Written question asked by John Pugh (Liberal Democrat) on Monday, 13 September 2004, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 4 October 2004. It was answered by David Miliband (Labour) on Monday, 4 October 2004 on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills.

Dept for Education and Skills

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what approaches have been made by Sefton Local Education Authority to his Department seeking to amend Sefton's formula for the distribution of school funding in the last three years; whether he has objected to proposals from Sefton local education authority to change their formula for the distribution of funds to schools in the last four years; and if he will make a statement.

Answer: Dr. Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what approaches have been made by Sefton local education authority to his Department seeking to amend Sefton's formula for the distribution of school funding in the last three years; [189313] (2) whether he has objected to proposals from Sefton local education authority to change their formula for the distribution of funds to schools in the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [189271] Mr. Miliband: Under regulation 28 of the Financing of Maintained Schools Regulations, the Secretary of State has power to approve `additional arrangements' whereby the normal national rules for school funding formulae are set aside in favour of a purpose-built local solution, in circumstances where significantly anomalous results would result from the application of the national rules. During the period in question, Sefton local education authority made one application to the Secretary of State for an additional arrangement under regulation 28, in relation to the application of the minimum funding guarantee during the 2004-05 financial year. This application was turned down because it paid insufficient regard to the impact of the minimum funding guarantee on individual schools. The authority was invited to put forward an amended application, but did not do so.

Secondary information