Jump to content
Home
Forum
Join Us
Articles
About Us
Tapestry

Early Years National Funding Formula


Rafa
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is an interesting article on MBK Training website re the proposed increases to providers/LA's

indicative increases for 2016-2017. Sorry cannot do a link but if you go to home page and click on EYNFF Analysis it gives you your LA. Mine looks likely to be 0.14p ph. Taking me to £3.77ph. Sadly not enough! : (

Just wish they would take the "free" out and let us run our own businesses!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked at the consultation doc and the survey but to be honest, I dont understand most of it so I wont be filling it in.

 

 

Editied to say, I just saw this, so I'll give it a read and maybe go back to the survey.

http://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/7-things-know-about-consultation-early-years-funding

Edited by Rea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Tricia here from MBK Training, I wrote the articles about the funding. I'm so angry at how they manipulate the figures and make it unfair across the country. I'm not saying there aren't differences but this formula does not address them fairly because they use what is a flawed rateable value system as the biggest influence of fairness (up to 65% influence). In my response I am trying to gather evidence of this unfairness by sending in a comparison table - you can find it by googling eynff comparison table mbk - help me out by finding your nursery rateable value on the VOA (you just need the postcode) and completing the 3 parts in the form. Happy to answer any questions people may have. Thanks !

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pre-school (and very many others) operates out of a rented church hall.

 

My understanding is that church halls have no business rateable value.

 

Therefore surely this would skew the rateable value figures the government are using in their formula, particularly if a significant number of settings in an area operate out of premises that are not rated for business purposes e.g., these

  • agricultural land and buildings, including fish farms
  • buildings used for training or welfare of disabled people
  • buildings registered for public religious worship or church halls

So if for arguments sake

 

there are 20 settings in a LA but only 10 have a rateable value because the others operate out of church halls

The 10 have a rateable value of £12K per setting e.g., £120K

If (and I suspect this is the case) this is averaged over the 20 settings then the average rateable value is £6K

This will then reduce the funding base rate for that area

 

YES / NO

 

To use a Vygotskyism - I am well outside my ZPD and need a more knowledgeable other to clarify!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, some settings will benefit more from this if they do not pay business rates like many of us do! This also applies to many community based centre settings who do not occupy a building 24-7 - ie room hire.

 

It is not a great way to distribute funding but what other way could this be done?

Edited by BroadOaks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broadoaks - its not a case of benefitting - many of us pay substantial church hall rent which can sometimes be the equivalent of a mortgage repayment and rates. My concern is that the funding formula will not be an accurate reflection of costs as if the government are using rateable value rather than actual mortgage, rates and / rent costs they are not using proper cost data and we will all end up the worse for it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we run from an ex church hall (still rated as a D2 usage) if we paid rates we would not be able to run as the space is large and in a VERY expensive area. However as a registered charity we are able to apply for a discount and additional discounts because of the service we provide therefore rating us at 0% (although this can be changed at any time!!!) our landlord however charges us a fairly substantial amount for rent but the business really only runs for 38 weeks (plus a few parties etc) because the holiday clubs are all subsidised by the borough and I can't compete. The systems are all unfair really and everyone wants more and more and to pay less and less!! tricky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broadoaks - its not a case of benefitting - many of us pay substantial church hall rent which can sometimes be the equivalent of a mortgage repayment and rates. My concern is that the funding formula will not be an accurate reflection of costs as if the government are using rateable value rather than actual mortgage, rates and / rent costs they are not using proper cost data and we will all end up the worse for it.

Was'nt the collection of 'proper cost data' the purpose of the endless "Consultations"?? Think someone in government needs to read the definition of Consultation don't you, rather than - you tell us what your costs are, then we'll work it out our way.......

 

Frustratingly unbelievable!!! We are not going to be any better off - they will make it so, I fear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I went to a Funding Review meeting which was talking about what our LA could potentially give us over the next couple of years. They have said that they managed to give us a raise to £4.10 (£4.14 for me with deprivation) because they had taken a chunk of money from the schools budget. They are not going to be able to do this in the coming years as each section i.e schools, early years and high needs funding have to keep to their allocated budgets and not move money from one to another. So to enable them to give us a higher rate after they have 'top sliced' a percentage is to cut down on what they give us during the year i.e subsidised training and visits from them. As we are now able to access training from anybody now they feel that if they take away the subsidy they could give us a few pence more per child.

 

I don't think I would actually notice a reduction in visits from them as because we are a 'good' setting we are only entitled to two a year as it is.......

 

The LA, apparently, also got told off by the Government at they gave us to whole amount of money per child for funded 2 year olds without top slicing anything. They were told they should have done!

 

They keep talking about finding spaces for over 4,000 children over the next couple of years but I am likely to close as we just can't get the children to attend. They did say there could be supplements for sparsity to enable settings to keep going but I don't know how long these grants would be available for. I can't see them giving us a grant year on year to keep going - they must have to draw the line somewhere.

 

I did get a spreadsheet with lots of numbers on them projecting what the funding would be over the next couple of years as apparently they can top slice 7% next year but this will reduce to 5% for subsequent years hence the reduction in training and quality improvement visits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. (Privacy Policy)