Childcare practitioners are urging education officials to ensure that the Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) remains a priority and is not overlooked in the aftermath of the forthcoming general election.
While providers across the sector accept the year-long delay in the implementation of the EYSFF ordered by Children's Minister Dawn Primarolo, they want the time used to develop clear and fair national guidelines.
Andrew Fletcher, joint chief executive of the National Childminding Association, says, 'We welcomed the pause in proceedings to give time to develop consistency in the funding formula. The question is how we use this period. We are continuing our dialogue with the Government over the guidance. It is our view that if you don't get that bit right, we can't expect local authorities to implement a funding formula that is unambiguous.'
Sarah Steel, managing director of The Old Station Nursery chain, thinks it was a brave decision by Ms Primarolo to delay implementation and believes time is needed to sort things out. 'If there is a change in government there is a danger that the EYSFF will not be at the top of the priority list to be sorted out, and it does need to be done,' she says.
'We must look to the civil servants at the Department for Children, Schools and Families to keep the EYSFF as a priority for whoever is the new minister. The guidance needs to be firm, reasonable and clear - at the moment there are too many different interpretations. Nobody is quite clear about what is allowed and what is not, and there is a danger that parents think nurseries are making it up as they go along.'
She adds: 'One thing we don't want is any kind of knee-jerk policy before the election from Labour to win votes. We have had so much change.'
In January, the DCSF extended the EYSFF pilot exercise to a second wave of pathfinders, but it is imposing strict criteria so it is unlikely many local authorities will qualify and join the pilot councils in implementing a formula in their localities.
Grappling with the issues
The delay in implementation of the EYSFF to April 2011 means that most authorities will now be grappling with two early education funding issues at once: setting up a fair funding mechanism and the extension this September from 12.5 to 15 hours of nursery education entitlement.
There have been calls for the Government to ring-fence funding for nursery education in its allocations to local authorities.
However, as Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Daycare Trust, points out, 'There is a general reluctance in local authorities to ring-fence anything. They don't like it because they need to be able to make judgements according to local circumstances.
'It is a very tricky area. The PVI sector complained that the funding was difficult for them, but while some were managing, others were not. Our biggest concern is to have implementation in such a way that it does not damage the maintained nurseries. Some of the highest-quality childcare takes place in these nurseries and it would be wise to hang on to these beacons of excellence.'
The aim of the exercise to devise a single funding formula, first announced in 2007, was to come up with a mechanism that is clear, consistent and equitable.
But private providers complain that funding is weighted towards maintained settings. A nursery owner in Hertfordshire, one of the authorities that took part in last year's pilot of the EYSFF, says, 'The idea is to even out the playing field, but the first thing that happens is the council allocates £30,000 to £40,000 to nursery schools to pay for the employment of their head teachers. But nurseries need to employ teachers, and we are having to hire graduates.
'Most providers locally are actually getting more than previously when the funding was per child. Now they average your attendance over three terms and you get a block amount. For nurseries that are relatively new, or where occupancy is increasing, this is tricky, because you will have more children than you are being funded for. But a poor nursery, where occupancy is collapsing, will have funding above their actual occupancy. However, it does get smoothed out over a number of years.'
Equitable, not equal
Complaints from private providers that funding is not shared equally across the private and maintained sectors miss the point, according to Megan Pacey, chief executive of Early Education.
She says, 'I think there has been a misunderstanding. Fair and transparent does not mean equal. There is a difference between equitable and equal. The playing field is not flat - that's not the way it works.'
She says the pilots have worked well in authorities such as Lincolnshire, which has worked hard to integrate funding streams.
Lincolnshire is also singled out by Ms Steel, who says, 'Where it is going to work best is where the local authority truly engages with providers. In Lincolnshire, the authority has really gone out to consult with and speak to as many nurseries as possible. We are involved in the pilot for the extension to 15 hours and the funding is superb. We are getting capital funding and flexibility funding, some of which can be used on payroll costs to help us embed the delivery of the 15 hours.
'With the single funding formula, authorities do need to engage providers. If settings are prepared to be open, work with them and have a real dialogue, it reaps real benefits: they genuinely want us to be sustainable.
'The EYSFF is about sustainability. It doesn't benefit private providers if it is insufficient and it won't benefit the Government because there won't be enough places.'
Ms Steel recognises that for every success story there are several disappointments. 'It will be a fudge inevitably because of the strange economic model we are operating, where private business is competing on a very "unflat" playing field with maintained settings, and the Government wants us to provide places but does not want to completely pay for them.'
CASE STUDY: LOOKING FOR STABILITY
David Wright, who with his wife Anna owns and runs Paint Pots Pre-School and Nursery in four locations in Southampton, says the funding formula worked out locally means each of his settings receives a different amount.
'The formula takes account of staff qualification levels, flexibility in session times offered, and deprivation factors in each locality,' he says. 'There is not a huge difference in the resulting hourly rate for each of our four nurseries, but the discretionary element does help towards the ever-increasing costs of quality provision, attracting and retaining good staff and meeting the needs of our families.'
Mr Wright says he has no wish to see either the maintained or PVI sectors disadvantaged in a realignment of finances from funding places to occupancy.
'Some maintained nursery schools are beacons of excellence, but as private providers we are sometimes envious of their budgets and we do wonder what more we might be able to achieve with additional funding and the removal of some of our constraints,' he says.
'However, we should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul. I understand that the viability of some maintained nursery settings could be threatened by proposed changes. We should be protecting good-quality provision at this time. The childcare sector as a whole needs additional funding if we are to improve quality and deliver better outcomes for the next generation. As a nation, we continue to undervalue and underfund early years in comparison with other education sectors.
'As demonstrated by the recent publicised delay in implementation of the EYSFF, the challenge is to produce a fair and viable system, acceptable to all providers. It is important to get this right and not impose something as a political expedient requiring subsequent fixing. As providers we are looking for some certainty. Funding things for one, two or three years does not help us to plan strategically or commit to ongoing revenue expenditure streams such as salaries. We are looking for this issue to be resolved and for a commitment to stability once it has been implemented.'
