about a price per square metre, I have pointed out to them that the Government themselves do not pay the same rent for every property that they use throughout Northern Ireland. It is totally illogical to say that every school should have the same amount.

31

Mr Flanagan: Mr McCallion definitely gets to the right places. Pupil weightings have the potential to be the most divisive dimension of the LMS formula. The weightings attempt to set face against face. We should be aware, and recognise the sensitivity, of that. We do not want a full-scale battle between primary and secondary school teachers, each saying that they are worse off. That is divisive and a sensitive issue.

32

We, as a delegation, recognise the significance of early-years learning. We recognise the need for additional finance for early-years learning and that prevention is better than cure. We equally recognise that a child who does not learn to read by the time he or she leaves Key Stage 1 may never learn to read. If such a person eventually does, it will be at huge expense and will require much effort throughout the school system and perhaps beyond that into adult learning. That case is not lost on us. More money does need be targeted towards the primary sector.

33

However, we are going to suggest an alternative way of doing that. The formula proposes that it should be transferred from secondary into primary; that would be a fatal mistake and would set sector against sector. There is a much more inclusive and creative way of doing it.

34

We already have the "Good Start" initiative whereby all primary one pupils have a classroom assistant. If we extended that initiative through a central initiative driven by the policy-makers, it would cost £1·5 million per year over six years. It would mean that all teachers at primary level would have a classroom assistant. The initiative would manifest itself in relation to each teacher and school and would clearly have benefits for the learning opportunities of young children. We have a precedent for that initiative.

35

Similarly, we have seen the introduction of the "class size" initiative, whereby no child in Key Stage 1 should be taught in a class of more than 30 pupils. There are two options. We could either extend that initiative to Key Stage 2, or we could backtrack and say that, as 30 pupils at Key Stage 1 worked well and there have been real benefits from it, we would reduce the class size to 28. That would cost approximately £3 million per year, and, again, it would be driven by the policy-makers.

36

There could also be a "books and equipment" initiative, whereby resources would be targeted for specific purposes in the primary sector. That would cost about £1 million per year. Finally, we have already spoken about the condition of premises. We are educating children in the most drab of conditions. If we see a school pre-summer and then see it post-summer after it has been repainted, the difference that the maintenance makes to the learning environment is unbelievable. We have a responsibility to ensure that children are being educated in the best of environments. Major advantages will accrue. The great advantage is that such initiatives would be driven by the policy-makers and not implemented by the administrators. That would allow schools at local level to take action on their own behalf.

37

Mr Miskelly: The GBA deplored the fact that the Department failed to provide schools with detailed statements setting out the impact. We are grateful to the Committee for obtaining an answer for us on the value of a unit. We have applied that in many of our schools, and we are seeing very substantial losses.

38

We know that the Minister said that it is inevitable that there will be winners and losers. I do not see the inevitability of that. It seems nonsense to move a problem from one area to another. In Northern Ireland we should remember — and we keep reminding ourselves — that education is about children and providing the best education for children.

39

Northern Ireland has a reputation for having a better education system than that in other parts of the United Kingdom. In voluntary grammar schools particularly, we pride ourselves in the value added. The value added in many schools — not just voluntary schools — has been by the goodwill and voluntary work of teachers. It would be a shame if anything in the proposals would deter staff or prevent boards of governors from supporting the value added through extra-curricular activities.

40

The GBA does not accept that a new school which cost £10 million or £15 million to build should receive the same amount of maintenance money for premises and grounds in its first five years as older school buildings.

41

The Department of Education carried out equality testing on which it said it provided data. However, I do not understand how that data can be trusted because it contained errors that have since been amended. Therefore some people have lost confidence in the data. All schools should be given the opportunity to see the figures. That would be a proper impact assessment.

42

A few years ago the Government reduced the grants for preparatory departments from 50% to 40% and then from 40% to 30%. Preparatory departments are now receiving somewhere in the region of £400 to £500 per pupil. The GBA supports diversity of schools and the choice of the individual, so it is not opposed to the development of the integrated sector and the Irish-medium sector. However, it does not seem right that some schools in other sectors are receiving £2,000 or £2,500 per pupil when the preparatory departments in voluntary grammar schools only receive £400 to £500. When that was debated some years ago, the Department said that there were plenty of spaces in the primary sector for such pupils. However, the cost to the public purse becomes greater if the child is educated anywhere other than in a preparatory department.

43

The Chairperson: I do not mean to be aggressive or unpleasant. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not like that. [Laughter] I say that for the benefit of Hansard. Could it be said that your criticisms — particularly in relation to the payment of salaries — were an attempt to knife the education boards and to remove a major part of their responsibilities? If LMS were to be extended in the way that you are advocating, the role of the boards would be reduced.

44

Mr Miskelly: The GBA is sensitive to the position of the boards. The group has met with the Minister. We did not mention it, but if, as proposed, there is to be a common formula for all of Northern Ireland then, logically, there is no need for five groups to distribute the money. There should be a funding agency. We suggested to the Minister that that could be done by a separate agency — which GBA prefers — or on a lead-board basis, as applied with the computerised local administration system for schools (CLASS) initiative. A report was made on architectural services, but it was shelved. Those involved in that report — who included representatives from the boards — agreed that there should be a centralised architectural service for Northern Ireland.

45

We do not want to give the impression that we are trying to destroy the boards, but administration in Northern Ireland — all administration — needs to be examined. It is over-weighted for the population of Northern Ireland, and people have been saying this for years. I think it was Tony Worthington, who, unfortunately, was not prepared to grasp that nettle. We understand the political pressures, but there does seem to be tremendous duplication. The boards have not really had to handle the teachers’ salaries issue since 1989, and I do not see why one would give responsibility back to them unless they wanted to take this under their wing — perhaps to simply extend their present responsibilities.

46

Mr Flanagan: In a sense that is really a secondary issue. The primary issue is the notion of autonomy and empowerment, as opposed to control and administration. The voluntary grammar sector, with its long history of being empowered, and all other sectors, since being empowered in 1989, have clearly demonstrated that the exercise of control over the determination of teachers’ salaries has worked. It has worked not only in the interests of schools, but in the interests of standards and in the interests of the children. There is clear evidence of that in the sector that I represent. The greater numbers of teachers in schools has raised standards, and it has allowed people to exercise local initiative.

47

The argument is not about administration. It is about whether we want to empower people at local level and recognise that they are there to do the job, or whether we want to simply operate a formulaic approach which did not produce the desired results before 1989. It would be a backward step if we were to remove teachers’ salaries. We should be looking to step forward. Whether or not there is additional delegation from boards is not the issue. We should ensure that we retain the central element of LMS.

48

Mr S Wilson: On the last point, I tend to agree with the argument that has been made. However, the Chairman and I have met with principals of schools and people from boards of governors on a number of occasions, and opinion seems to be divided on the issue. Many principals and boards of governors see the control of salaries as a poisoned chalice. I do not have any scientific evidence for it, but there appears to be a big division of opinion between the people who actually have to administer at local level and those in central organisations such as yourselves. I would be interested in your comment on that.

49

You mentioned that the use of Key Stage 2 is not appropriate, or that there are difficulties in using it, for assessing special educational needs. Have you any suggestions as to what measure might then be used for allocating moneys for special educational needs if you do not use Key Stage 2?

50

I notice a difference of opinion between the two organisations on the question of TSN — perhaps I am wrong. I get the impression that CCMS is saying that there should be more for TSN but that the GBA is saying that it needs to have explanations as to why extra money is being given in the first place. Can you clear that up?

51

Mr Flanagan: On your final point, we are two very different organisations and have different nuances in all of this. However, we are here with a common purpose. We do not agree explicitly on everything about LMS, but there is a fair measure of agreement.

52

You are right that there is a divergence of thinking among principals. There is a very persuasive argument that if someone were to take the staff workload off your hands you would have a much easier job — allowing you to manage on a day-to-day basis. However, real management is about making hard decisions, trying to raise standards and dealing with the needs of children. In 1989 there was tremendous fear and trepidation among principals and boards of governors about the responsibilities, but since then they have clearly demonstrated that they can handle matters, and with good effect.

53

The very persuasive argument that somebody could take all that work away and thus let schools get on with the daily business of educating children has been put to principals. We need to read behind the lobbying. Are we in the business of control or of empowerment? We must decide.

54

Mr McArdle: I take the point in relation to Key Stage 2. Interestingly, we asked some of our principals who were doing standardised testing processes to do a read across from the Key Stage 2 results from schools. They could find no correlation.

55

At a meeting with many of our secondary principals yesterday we discussed the issue of Key Stage 3 and how, for example, one might predict for GCSE. Their concern was that they were all over the place in relation to performance at Key Stage 3 and outcome at Key Stage 4.

56

There is a difficulty. We raised that issue at a consultative meeting, organised by the Department of Education, at which a range of academics from England was present. The comment was made that it called the assessment processes and arrangements into question. We said "What if it does? Perhaps we need to do that."

57

There has been a variety of approaches across the water. For example, in Kent a child is designated as having special needs and there is a moderation process. Others have specific defined testing regimes. Our difficulty was with the prospect of Key Stage 2 being allied to the 11-plus testing — we did not want to be adding another pressure. In the group, there was an acceptance that this may be the best fit. CCMS has difficulty in deciding whether "the best fit" is the best way forward. There is a very positive correlation between social deprivation and underachievement. The Department’s statistical bulletins 96/1 and 96/2 recognised that. Perhaps we need to continue to use social deprivation as a factor in giving out all the money at this stage, but research to find another mechanism should at least be begun. If that means addressing the Key Stage 2 issue then that is what we should do. We should not just say that it is all very difficult; we should say that something should be done.

58

We called for research on that, as we did, for example, in 1994 on the ratios between primary and post-primary weightings. We did it again in 1997. There needs to be an evidential base for what we are doing.

59

Kent is now moving away from what it did in the past. I do not have a solution for you and I apologise for that.

60

Mr McCallion: On TSN, I do not think that there is a disagreement between us; we are agreed on it. Why was 5% to 5·5% chosen? That is our problem. Some people say that it should be 6%, some say that it should be 7%, while others say it should be 4%. The answer is that we do not know. Five per cent was brought in initially in an attempt to look at the problem. It was an attempt to offer some evidence as to the long-term effect of putting money into TSN. Our difficulty now is that the document just says "go from 5% to 5·5%". Why? That is our concern and it applies to a lot of things in the document. Why this step? Why not another? It is perhaps to do with the fact that Northern Ireland was administered by people who came over here on a plane now and then. People told them what to do and the Ministers stood up and said it. The difference between that and our own Government in Northern Ireland must be that we ask " Is this the best thing? Why are we doing it? What is the advantage to our children and our school system?" That is our only concern about TSN. I do not see that there is any evidence being offered to us.

61

On LMS, I agree with Mr Wilson’s argument that there is disagreement among people. I have been at meetings where people have said that it would be great if someone would take the workload away. I was involved in the Belfast Education and Library Board’s review of LMS. We met at the Ulidia Teachers’ Centre. Principals from nursery, primary, secondary, and grammar schools were there, and they were asked what they thought about LMS. It came over strongly that they did not want to do away with LMS.

62

I was confident that teachers in the nursery sector would argue against it because 90% of their budget is tied in to TSN and teachers’ salaries. A small movement in the number of pupils would have a major effect on the funding for nursery schools. Those teachers were very clear that, under no circumstances, would they go back to the previous system. The argument was that a fixed amount of money is available for distribution. Some schools get large sums of money and some schools get tiny sums of money. No one wants that power to go to the board. People want the money for good educational reasons.

63

A tremendous advantage of having a common formula agency is that the boards will have to explain why they want the money. The boards currently explain it to the civil servants in the Department. One set of civil servants looks to another set of civil servants, and they use the assessment of relative needs exercise (ARNE) formula to decide on the amount of money. Each education and library board then has to try to get as much extra money as is possible.

64

The boards should be asked why they want the money, what they propose to do with it, and the benefits for people in Northern Ireland. If there is a magnificent Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS) in Derry, why is it not available in Belfast? If a good school development plan is produced in the Southern Board, why can a school in the North-Eastern Board not use it? It is seen as being a foreign board — it might as well be in a foreign country. There is no transfer across because it is "the board’s money". I used to get into trouble with the South Eastern Education and Library Board because I cynically said that it was my money. The board was quite indignant about that, because I was only the school principal and it obviously was not my money.

65

Mr Miskelly: To pick up on Mr McArdle’s point about research on TSN, there has never been any research on the real cost of educating a pupil at each year or key educational stage up to age 18. Such research is needed to establish the real cost.

66

Mr Gibson: I know exactly what Mr McCallion meant about signing for the grass cutting. I was once accused on trying to walk on water. I was once responsible for a report in relation to social need issues and the long tail of underachievement that exists. All the agencies were to come together to try to have the issue solved for children before they reached seven years of age. That was thought a simplistic idea at that time. However, there was no empirical evidence to guide us. Is that still the situation?

67

Mr Flanagan: Mr McCallion said that there is a clear lack of evidence. Mr McArdle said that we asked for the research to be done. We asked for it in 1994 and 1996. We are now asking you about it; the Committee is best placed to ask for that research to be commissioned. The Committee’s voice may be heard where other voices were previously ignored.

68

There is a compelling argument as we move forward because we do not want to be here in 10 years’ time asking the same questions. It is important that the Education Committee identify areas where empirical evidence is needed. That should then be passed to the Department of Education or other researchers in the field so that the clarity that we need, which is not currently there, can become available.

69

Mr McArdle: There is clear evidence that a difference can be made if the issue of social deprivation at a young age is addressed head on. Pam Sammons of the London Institute of Education carried out a longitudinal study that found a positive correlation — children who began to fail at age six were still failing at age 16. There is little doubt that we should be talking about innovation at the start rather than remediation at the end.

70

Several factors contribute to the problem. First, I am not convinced that our teachers are being taught sufficient skills for diagnostic and remedial teaching. That is not a criticism of the teaching profession. The amount of curricular time available to the Higher Education Institutions to cover these matters has been squeezed.

71

For example, the Belfast Action Team — those of us who are old enough remember it fondly — operated a major literacy and numeracy scheme. When the University of Ulster evaluated the scheme, the teachers stood up and unashamedly said that they were committed and professional, but they did not have many of the necessary skills. That issue has emerged in a whole series of Department inspectorate reports. However, there does not seem to be any commitment to deal with it.

72

There needs to be an understanding of the TSN dimension early on. There needs to be a multidisciplinary approach — and New TSN is beginning to do that. The local Assembly is beginning to force the Department into a multifaceted approach to multilayered deprivation. Much work and a lot more research must be done. As Donal Flanagan said, it would be a shame if we were saying the same thing in 10 years’ time.

73

Mr Flanagan: Children who fail at six and 16 — children whom the system has failed — do not access the lifelong learning initiative that was meant to provide for them.

74

Mr Gibson: This raises the whole question of the use of TSN at the moment. Should we redirect funding?

75

Mr Flanagan: You need a base for that.

76

Mr McArdle: That brings us back to the issue that the council raised, back in 1994, when we were responding to the strategic analysis that was done then. We certainly need TSN moneys to facilitate and deliver remediation programmes at post-primary level. The question is whether we can have a structured realignment of funding. However, in the interim it would have to be done through new funding.

77

Other issues are whether the TSN initiatives have been sufficiently co-ordinated and whether we have begun to look at what could multiply the TSN impact, namely the skilling of teachers in particular areas and a multifaceted, communities and schools approach.

78

I am not sure that we do not need New TSN, but we do need reinvigoration, and we need to reconsider whether TSN is being used to the greatest effect.

79

Mr Gibson: It should be used to provide the skills rather than remedial work that may not be effective.

80

Mr McCallion: The school inspectors have begun only recently to ask what schools are using the TSN money for. That is a perfectly reasonable question. Some schools are getting quite large amounts of money, and it is proper to ask what they use it for. The use of that money will then be a matter for professional argument. However, the question must be asked, otherwise the implication is that it is just a lump of money from Santa Claus; and that is not particularly useful.

81

Mr K Robinson: There are always sub-plots in education. I start from that basis. Far be it from me to suggest that CCMS, for instance, would be involved in a sub-plot, but you talk about a situation in a school where old, tired staff — who perhaps had been through many battles — are replaced by young, enthusiastic and differently-skilled staff. That struck me as a management tool — not necessarily for the school, but perhaps for the body above the school. In this case, it would be CCMS, but it could equally have been a board or the GBA.

82

Let us suppose that I am a school governor. The school is in a TSN area, and it does not even have its basic staffing level. Every year the school clocks up a deficit, and every year we have to take a hard management decision and say to the principal "We are sorry; we know that you have a difficult task, but we will have to remove a teacher to save money." Despite the fact that early-years learning and all the other initiatives are in the background, the children will go into a primary one class, and they will then go to a primary two/three class. That will be followed by a primary three/four class and so on — there will be composite classes all the way through the school. How will LMS — no matter how we juggle with it — take us away from the situation where a principal and a board of governors are trying to tackle a difficult, multifaceted problem? They cannot get onto ground zero, so to speak, because they cannot achieve the basic staffing levels that they need to do the simple part of the job, never mind the difficult part. How do all those machinations translate in practice?

83

Mr Flanagan: I assure you that CCMS would not be involved in any plots against anyone. Nevertheless, LMS and the delegation of budgets have brought about a degree of flexibility for some schools, and we want to see that extended.

84

In the last few years, the Department of Education has introduced the Group 1 initiative, which has created additional flexibility for some schools. Deprivation levels of 60% do not mean six times 10%; it is much more. Therefore, schools that are in difficult situations, as in the case outlined by Ken Robinson, should be allowed access to the money that is necessary to rectify matters.

85

The straight-line graph that says that 60% social deprivation is six times greater than 10% is absolute nonsense. It does not recognise the difficult environmental factors or the "dragchain" effect that children of that nature face in school. We need to look at why the Group 1 initiative was introduced and how can we reflect that in school funding.

86

Mr McArdle: Our TSN action plan commits us to explore further with the Department the extension of Group 1 into the primary sector. In the case of the school outlined, there may well be falling numbers caused by migration. We recognise that the operation of open enrolment under LMS presents increasing difficulties. There needs to be some lateral thinking about that. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency says that there will be a substantial decline in pupil numbers throughout Northern Ireland over the next 10 years.

87

There needs to be a rethink on TSN and on the structure and implications of open enrolment as it operates. The contextual effect also needs to be considered. It may be unpalatable to some, but academic research is clear that there is a contextual effect. Those are the only ways to break the cycle of deprivation. It is almost impossible to forward plan in relation to deprivation, so we must be reactive.

88

Mr K Robinson: The argument was put to principals in a persuasive way. Many principals, faced with the situation that I have just described, would be happy for the Department to give them their core staffing; that would at least allow them to do the core job. It is that desperate in some areas.

89

Mr Flanagan: Mr McCallion asked why people would want to retain that control at the centre. What benefits would there be to the school?

90

Mr K Robinson: It is a cry for help from the schools in that situation.

91

Mr McCallion: It is also an argument about what we, as an organisation, are involved in. Should we be telling people how to do their jobs or are we in the business of empowering principals? I have been on the board of governors of a school that was not doing well, and I have been on the board of governors when the school was perceived to have been turned around. I did not care what the CCMS view on the matter was — it was a much easier life for me.

92

Mr McHugh: There has been much discussion on TSN and New TSN. We have talked about the extra per cent and why TSN is needed, or how much is needed for it. In relation to the percentage, what figure do you think is needed to deal sufficiently with TSN? There seems to be a thread running through debates in the political field, within the various parties and, indeed, in the schools. Perhaps I am being cynical, but is everybody committed to New TSN or to TSN or indeed, to equality, at the various levels?

93

It seems as though people are trying to find ways around TSN. Could that money be used for run-of-the-mill things? We had the same argument with the equality agenda. Can you enlighten me on that?

94

Mr Flanagan: First, regarding the quantum, we do not know because there has been no research. We need to establish how the money was used and what the outcomes were. Schools receiving TSN moneys should be asked to make an annual report answering those questions. We would then be in a position to say that more could have achieved more, or less could have achieved the same result. Secondly, we need to carry out wider research on what social deprivation actually means and how it impacts on schools, not just on individual children but also on schools with large numbers of socially deprived children.

95

Mr McCallion: One difficulty with TSN funding is that it almost appears to be a gift. Why 5%? There seems to be no reason why that figure was chosen.

96

The GBA is interested in the education of all children in Northern Ireland. It would be much easier to educate our pupils if everybody else were interested in education. If the main theme among the youth population in Northern Ireland is Manchester United — or whatever — it is very difficult to get education driven through. We have a genuine, 100% interest in education in Northern Ireland. Arguments have been put to us that TSN will improve the lot of education and will raise the standard of education in Northern Ireland. That is to our advantage, as well as to that of the people of Northern Ireland.

97

We are concerned about whether TSN funding has been put to good use, but we have difficulty in finding evidence on that. CCMS has offered evidence of how good use can be made of TSN money. CCMS has applied pressure to a significant number of schools to bring about improvement. I do not know whether it was the TSN money, Mr Flanagan’s nice smile or Mr McArdle’s talking, but there has been an improvement in the situation from 1988 to 2001. I do not know why that happened, and I do not think that anyone knows. It suggests, however, that there is a possibility that TSN funding can be used well. My concern is that if it is used badly, schools will fail. If schools fail, we will all lose out. The difficulty is balancing good use of it, perception of good use of it and evidence of good use of it. I do not worry about the research because I think that the research will show good use.

98

Mrs E Bell: I will ask for a written response because it may be difficult to answer my question now. I was interested in what CCMS said about the administrative costs that are unique to voluntary grammar and maintained schools: "In responding to previous consultations, the Council has recognised that schools which are also employers in their own legal right, have unavoidable responsibilities which incur unavoidable addition costs".

99

I am interested in that because evidence from integrated schools suggests that they will experience many difficulties with the age-weighted pupil units (AWPUs) being reduced. Can you, in a written response, expand on section 11? Your opinions would enable us take that aspect further in our analysis. You work very closely with the schools, and you know the practical problems on the ground. We have a letter here from NICIE, but integrated schools have told me that they are concerned about what is happening.

100

Mr Flanagan: We will do that. We always like to help those unfortunate people in other sectors.

101

The Chairperson: I have some final questions, and I appreciate that it is unfair to ask for a "yes" or "no" answer to them.

102

Are these proposals, as currently constituted, likely to create a schools system that assists the boards, the principals and the teachers to improve the learning of all pupils according to their needs? Are they likely to create a fair and transparent system which is simple to operate and easy to understand?

103

Mr Flanagan: Sorry, which proposals are we talking about, Chairman?

104

The Chairperson: The proposals on LMS funding — the entire document.

105

Mr Miskelly: Before colleagues answer that, we want you to know — and we have written to the Minister on this — that the GBA recognises that a review of school funding within the education service is necessary. However, it seems illogical to proceed to implement a new system, given the imminent publication of the report by Gerry Burns on post-primary education, the deferment of the curriculum proposals, and the overall review of administration in the public service in Northern Ireland.

106

Mr Flanagan: If there were a diminution in the empowerment of schools at local level, we would see a decline in standards. There is no doubt about that. In our response, we have highlighted the need for greater transparency and openness. If money is being held at the centre, we want to know why and we want to know what it is being used for. If schools’ money has been clawed back through job vacancies, or for other reasons, then that money should be returned to schools. It should not be used to prop up central administration. Fairness and openness are required.

107

Mr McCallion: The local education authorities in England take pride in the percentage of money that they hand out to the equivalent of our controlled and maintained schools. In England, Wales and Scotland the figures are 90%, 95%, and 97% respectively. The Belfast Board does best here; it takes pride in its 80%.

108

Mr Miskelly: On the impact on children, the Department claims that some 88% of schools will gain. That, however, means that some 12% will lose. That 12% could represent 150 to 160 schools. The loss is not quantified, but, based on the figures that we have for some voluntary grammar schools, we are talking about £200,000. If a school loses £200,000, inevitably that will mean fewer staff.

109

The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Gentlemen, for your attendance this morning.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 20 September 2001

Members present:
Mr Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mrs E Bell
Mr Fee
Mr Gallagher
Mr Gibson
Mr McHugh
Mr K Robinson

Witnesses:
Ms A Andrews )
Mr M Crudden )
Mrs D Ferguson ) Primary Principals
Ms J Houston )
Mr M Lombard )

110

The Chairperson: Good morning. The schools that you represent vary from each other and suffer different levels of social deprivation. We wish to get a flavour of what it is like for you as practitioners managing a local management of schools (LMS) scenario budget. We intend to first allow each of you the opportunity to give a presentation.

111

Mr K Robinson: How was this group selected?

112

The Committee Clerk: We sought the views of certain types of schools.

113

Mr Lombard: I come from Holy Trinity Primary School in West Belfast. Due to decreasing numbers, the boys’ and girls’ schools amalgamated last year, and the new school is large enough for 1,600 pupils. Social deprivation accounts for 65% of the pupils, and pupils from the travelling population account for 35%.

114

LMS was not selected by teachers but was a result of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was somewhat imposed on school principals. Most principals at that time were managing the curriculum and everything else was devolved to the boards. It came as quite a shock to those of us who had to take on board managing salaries, and so on. Nevertheless, we have now become accustomed to the LMS system, and one favourable aspect of it is the independence when deciding on the number of teachers in a school.

115

LMS is said to give tremendous freedom to exercise judgement according to local needs. However, approximately 90% of the budget is spent on salaries and utilities, so there is little room for discretion to embark on local initiatives. Nevertheless, we have grown accustomed to LMS over the past 11 or 12 years, and it is highly favoured by schools.

116

With regard to the common formula, 65% of schools throughout Northern Ireland are small and serve 25% of the total school population, while 35% serve 75% of the pupils. The small schools lobby exercises a power and control that far exceeds it. A greater rationalisation should take place of the smaller schools.

117

There is a need to keep the free school meals ratio, which is a good indicator of targeting social need. I am aware that schools in more leafy areas are concerned that they do not benefit in any way from that. Perhaps a way around that would be to divide the budget so that there is an acknowledgement of their social needs. The interpretation of social need is at the moment probably confined to poverty and the lack of material goods, but it can also be interpreted in other ways. I am sensitive to the needs of schools in areas of higher employment, and so on.

118

The nursery age-weighted pupil units (AWPU) should be exactly the same. In east Belfast, where I was for 11 years, two nursery units were attached. We had the same number of pupils as most independent nurseries. It was unfair that the AWPUs for nurseries in independent nursery schools with their own principals were different to those for nursery schools with units attached. We felt that the primary school was subsidising the nursery school children.

119

I am also aware that the school benefits from the special needs budget; we have a considerable number of pupils who qualify in that area. I am also sensitive to the fact that it is at present aligned to 11-plus results. The proposal is that the special needs budget will be tied to Key Stage 2 results. I am not sure that that is very sensible. I have reservations — and I do not mind saying this publicly — about the internal validity and reliability of the Key Stage exams and about whether they achieve their purpose. Also, a punitive element is involved: as a school tries to do better for the children, its special needs allowance goes down.

120

Special needs are relative. Even children from "better backgrounds" have special needs. A way around the problem might be to divide the budget so that some of it is reserved for high concentrations of children with special needs. The Warnock formula perhaps should be applied to all schools. There is a high correlation between social deprivation and special needs, for example, in east Belfast, west Belfast and the upper Shankill. It is a common problem, and it is a mistake to presume that any area is free from it. There are schools where, for perhaps geographical or social reasons, it is difficult to raise the children’s IQ level.

121

Mrs Ferguson: I am the principal of a rural primary school in County Antrim with an enrolment of 134 pupils. We are in a building that is 93 years old. There are two classrooms and four mobile classrooms. We have been promised a fifth mobile classroom when money becomes available. We are very stretched in regard to accommodation.

122

Many of our pupils are from farming families with no great academic tradition. However, the families are very supportive of the school and of what we are trying to achieve. We have no free school meals, which is surprising considering the problems farmers have experienced in recent years.

123

It is extremely difficult to manage our budget under the current system, and I welcome the proposals before us for more money to be allocated to the primary sector. However, I am most concerned about the amount being diverted, for I do not think it sufficient to meet the needs of smaller primary schools.

124

The document has recognised the historical underinvestment in primary education. A primary-school pupil currently attracts only 65% of the funding attracted by those in post-primary schools. However, primary schools are given the task of providing a broad and balanced curriculum similar to that of the secondary schools.

125

In the primary school we deal with a whole range of abilities, while at the age of 11 pupils are streamed into grammar or secondary according to ability. We do not select those who attend our school; we must attempt to cater from the least able to the most gifted children, and it is therefore essential that our class sizes are small enough to allow teachers to do so.

126

To a large extent the attitude a child adopts to learning at primary school dictates its attitude to education for the rest of its life. If a child fails at primary, the gap often widens as it gets older. We must therefore tackle the problem earlier, which brings me to the next issue of targeting social need.

127

I am content that currently 68% of total funding for targeting social need is spent on social deprivation. Thirty-two per cent comes under the heading of special needs. The money that primary schools get for special needs does not even begin to address the problem. Ultimately teachers spend 20 minutes of their lunch hour about twice a week with as many children as they can fit in. That is the case in our primary school. It is not dealing with special needs. We have a reading recovery programme, but we had to get extra money to implement it.

128

Children are experiencing failure, and it is compounded by the fact that we have neither the time nor the money to address their needs adequately. We need a specialist teacher, but we do not have the funds. Our provision for special educational needs should be in line with the demands of the code of practice. Our having no free school meals means we cannot get any extra money; yet we have a high instance of special needs. Instead of having the allocation linked to the uptake of free school meals, I feel the money should be allocated on a scale which rises according to the number of pupils at each stage in the code of practice. That would be a much fairer way of distributing the money.

129

Finally, let me apply the new arrangements you propose to my own school. With the figures for the new system of funding, it appears I might be about £10,000 better off if there were a high aggregated school budget ("high ASB"), falling to about £6,000 with a "low ASB". Neither of these figures would be adequate to address our problems. I have worked out that we ideally need about £30,000 more in the budget to deliver the curriculum to which our children are entitled.

130

In our school we work very much as a team; we know the money is not there, and everyone makes sacrifices to provide children with the best education they can. As principal I am not paid according to what is recommended by our boards. We have no vice-principal, since that would take £2,000-£3,000 which we need for special needs and other areas. There is only one post — which was awarded 13 years ago — and teachers have said that they need the money in the classroom, meaning they do without. We bid for new initiatives every time we see a chance of extra money. Ultimately our staff have made commitments and sacrifices to get as much money as possible into the classroom, since we know there is not enough. However, not every school would be able to make that commitment.

131

Ms Houston: I am principal of the first planned integrated primary school in Northern Ireland, and I welcome the Committee’s attempt to be more transparent in funding matters and as fair as possible to all sectors. As you know, schools are not constituted or managed in the same way.

132

I talk from experience because I worked in a controlled school for 10 years before moving to the integrated sector that was independent for two years. The Belfast Board then maintained us for two years, and then, with the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, we entered the new and unknown area of grant-maintained integrated (GMI) school. That was a way of facilitating parents to set up new integrated schools — one of the cogs in a wheel to try to encourage understanding and tolerance in our society.

133

As principal of that school, there have been many pros and cons of that status over the past years. The pros are that the board of governors has freedom to make decisions about funding in our school, and it can meet local demands to meet the aims of integration. The board can also carry money forward from budget areas, transfer it and make three-year plans that work.

134

The big carrot for us was bringing forward the new building programme, and in 1996 we got a brand new primary school. That has been wonderful because prior to that we had 300 children in a school that had asbestos radiators and no windows. The biggest management decision I used to make was where to move the bucket to catch the drips. We now walk around every day saying thanks for our wonderful school. We were already at our enrolment figure the day that the school was completed — we reached our maximum figure in one day, and we still turn a lot of pupils away. In north Belfast that situation is very advantageous, and there is certainly the need for more integrated schools.

135

The disadvantage of GMI schools is that there is a lack of understanding and awareness throughout the education system of how those schools work. Other schools perceive that we get additional funding, and they become frustrated and angry. In the integrated movement we have not been proficient at explaining the needs for the additional funding, and that is a problem. We have to pay VAT of 17·5% on much that we buy, while other schools do not. We must have annual internal and external audits under the financial memorandum. We have to run our own payrolls and the expensive BACS system, and we also must pay insurance for our buildings or public liabilities. That means that we have purchase and administration costs that are above those of other schools. Therefore, that money should come into the age-weighted pupil unit (AWPU) for our schools because we cannot operate without it.

136

Another downside is that GMI status provides no statutory support. The board of governors is the hirer and firer of all the people who work in that system. Boards of governors have high expectations that principals will be wonderful at organising the maintenance, personnel, payroll and all the National Joint Council (NJC) regulations. Endless meetings allow us to put our aims into place, and that can cause added stresses for the employees.

137

I have tried to get some evidence that shows that the integrated schools — and particularly ours — in north Belfast attract a very high number of challenging children and children with special needs. Unfortunately I do not yet have the statistical evidence to prove that, but I have a high number of children in wheelchairs, children with partial hearing and children who perhaps have been expelled from other schools for exhibiting challenging behaviour. A lot of children come to the integrated sector because of our child-centred ethos, and that has not been recognised in the system.

138

Under our current budget, this year I have had to get rid of three classroom assistants because there was insufficient funding to support them. That is an issue for me, especially if in March somebody suddenly finds extra slippage money of about £3,000 or £4,000 and tells me that I can have it. Had I been able to have it in September, when I needed it, I could have kept two of those ladies employed.

139

The new proposals are equitable across the sections. I am aware that there will be a levelling-out of the AWPUs, so there will not be any real increase in our budget. We have been fortunate in my school because we are completely full up after growing. In a developing system you employ young teachers who are lower down the salary scale, but as they start to move up the scale the amount of money available as disposable income decreases significantly. We have been growing for 16 years, and we are now like all the other schools — there is very little money to play around with. For example, I would love to have a reading recovery teacher but I cannot afford it.

140

Because I am in north Belfast, I am very concerned about the safety of my pupils: That is a huge issue for children travelling to and from school. One half of the Whitewell Road is full of tricolours and black flags and the other half is full of Union Jacks and red, white and blue kerbs. We have tried to provide a haven of tranquillity for many troubled families in the area. There has been rioting, and we have had significant vandalism done to the school from both sides — though hopefully not from our own pupils — which is a big issue. I have had to learn how to claim from the Northern Ireland Office and, without much success, try to get some compensation for roofs that have been hit by golf balls, pickaxes, et cetera. The boards do not become involved. There are many issues, and as a stand-alone school there seems to be nowhere to go for support.

141

I am delighted about the budget because I want to see a sense of fairness. My job will be easier if people perceive that we are getting a fair amount of the budget. My biggest concern is that in an attempt to do that people will not understand the amount of money that has to be spent for those additional services in the grant maintained sector. For example, my cheque to Leslie Gallagher for insurance was for £4,000 and my audit fees were £3,000, and these are all significant amounts of money. Our money is eaten up and there is no money left to play around with. Our class sizes are 30 in every room because we have to bring money in. That is too many when some of the children are disaffected and on many occasions exhibiting challenging behaviour, and we are trying to do our best for them.

142

Your dilemma is whether the constitution of all the schools should be put on an equal footing. If GMI status is to be protected, then I hope that there will be sufficient funding to meet the needs. I would be concerned that it would not be done equitably across the five area boards. I would like to see a central funding agency that would take over funding for all schools, which everybody could report to and see a sense of fairness. If everything is done fairly, people are happy; that is where I am coming from. Unfortunately that is not the case.

143

I can proudly say that when we started off in 1985 we did not believe we could have over 1,200 children in integrated education in north Belfast, which is probably the most divided part of our society. It comes down to much unbelievably hard work from individuals who have worked way beyond their call of duty to try and make integration work.

144

Mr Crudden: I will be brief because my colleagues have already said much of what I would say. I am a teaching principal in a school of 133 pupils which is experiencing falling enrolment. I inherited a deficit of £52,000, and I have five staff. I teach four days a week and on the fifth day I do all the administrative duties of a principal. There are two composite classes in the school — a primary one and two class and a primary two and three class.

145

While we have been described as a small rural primary school, the close proximity to Belfast negates that. We are in effect an extension of the city of Belfast, and we have all the problems that come from that.

146

My budget allocation for the year is £245,000, some of which is made up of additional funding for special needs, the Primary 1 initiative and some curriculum support funding. It is unfortunate that the money that I receive for special needs and the Primary 1 initiative cannot be directed to those areas because the greater need of the school has to come into play. That money is not directed to the areas where it is most needed.

147

Eighty-three per cent of my budget covers teachers’ salaries; 11% covers the cost of auxiliary and ancillary staff, and 4% is for maintenance and general running costs. That leaves me, as principal, with a budget of 2% to run the school. In a ratio of money to pupils, it works out that there is approximately £45 per year for each pupil’s education. The £45 has to cover everything that is needed daily in the classroom, and it is not sufficient.

148

Invariably the school is left in the position of having a budget that does not cover its running costs and, therefore, I am forced to make savings wherever possible. Unfortunately, in order to keep the deficit to a minimum, I am faced with the prospect of teacher redundancies. Redundancies will lead to more composite classes. More composite classes will lead to parents sending their children elsewhere, and that is how the cycle goes.

149

I have also had to cut the number of ancillary staff and reduce their hours. I have two secretaries who provide a total of 25 hours secretarial assistance per week. This means that there is no secretarial support for a large part of the school day and, as principal, it falls to me to do many of the secretarial tasks.

150

Maintenance is a major issue. We are fortunate that the school is only three or four years old. At present, we do not have any major maintenance concerns, but it is something that we have to keep on top of. If we do not take care of the small jobs now, they will become large jobs later.

151

In order to keep costs to a minimum I find myself putting a lot of pressure on teachers to undertake additional duties that they are not paid for. Teachers are asked to make whatever savings they can, for example, by doing without heating for a large part of the day. They are also being asked to do without resources that they could use in the classroom. The quality of education being provided by the education system in general is delivered only because of the professionalism and dedication of the teaching staff.

152

There are a few issues that I would like to talk about with regard to the proposals for a common funding. First, using free school meals as an indicator of social need is unfair at times. In my school there is a small uptake of free school meals, but the town and the general area experience a great deal of social deprivation. I get no additional funding for that. The figure of £15 million pounds of additional funding was mentioned. If it is to be made available, it must be additional funding and not funding that is taken from elsewhere within the system.

153

There is also a proposal to move additional responsibilities to schools and to give them the funding to address that from a central pool. As a teaching principal, I feel that I have enough responsibility at present without having to take on more. The funding must be in addition to what exists and not a relocation of funds from elsewhere.

154

There should be some means of allowing teaching principals time to address all of their administrative duties. If I were to be given funding to cover the cost of freeing myself from teaching for one day a week, the money saved could be put to use elsewhere in the school and to the benefit of the children.

155

The Chairperson: Thank you.

156

Ms Andrews: I am the principal of Gaelscoil na bhFál, which is an Irish-medium primary school in the Iveagh area of West Belfast. The Irish-medium sector is very new. I have been involved in Irish-speaking education since 1978, which was back in its early days. I am the principal of a school which was founded in 1987, and it was the second Irish-medium school in Belfast. Interested parents founded it, and it was financed through their own efforts until 1991, when maintained status was granted by the Department of Education.

157

Before 1999 the school’s accommodation consisted of mobile classrooms with few facilities for staff or for children. In 1999 we moved to purpose-built accommodation, with which we are delighted. The school has 175 children currently enrolled, and that number is rising. Fifty-seven per cent of the children receive free school meals. All of the children come from English-speaking backgrounds and the history of our school and its pupil profile is replicated through most of the Irish-medium sector.

158

The school’s budget is quite healthy at present, and one of the reasons for that is the low experience profile of its staff — an experience shared by the integrated sector. Most of our staff are young and have just finished training college, so salary costs are not high. The overheads for our previous accommodation were also not very high. The school is overcautious about spending. Because the school used to be non-funded it is very careful about how it spends money. Gaelscoil na bhFál used to be unsure whether there was enough money to do until the end of the week, so there is a high level of caution in its approach to money. It takes a while to get used to having money. There is also a shortage of services in Irish that we can buy in.

159

All those factors contribute to our current comfortable financial situation. However, that situation is due to change. The teachers are moving up the salary scale, and the overheads of the new accommodation are high compared with those previous. The infrastructure of the Irish-medium sector and the services provided for it are being developed, and there are now more services available to buy in to.

160

I welcome the move towards the more equitable distribution of funds across the five boards, and this is probably a good time to mention the additional needs that the Irish-medium sector has. There are three levels to that — the second language situation, English as a further core subject in the sector and materials for the sector.

161

All our children come from English-speaking homes. Language is the machine that drives the curriculum, and children must have high levels of receptive language and high productive levels of Irish if they are to deal adequately with the curriculum. That means that there must be a systematic structure in place — not only to teach a second language but also to deliver the rest of the curriculum through the language.

162

The teacher is the sole resource of Irish that the children have. In the English-speaking sector the language of the school is the language of the greater environment. Everything that happens in school is being consolidated outside the school. That is not the case in the Irish-medium sector. The children only have the teacher as the source of their language, and high levels of language are very important in dealing with the curriculum.

163

In order to promote high levels of language acquisition or competence, it is important that there is a low pupil/teacher ratio — lower than that in the English-medium sector. There is a financial element involved in having smaller classes in the Irish-medium sector in order to deal with the exposure to the second language.

164

We do not begin to teach English in the Irish-medium sector until the children are in Primary 4. At that stage the children’s levels of English oracy are well developed, but within four years we have to bring them to levels of literacy that are comparable with their peers in the English-medium sector. Some, but not all, of the literacy skills that they have already developed to a fairly high degree in Irish can be transferred. In order to bring the children’s levels of English to a level comparable with the English-medium sector the more favourable pupil/teacher ratio that was necessary in Key Stage 1 for second language acquisition must also follow through to Key Stage 2 for English.

165

Finally, I want to draw attention to the issue of materials in the Irish-medium sector. The availability and use of high quality materials are very important factors in delivering a high quality curriculum and appropriate and useful learning experiences to the children. There have been a number of initiatives from the Department of Education where it has looked at the provision of resources for the Irish-medium sector. I welcome that, but there is still a critical shortage in materials in the Irish-medium sector for reading, history, geography, science, information and communication technology (ICT) and mathematics.

166

By and large, teachers in the Irish-medium sector have to be involved in providing a broad range of basic materials to the sector. That requires them being released from class to create materials and to adapt materials from English. It involves them working with one another and with teachers from other schools in order to provide those materials. It also requires the employment of office and technical staff as part of a desktop publishing team to do typesetting, layout, graphics, proof-reading, binding and laminating. I, as principal of the school, have also found myself involved in the creation and preparation of materials, and as co-ordinator of the desktop publishing team, I am also heavily involved in that. The formula should allow for this type of expenditure in the long term.

167

Thank you for your interest and patience, and I hope that you will take the points that I have made into consideration.

168

The Chairperson: Thank you. On behalf of the Committee I want to put some questions to each of you. It may not be a "yes" or "no" answer. The proposals are not those of the Education Committee but of the Department of Education. We are looking at the issue and informing ourselves about people’s views. Are the proposals likely to create a school system that would assist the boards, principals and teachers to improve the learning of all pupils according to their needs? Would they create a fair and transparent system that is simple to operate and easy to understand?

169

Mrs Ferguson: The proposals will definitely be an improvement on the present situation as far as the primary sector is concerned. I am concerned that they are taking funds from secondary schools and putting them into primary schools. I do not like what is being suggested about special needs. It is not going to help us in the small primary school. What we are getting at present is totally inadequate, and under this system it is not going to change very much. They need to look at the issue of special needs. I calculate that a school of my size will be helped with between £6,000 to £10,000. Any amount of money will help us, but it is not going to give the children the education that we really want to give them — for that we would need about £30,000.

170

Ms Houston: There is a genuine attempt to be more transparent in the funding issues, and I welcome that. The issue of the code of practice has been introduced into our schools without proper funding. They think that targeting social need is picking this up, but it is not. I have some excellent children from very poor families who come to school ready to work and behave wonderfully all day, and perhaps the money is not necessary there. However, I have some children from more affluent homes who come in their four-wheel-drive vehicles and cause mayhem in our school because of their challenging behaviour.

171

It is difficult for the Committee to find an indicator to give a fair system to target the actual needs. If the code of practice became the basis for this, the number of children who were at stage 1 or 2 of the code of practice in your school would be a realistic indicator of the need that is in the school. The numbers receiving free school meals, on the other hand, is just an arbitrary figure. It is just a best guess, and it does not always show the need.

172

Mr Lombard: Our experience is that the Department’s proposal to hold staff centrally would be a retrograde step. We feel that we have benefited more by controlling the ability to hire our own staff.

173

With regard to special needs, my experience is in inner-city work. I have been an inner-city principal for twelve years now. I have worked in areas of 80% unemployment. It is difficult to explain the effects of an area like that where so few people have work and where, for many, there has been no work from one generation to the next.

174

Often, in areas of high unemployment, the effects of that on children are such that they do not see the value of learning because they have never seen anyone reap the benefits of it. I am talking about an area in east Belfast that people think is leafy. It is not. The lower east side of east Belfast has large pockets of deprivation. We were able to benefit from the free school meals ratio by having extra teachers to help us. It also generates huge behavioural problems of almost anarchical proportions. It is difficult to explain what it is like to teach in a school like that; you have to work with the best material that you have. Sometimes it can be very hard in areas of social deprivation.

175

I am concerned that the Department is tying special needs to the Key Stage results. There is an element of discretion used in the Key Stage exams, and they are internally administered. The Department has said that every school will want to do well. I am not sure that it is a sensible, reliable and valid way to administer the special needs fund.

176

I would be a lot happier if every school got some benefit from the special needs fund. I come from an inner-city school, but I still feel that that budget should be divided so that where you get high concentrations of children from inner-city areas where there is no employment, or where we have one or two failing schools, that those schools can be helped. Such schools can be found in all sectors, and they should be helped.

177

Mr Crudden: I feel that the proposals would benefit the schools, providing that the funds are extra ones and are applied equitably across all schools and board areas. With my allocated budget, I am expected to pay for some things in my school that principals in other board areas are not expected to pay for. There needs to be equality across all five boards.

178

Will it improve the quality of education that we deliver to our children? We hope that the more money we have in schools, the better education we can give. However, the quality of education will only improve if I start off on an equal footing to other schools in a similar situation. In other words, what is going to happen to the £52,000 deficit that I inherited? There is no point in giving me additional funding if I still have a chain around my neck that is dragging me down. From that point of view, I would want to start off at nought.

179

Ms Andrews: A situation has existed across the five boards where five different formulae were applied. Schools in similar circumstances have found themselves having more or having less than other schools. Such an iniquitous situation should be ended and an overall formula found for all five boards.

180

There are two issues involved. First, there should be sufficient money in the budgets to allow for the proper delivery of the curriculum. I am not sure how you arrive at that sum, but we all accept that the budget needs to be sufficient to allow the curriculum to be delivered appropriately. My colleagues appear to be in a different situation from me as they are struggling, and in some cases in major debt, because the budget allocation to deliver the curriculum effectively has been insufficient. There needs to be an increase overall. We do not want the situation to develop where money is being moved around to make it look as if extra money has been put into people’s budgets. More money overall needs to be put into the budgets.

181

The document recognises the second issue, which is the problem of schools having different relative needs. The question is what constitutes a legitimate additional need, because all schools can say that they have a particular need. The legitimate additional needs need to be identified so that they can receive further funding.

182

Mr Gallagher: You are saying that money for special needs is inadequate, both presently and probably in the new arrangements. Are you talking about special needs as perceived in the school or are you talking about pupils with statements through the educational psychology service? My second question relates to Mr Crudden’s school and is about high numbers of pupils on free school meals.

183

Mr Crudden: I do not have a high number of pupils on free school meals.

184

Mr Gallagher: Sorry; I misunderstood you. My impression was that you said you had but that your pupils were not taking up the school meals.

185

Mr Crudden: I do not have a high uptake of free school meals.

186

Mrs Ferguson: The school tries to deal with pupils with special educational needs within the classroom. If this is not working, those special needs pupils receive additional support outside the classroom. If their special needs are still not being met, the school asks for an educational psychologist’s report. Every stage is carried out according to the code of practice. The first stage of identifying the need within the classroom does not require much additional money. However, if the pupil requires more specialised help, money is needed to provide support. At stage 3, pupils are referred to the board’s educational psychologist. By the time they have been assessed, there is usually a real problem that is not being dealt with, and more money is needed to cater for the needs of those children. I have some children who have been statemented in the school but I have about 10% to 20% of my children at different stages, all with different needs. Even the first two stages are difficult to fund as the school is funding it although there is a little help at later stages from outside.

187

Mr Crudden: I was endeavouring to make the point that the low uptake of free school meals in my school does not mean that we do not have social deprivation, which exists in a number of other areas within the school. I do not receive enough money under the heading of social deprivation because I have a low uptake of free school meals.

188

Ms Houston: There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to include special needs children into mainstream school, and that is what our integrated school is all about. Out of 406 pupils that situation has resulted in us having a special needs register of 94 children who would range from being extremely autistic, deaf and wheelchair-bound to children who have not been statemented because the educational psychologists in Belfast are told not to statement children unless there is some provision for them. These children for whom there is no provision can disrupt a class at the drop of a hat. There is nowhere within the system to support them or their families, but they need help. If we are going to effect change it is not only the child who requires help but the family also.

189

Mr Lombard: In the 1970s children whose quotients in maths and reading were less than 85 were deemed to have special needs and they got extra assistance. The goalposts have shifted since then. Nowadays, 70 is considered to be at the low end of "below average". A child will have to have an IQ of below 60 to get into a special unit. The limit is constantly being reduced to accommodate the greater degree of special needs that is now recognised. Perhaps it was always there; it is, however, more widely acknowledged now.

190

The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentations. We look forward to studying the matter in depth.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 20 September 2001

Members present:
Mr Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Fee
Mr Gallagher
Mr Gibson
Mr McHugh
Mr K Robinson

Witnesses:

Mr D Cargo ) Belfast Education and
Mr D Megaughin ) Library Board
Mr N Todd )

191

The Chairperson: Good afternoon, Gentlemen, and welcome to our public evidence session. We found your written submission very helpful.

192

Mr Cargo: Thank you very much, Chairperson, for this opportunity to give oral evidence. I do not have detailed knowledge of all the board’s systems and procedures, so I am accompanied by David Megaughin, chief finance officer, and Nathan Todd, assistant senior educa