Report on result of consultation on potential changes to the Early Years
Single Funding Formula for 2015/16
The consultation was open from 20th November to 19 December 2014. The aim was to give Early
Years providers the opportunity to advise on possible changes to the formula. Comments will be
considered and used to help formulate firm proposals. There will be further consultation on those
proposals before they are taken to Schools Forum. It is the intention that any changes will be
implemented from April 2015.
74 responses were received to the survey, although not every respondent answered every question.
Do you have any feedback on the current 2 year old rate?
19 of the respondents indicated that they felt the rate is not sufficient to cover the costs of meeting
the needs of vulnerable 2 year olds. Comparisons were made with the rate in other counties. 12 of
the respondents felt that the rate was adequate.
Do you have any feedback on the current 3 year old base rate?
An overwhelming majority of respondents felt that the rate is too low. Particular comments were
made about the additional costs incurred by nursery schools and these will be considered as part of
the review being undertaken of the financial needs of this particular sector. There were also a
significant amount of comments from childminders indicating that the funding is well below their
usual hourly rate, although other comments indicate this is also the case for group based settings.
Many comments indicated that the rate has not risen in line with the costs for providers.
Are there any other costs that need to be taken account of within the base rate?
A considerable number of the responses included information that will be fed into the review of the
needs of the nursery schools and units and will be used to help us ensure that the particular
requirements placed on this sector are taken into account. Other comments included the costs of
snack provision and training. All comments will be reviewed when we consider changes to the base
rate.
Questions around the deprivation supplement.
60% of the respondents who answered the question felt that the time required to demonstrate
eligibility is about right, 31% felt it is too long and 8% felt it is too short.
60% of the respondents who answered the question felt that the protection funding period is about
right, 12% felt it is too long and 28% felt it is too short.
63% of the respondents who answered the question felt that the numbers and proportions required
for eligibility are about right, 33% felt it is too high and 5% felt it is too low.
In the light of these results we are unlikely to make any changes to these factors.
The majority of respondents who answered the question about the impact of changes made to the
deprivation supplement in 2014/14 reported that there had been little or no impact on their setting,
although a few reported increases or decreases in funding.
A number of respondents gave further comments about the deprivation supplement. These included
some who were concerned about the impact of the pupil premium on the deprivation supplement
and some who were concerned as to whether the funding was actually reaching the right children.
We wish to note that our research has shown that the deprivation supplement is not targeted in the
same way as the pupil premium will be and we expect this will mean that settings will receive
financial support for a wider range of children.
Questions around the quality supplement.
71% of the respondents who answered the question felt that we do recognise quality in the right
way.
Comments were made about the Ofsted supplement. Some felt that the differences between the
inspections for the PVI sector and for schools are too great. Others felt that the length of time
between inspections and the changes to criteria made this supplement unfair. There were also
suggestions that the supplement would be better targeted at settings who needed extra funding to
achieve and improved grading. We will respond by considering the emphasis placed on this element
of the quality supplement.
In respect of the supplement for staff qualifications, some respondents felt that smaller settings and
the PVI sector were at a disadvantage because it can be more difficult for them to attract and retain
highly qualified staff. We will consider how to ensure that the various elements of quality can be
more fairly recognised.
Questions around the Early Years pupil Premium
Many respondents felt that this would have a positive impact on their setting and were already
demonstrating ideas of how it could be spent. As the scheme is still under development many
indicated that they were still waiting for further information and this was being addressed during the
lifetime of the survey.
A number of comments were that the funding is not sufficient and not in line with that received by
schools. This is outside the control of the Local Authority.
A small number of respondents wondered if the introduction of the Pupil Premium should have an
impact on the deprivation supplement.
Questions around SEN money.
The majority of respondents felt that the notional SEN rate of £0.14 is not sufficient to cover the
costs associated with supporting SEN children. Some questioned why the contribution from the
notional SEN budget for children with high needs is set at £500. Many felt that the process for high
needs applications is complicated and long-winded.
All comments made will be considered in a review of the process.
Thank you very much to all who responded to the survey. All comments will be considered before
the publication of proposals for the 2015/16 formula.
Deborah Wallis
December 2014