Second Wave Pathfinder Authorities Announced

[HappyMaz]

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

[Inge]

thanks Maz...

 

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

 

a black hole here then!

 

Inge

[HappyMaz]

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

[blondie]

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

[HappyMaz]

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

[hali]

i will let you know M

[Guest]

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!

[sunnyday]

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'

[HappyMaz]

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

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

[HappyMaz]

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

[fimbo]

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 !

[Guest]

We are on the list too.

E-mail to our development officer has already been sent!!

[HappyMaz]

roll on April when we can all be put out of our misery and finally find out how much our funding will actually be !

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

[Guest]

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?

[HappyMaz]

Oddly, despite being told we were going ahead we are not on this list now.

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[fimbo]

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

 

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

[HappyMaz]

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

[anju]

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).

[lynned55]

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.

[Guest]

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

Edited February 18, 2010 by Guest

[HappyMaz]

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

[Guest]

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

Edited February 19, 2010 by Guest

[HappyMaz]

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.

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

[Guest]

I read what you said about losing £100K with my mouth wide open - I couldn't sustain losses of a fraction of that figure ...

 

...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?

 

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

[HappyMaz]

RR I take my hat off to you.

 

Maz

[Guest]

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?

[Guest]

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