Thanks to the modern marvel that is twitter, I see that the DCSF has announced the successful LAs who will become the second wave pathfinder authorities:-

Bath and North East Somerset, Bournemouth, Bracknell Forest, Brent, Brighton and Hove, Bromley
Cambridgeshire, Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, Cumbria
Darlington, Devon, Dudley
East Riding of Yorkshire, East Sussex, Enfield
Gateshead, Gloucestershire
Hampshire, Harrow, Hartlepool, Herefordshire
Islington
Kingston-upon-Thames
Lancashire, Lewisham
Medway, Middlesborough
Norfolk, North Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire
Oldham
Plymouth, Portsmouth
Redbridge, Richmond-upon-Thames
Salford, Sheffield, Slough, Solihull, Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Southend, Southampton, Stockport, Stockton, Swindon, Suffolk
Telford and Wrekin, Thurrock, Torbay, Tower Hamlets
Wakefield, Walsall, Warwickshire, Wiltshire

thanks Maz...

had a quick glance and ours is not named there but everyone that borders us is.....

a black hole here then!

Inge

I would be really interested to know what the Single Funding Formula looks like in these different Authorities, and to hear how you all get on with its implementation. Will you now be expected to deliver the flexible 15 hour entitlement at a loss? Or will your income increase because the new rate of funding is more than your existing fees?

Maz

sorry - what exactly is a pathfinder ? will we be better off - i doubt it?

These are the Authorities who will be implementing their Single Funding Formula in April ahead of the 15-hour entitlement becoming statutory from September this year. Those of us whose LA hasn't applied to be a pathfinder authority will be offering the 15 hours free for our normal funding rate, plus an uplift for inflation.

Whether you'll be better off depends on how much your fees are currently and how much your new funding rate will be under the EYSFF.

Maz

i will let you know M

Oh thanks I can see we are in there - I wonder how long it will take before we 'officially' here the news from our LA?

We are having to change loads and change from sessions to full days just to receive the same amount of funding as we are currently getting - not a fair system at all!

Thanks for that Maz - Sunny Kent not mentioned - they were expecting to be (I think) as we have already received the 'bumph'

Hmmmm..........right I have even less idea what's going on now!

Sure someone will come along and 'put me straight'

Unlike me not to give the link to the article - so here it is. Just checked in case I'd deleted Kent. It isn't there!

myhenroxanne - if it were me I wouldn't wait to be told! I'd be emailing my development officer to see what is happening now. But then of course I am impatient.

Maz

Oh and another thing. Is there anyone here who works in a PVI setting in Slough? I thought they were offering the 15 hour free entitlement already - but Nursery World has them listed in the new pathfinder authorities.

Am very confused now!

It seems we in Windsor and Maidenhead are in a bit of a black hole ourselves, Inge!

Maz

yes, we are on there also (as expected)
roll on April when we can all be put out of our misery and finally find out how much our funding will actually be !

We are on the list too.
E-mail to our development officer has already been sent!!

Presumably you have a good idea though, fimbo? We had our 'final' consultation meeting where the details of the base funding plus uplifts were discussed... all shelved now though, so who knows what might happen!

Maz

Oddly, despite being told we were going ahead we are not on this list now. Obviously all the relevant people are on annual leave until next week! Do the powers that be save all this "good" news until we are on holidays so we don't have time to catch up with our work for dealing with feelings of outrage and despair?

Which LA are you in Holly? I thought it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that LAs that applied would be accepted - but perhaps not? Will be interested to hear what they have to say about it!

Maz

That's kind of what I thought Maz. I'm wondering if we hadn't fulfilled all the criteria as our consultation event got postponed due to bad weather and is to be held next week - maybe that put an end to it but our LA seemed confident. I'm in Bury which is close to Lancashire but we don't come under the same authority. I've checked the lists on the DCSF website and it's definitely not there. I'm slightly puzzled though.

we are in the 2nd pathway... is that this april or next april as our lea have said nothing yet.....

It will be this April, but your LA might be waiting for their financial settlement from central government before they can determine exact figures for the funding.

a very vague idea, as we dont know if we will be having a 'deprivation' payment or how much it will be.

Well then a vague idea is really no better than no idea is it really? You can't build a sound financial plan on ifs, buts and maybes, after all! I hope you hear soon!

Maz

thanks for that Maz, I was told I would hear on Monday but nothing came from the LA. anyway we are on there which is good news for my setting (I think).

Ours are on there, I heard (unofficially) last week what the payments would be. Still not brilliant but far more generous then we had been led to believe. £3.60 per hour (currently 3.47) with the following supplements: all PVI settings are to get £1330 per year for admin costs
also: If Leader/Manager is NVQ Level 4 =£750 per year, Level 5 = £4,000 per year and Level 6=£5,000 per year and lastly deprivation funding, using number of pupils whose home post code falls into Acorn categories 4 & 5. The higher the proportion of pupils classified as deprived, the higher the band.

So as I say, still not enough to do all we want to but more then expected.

Well we are on the list and I can see it causing a load of issues here. Our funding per hour will actually go up, as they have factored in an amount for EYP/SEN, which we've never had before. But both the maintained FSUs within schools and dedicated nursery schools will be losing LOADS.

I mentioned this on another thread a few months ago that at the consultation meeting there was a lot of grumbling from the maintained sector and one head teacher had a full on rant about it being unfair that the PVI settings were gaining and every maintained setting would be losing. The LA officer who had just spent 1/2 hour explained the rationale was looking at him as if to say "have you not heard a word I said". I just had to point it out to him quite forcefully that we couldn't be losing because we'd never had the money to lose in the first place.

It was like the house of commons with all of the other PVI representatives saying "here, here" and our colleagues from the maintained settings harumping away

RR

ReaderRabbit your experience shows clearly what I fear from this whole situation: that different types of provider will turn on each other and cry foul. Ultimately only time will tell whether the domesday scenario of settings closing and pracitioners losing their jobs will become reality. However I do think we need to show a bit of solidarity and stick together so that we can more effectively lobby our Local Authorities and central government to get early years education adequately funded.

It isn't that head teacher's fault that he he has previously done well out of the funding lottery, any more than it is yours now that your setting's financial position will receive this boost in funding. We just need to find ways of making the best of things in areas where the SFF is coming into force, and those of us who aren't in pathfinder authorities need to keep abreast of the situation and prepare as much as we can for September 2011.

That said, I am chuckling at the idea of a House of Commons made up of early years practitioners - can't help feeling it would be a vast improvement!

Maz

Maz - I totally agree that there is a danger of it becoming a battle of survial of the fittest. We all need to use our collective voice to lobby for fair funding for ALL.

I've seen this happen on our area with community organisations that used to be funded by the LA to deliver a whole range of statutory provision e.g. youthwork, community development, adult education etc. Five years ago the funding was completely changed and we had to bid for contracts to deliver specific projects rather than recieve a lump sum grant to deliver a cradle to grave service.

We've gone from over 50 providers to just 14. Those of us that survived have only done so becuase we've cut our cloth to fit and been run as businesses (even though at the time our setting lost £100k p.a.) Hard decisisons did have to be made but the provision is still there, just in a different shape. I suppose the biggest change of all was that more poeple have to pay either all of some of the cost of accessing provision now. Also, surprise, surprise this provision is only sustainable because it's subsidised by the good will of the staff who put in unpaid hours and work for low wages (sound familiar?)

I do wonder if, despite the Govt rhetoric about free early years provision, the SFF will mean schools pulling out of EY and it being a market place for PVI settings. If the Govt have a real commitment to provision being free at the point of delivery then they should pay the true cost - not take the credit for it off the back of 1000s of hardworking practitioners.

(and breathe)

I'll just hop off my soap box now

RR

Obviously only time will tell, RR but what concerns me is that when this happens the PVI sector might be so diminished that it won't be able to take advantage of this sudden increase in demand. I read what you said about losing £100K with my mouth wide open - I couldn't sustain losses of a fraction of that figure so I am waiting (with increasing impatience, it has to be said) to find out exactly what the implications of my Authority not applying for pathfinder status will be.

As for running settings as a business I agree that we will all have to make very harsh choices in our bid to remain sustainable - but how can we be said to be running as a business when we still rely so much on the goodwill of our staff? And how can we continue to offer the quality of provision we want to if our need to remain in business providing much needed services to our children and families means we need to let go of some of our high principles?

Gosh - I have a feeling we need a much bigger soapbox!

Maz

The £100k loss was on the whole of our provision (EY is something we've only been involved with since 2007) and the only way we remained sustainable was to:

• Put prices up considerably (which was a gamble that thankfully paid off)
• Cut out any activity that wasn't at least breaking even (in the past we'd been able to subsidise activites from those that were doing well).
• Freeze wages for quite some time
• and I only take a part time wage for a full time job

My biggest problem is that I do take pride in running as business, in terms of ensuring that what we do pays its own way, but in order to do that and to ensure that everyone else's costs are met I subsidise the organisation by around £15kp.a. in wages and utilse my family to provide professional services that would cost us at least £5k p.a if we used commercial orgs.

We've also had to stop providing a whole range of activites that provided a great service to our community (e.g we no longer run youth provision and now there has been none in our area for 4 years). So in that regard we have had to 'sell out' and only run what can make money.

I don't like any of it and I'm sadly getting to the point where I'm resenting it. But as long as people like us (and everyone on this Board) have our settings under our skin, and as a way of life rather than a job there is no incentive for the powers that be to pay up.

If we had the combined power to threaten to shut up shop on Monday and leave LAs to meet their obligations in terms of provision themselves you can bet your bottom dollar the money would suddenly appear.

RR

RR I take my hat off to you.

Maz

Hi
well my LA is there..Nottinghamshire! Not heard anything mentioned about this in my setting or from my previuos one so not sure anyone knows yet!!! Typical eh?

I found out we are not in the list as we didn't go for pathfinder status but we will be going ahead anyway. I'm really pleased as the LA is actually doing what is required already bar one or two little tweaks and it is a much fairer way of funding than others seem to have. 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. It will mean a bit of change for providers but on the whole this will be minimal. Our LA does apparently share its experiences with others through various forums and meetings so hopefully they will pass on the message that it doesn't mean the end of the world and it can be done so everyone is fairly funded, even if we would all like more

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.