Early Years Single Funding Formula Reform:

Arrangements commencing 2013-14

Consultation Analysis

This consultation,which dealt with the implementation of changes to the way schools are to be funded from April 2013, commenced on 28th January and finished on 22nd February 2013.

There were 50 responses; 46 of respondents used the questionnaire form and 4 responded by e-mail. The e-mailed responses were from private, voluntary and independent (PVI) childcare settings who felt that the questionnaire was not appropriate to their situation (see other comments below).

Responses were as follows.

QUESTION 1. – Do you agree that the current amount allocated in the formula for deprivation should remain at the same level? i.e. 1.3% of total budget for three and four year old funding.

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes89% (41)

No11% (5)

6 respondents chose to make an additional textual response to this question. Comments are detailed below.

Comment / Frequency
Yes, providing it doesn’t affect other areas / 3
It should cover annual inflation / 3
The amount is too low / 2
The DfE should ensure provision is a minimum of good as defined by OFSTED for setting to receive deprivation funding / 1
Currently no allocation of pupil premium for under 5s deprivation – allowance needs to reflect this / 1

QUESTION 2. – Do you agree that additional funding for Children Looked After should be included in the new formula?

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes89% (41)

No11% (5)

6 respondents chose to make an additional textual response to this question. Comments are detailed below.

Comment / Frequency
Should be paid separately as and when required / 3
Would be better as targeted/transparent funding to specific children / 1
We have no Looked After Children – would be better paid separately / 1

QUESTION 3. – Do you agree that the lump sum be paid in the Autumn term?

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes89% (41)

No7% (3)

No preference2% (1)

Not applicable2% (1)

3 respondents chose to make an additional textual response to this question. Comments are detailed below.

Comment / Frequency
Disagree with the reduction of the lump sum pro-rata for providers with less than 8 FTE children as overheads and staff ratios remain the same as larger settings / 2
Disagree with the additional £70k for Nursery Schools to help with the cost of Headteacher – all settings would welcome this extra funding / 2
Professional status is not supported as wages must be kept low in line with low funding / 1
This depends on individual setting – they should get the choice on when it is paid / 1
Should be paid in 3 lump sums to match the 3 academic terms / 1
It would be very helpful / 1

QUESTION 4. – Do you agree that Cumbria should continue to allocate pupil deprivation funding through identification of disadvantage via a combination of IMD, IDACI and ACORN deprivation indicators for three and four year olds?

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes98% (45)

No 2% (1)

2 respondents chose to make an additional textual response to this question. Comments are detailed below.

Comments / Frequency
There seems to be no provision for supporting children with additional needs – some provision needs to be made in addition to the ‘base rate’ / 1
FSM entitlement/Ever 6 should be used as in Primary Schools for consistency / 1

QUESTION 5. – Do you agree that £4.85 should be paid in full to providers for disadvantaged 2 year olds?

Answer;Number of respondents

Of those responding

Yes96% (44)

No2% (1)

Box not ticked2% (1)

2 respondents chose to make an additional textual response to this question. Comments are detailed below.

Comment / Frequency
This rate does not cover actual costs of supporting these pupils, but does contribute towards costs / 1
This level of funding is inadequate / 1

QUESTION 6. – Do you consider that, when delegated, the services listed in the paragraph below should be allocated using the number of Full Time Equivalent children?

  • Funding for threshold and performance pay
  • Support for schools in financial difficulties
  • Allocation of contingencies
  • Insurance (relates to insurance provision against property perils, employer and public liability)
  • Licences/Subscriptions (relates to copyright licences for the use of music in nursery schools and primary schools in nursery classes)
  • Staff cost (e.g. long term sickness, maternity etc)
  • Library and Museum services

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes56% (26)

No 2% (1)

Box not ticked22% (10)

Not applicable20% (9)

5 respondents chose to make an additional textual response to this question. Comments are detailed below.

Comment / Frequency
FTE Early Years 570 hours, not FTE based on primary numbers / 1
Not all of the above services should be delegated / 1
Why are PVI settings not entitled to this / 1
Does this include private nurseries – some out of town cannot access libraries etc and self fund these / 1
Work load is not proportionate to the time spent in nursery / 1

QUESTION 7. – Which services do you consider should be retained centrally to be managed through the local authority? (note, this question only applies to local authority maintained nursery schools and primary schools with nursery classes)

Contingencies (including schools in financial difficulties, new/closing/amalgamating schools, closing schools deficits)

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes33% (15)

Box not ticked50% (23)

Not applicable17% (8)

Insurance (relates to insurance provision against property perils, employer and public liability)

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes33% (15)

Box not ticked50% (23)

Not applicable17% (8)

Licences and subscriptions (relates to copyright licences for the use of music in nursery schools and primary schools with nursery classes)

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes33% (15)

Box not ticked50% (23)

Not applicable17% (8)

Staff costs – supply cover (long term sickness, maternity, trade union and public duties)

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes30% (14)

No 2% (1)

Box not ticked50% (23)

Not applicable18% (8)

Library and Museum services

Answer;Number of respondents 46

Of those responding

Yes33% (15)

Box not ticked50% (23)

Not applicable17% (8)

Other Comments

On Questionnaire

Comment / Frequency
Information on how budgets will be adjusted to accommodate changing pupil numbers would be helpful in setting correct staffing levels / 1
Frequently those with additional needs are only identified once they are in school – funding for these is a challenge / 2
Concerned about the lack of any SEN funding for nursery classes and schools / 1

On e-mails from PVI respondents

Comment / Frequency
There should be a ‘No’ tick box on all questions on the questionnaire – not every one has the time/confidence to offer lengthy explanations for their ‘No’ response / 3
No opportunity for PVI to offer an opinion on the division of funding between the different sectors / 3
The proposals will exacerbate the inequality of funding between PVI and the maintained sector and will endanger sustainability / 3
If all the separate elements of funding do not provide a sufficient bottom line then PVIs will be out of business / 1
The 2 year old funding is realistic but the formula for the 3 and 4 year old funding is not easy to understand / 1