Second Wave Pathfinder Authorities Announced

[AnonyMouse_8466]

The whole thrust of how we do it puts the money behind children who might need it most and ensures that settings are paid for the numbers they have not the numbers they could have.

I wonder why they didn't apply for pathfinder status but are going ahead anyway? I thought that each LA's formula has to be approved by the DCSF (or did I dream that bit?). I'm glad you're happy with their formula Holly - I am intrigued by what you say about money being put behind the children. However, every LA's formula will be designed to fund settings based on participation and not places available, which is one of the reasons the maintained sector are so unhappy about it. If I were funded on the places I have I'd be extremely happy!

 

Maz

[Guest]

Didn't explain myself very well there did I? Basically it seems there was no advantage to us being a pathfinder authority but as far as I can gather our formula is still going for approval and we are going ahead. I think the onus on us to share information as a pathfinder might have put the LA off, when they do that anyway in less form filling ways.

 

My mention of money following the children is based on the fact that we will have a fairer deprivation settlement based on the child's postcode, and a little bit on the setting postcode. This should mean a setting which has children from more deprived areas will gain financially and that money can then be used to support those children. It's not a perfect set up but at least it shows our priority is the children. I think I've mentioned before we have been funding attendances not places for a few years, and to be honest, it hasn't been as awful as you might imagine, although that might have something to do with the make up of our EY provision. That said I don't know of a huge number of settings which have gone under due to this. I'm really pleased with our plans as there is one rate for all settings and then a simple deprivation premium, and plans for a wide ranging quality premium, although it still has much to be decided on for that!

 

I hope everyone else can end up as pleased as I hope our settings will be, albeit everyone will argue they could do with more money.

[AnonyMouse_8466]

Holly it is interesting what you say about the drawbacks of being a pathfinder authority - will have to speak to my LA in more detail about why they didn't go for it. I must admit I took it as a sign that they just weren't ready. Maybe I have been a bit uncharitable, but unless we're told these things explicitly then all we can do is draw our own conclusions.

 

Your deprivation enhancement sounds similar to that which our LA proposed, although we would receive no additional funding based on the setting's post code. In terms of funding on participation goes, I don't think anyone in the PVI sector is going to lose out because of this because as you say we've always been funded that way. However I know that the response of maintained settings has been to throw up their hands in horror, so I'm really interested that you say this hasn't been your experience in your LA.

 

My biggest problem with the EYSFF was that it didn't cover our fees and that this shortfall couldn't be made up by charging the parents as we have always done because we offer three hours and not just the 2.5 funded hours. Now that the EYSFF has been postponed we are going to be offering the full 15 hour entitlement on even less than the proposed enhanced rate, so our losses will be even more marked.

 

What I am concerned about is how many of us just don't know what the landscape will look like in September, even at this late stage. So many people are reporting that their SFF has not yet quite been finalised and information from Authorities seems slow in coming forward. This is probably because the Minister's announcement caught everyone on the back foot and they aren't really sure how it is all going to work. However for those of us trying to plan and make decisions it is a very worrying time.

 

I'm hoping against hope that the 'worst case scenario' doesn't come to pass and that it really will be all right on the night.

 

Maz

[Guest]

Our LA has decided to have one base rate across all providers which I don't think I mentioned before. This helps to ease worries about who is gaining and who is losing, and generally means everyone is united (potentially) in believing that funding should go up but without the in fighting. One interesting thing I have discovered in recent years is that sometimes a LA can't release specific funding figures in advance as they are still waiting on overall funding settlements from central government. This might go someway to explaining the last minuteness of announcing amounts per hour, etc.

 

I understand what you are saying about the increase in hours. We have always just offered the funded session, so for my setting it has been a case of having to make do on the funded amount and no more (fee payers are charged at the same rate as we receive for funding). The move to increased hours for us is easier I think due to this but I can see how it can make a difference otherwise and it is something which has come up in discussions with private providers. For our LA it is eased somewhat by not adding in a flexibility supplement at present - our argument was that there is flexibility across the authority so it wasn't required of individual providers. I think some LAs are going to be allowing providers to charge for other things during a funded session such as snacks. This may go some way to helping finances but ultimately it doesn't cover everything. Does your LA plan to have a single base rate or are different settings getting different amounts?

[AnonyMouse_8466]

Does your LA plan to have a single base rate or are different settings getting different amounts?

Well to be honest I didn't look in any detail at what 'they' were getting because I didn't want to get caught up in the whole 'rate envy' that others were indulging in!

 

However, maintained settings were due to get a higher rate than PVIs, presumably because they have different set ups to us and on the whole have a larger burden in terms of having qualified teachers, caretakers, buildings maintenance and so on. However all PVI settings will get the same base rate and enhancement funding, irrespective of whether they own their own buildings, pay market or peppercorn rent etc.

 

I am also interested in what you say about some LAs allowing settings to charge for associated services such as providing snacks because this directly contradicts the advice we were given - no charging registration fees/deposits, uniform, book bags, let alone for any 'extra curricular' activities such as ballet, french lessons or whatever if they are provided during the funded period.

 

I guess we'll wait for the next thrilling installment!

 

Incidentally it would be great to get some other opinion here - Holly and I are having an interesting discussion but it would be good to get some input from other members in different areas, or from people who see things very differently!

 

Maz

[Guest]

Hmm I think our plan of a single base rate is better than the dual or multiple rates. Yes, schools have the overheads of QTS salary and buildings, but PVIs have to have more staff per pupil group (except for us with EYPS but shhh! don't tell the employers!) and we might have greater building costs if we operate out of a church hall with dodgy heating and offer freeflow. I think it is certainly a case of swings and roundabouts on costs and the cost analysis surveys were flawed from the off. It is also a case of how LAs interpret the guidelines and regulations and those interpretations certainly seem to differ which doesn't help matters at all!

 

I'd also be interested to hear what others have to say.

[AnonyMouse_11962]

OK Maz, here's my contribution:

 

we will have 2 base rates, one for PVI and one for maintained (which I objected to but was told this is essential due to maintain nurseries having higher costs). we will have a deprivation supplement and a small quality supplement but nothing for EYPs or graduates because the graduate leader fund covers this. they are very vague about what will happen when the graduate leader funding runs out next year. in our case we do well from the GLF as a small setting because the lump sum goes a long way. if we move to an hourly supplement I'm sure we will lose out as we don't have many children. there wont be a flexibility supplement. the SFF will only apply to the first 12.5 hours then it will be the existin hourly rate for the extra 2.5 hours (we are in a pilot offering this already) but I think this will be sorted out in september. there may be a small lump sum for very small providers.

 

we have also been told:

 

no registration fee

no charging for snacks or meals unless parents are given the option of a packed lunch and presumably packed snack - (I am really not keen on the packed snack as what we give is by far the most healthy thing some of those kids ever eat)

still not clear whether you can have a limited number of 'stand alone' sessions for just funded hours then the rest you could charge whatever you like for the extra half hour.

 

i am going to a meeting tomorrow so i might find out more.