Issue - meetings

Proposed Changes to Early Years Funding Formula for 2015/16

Meeting: 20/11/2014 - Schools' Forum (Item 21)

21 Proposed Changes to Early Years Funding Formula for 2015/16 pdf icon PDF 129 KB

Minutes:

Report ED15119

 

The report outlined proposals for a full review of the Early Years formula, including consultation with all stakeholders, in the light of changes within the authority and within the remit of Early Years funding. Officers were proposing the following changes –

 

  • The inclusion funding which was allocated as a one-off lump-sum in 2014/15 should be absorbed into the base rate, giving an additional amount of 0.16p.

 

  • Deprivation would remain as a separate element, but may be adjusted to follow the funding methodology to be used for the allocation of the new Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP.)

 

  • The Special Educational Needs (SEN) factor to remain as a separate element, but for Early Years and SEN officers to explore the long term viability of the current methodology of the new EYPP. 

 

In addition, as Early Years settings in Bromley had received no increase to their base rate since it was introduced in 2009, the Forum was asked to consider a growth bid for £500,000 from within the DSG, representing a 3% increase, and options for distributing this money. Reservations were expressed about the need for transitional support for any settings losing money under the revised arrangements.

 

It was noted that some of the elements in the formula were different for Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) settings and Maintained settings. In particular, the quality element for PVI settings was dependent on suitably qualified staff and an excellent rating, which with Ofsted changes was likely to be harder to achieve. Maintained schools received a lower base rate to reflect that they did not have the same rent and rate liabilities as PVI settings.

 

It was recognised that investing in very young children would potentially have an impact throughout their school careers, but it was suggested that the Forum needed more information to understand the broader picture.

 

RESOLVED that the Forum’s comments be taken into account.