Calling time on council control

The Government is seeking views from the sector on a range of reforms which will determine funding for all free places and redraw the local authority landscape in which PVI providers operate. There is but a short window of opportunity to feed into this consultation which will influence new statutory guidance relating to these vital areas.

NEW FUNDING MODEL

Proposals for a new national funding formula for all free early education places reflect the Government's satisfaction with its approach to funding the two-year-old programme.

Last November it introduced a funding model for twos which it heralded as being 'appropriate and reflecting up-to-date data'. Since then it has talked up its 'unprecedented levels of transparency and simplicity for local authorities and providers in terms of average hourly funding rates'.

Now it is proposing to extend this formula - which is based on hourly funding rates per child, according to local labour markets - to all free early education.

While the entitlement for two-year-olds will be funded through a flat rate in each local authority, the Government is proposing that threeand four-year-old funding will potentially rest on a maximum of three base rates in each local authority, with restrictions on banding within these base rates and supplements.

When it comes to centrally retained spending, the Government proposes to recast the regulations so local authorities are clear on what they can - and cannot - use their early years Dedicated Schools Grant to achieve. The Government expects this will be broadly welcomed by the PVI sector, but it does rely on the sums being realistic. The question remains whether a onesize-fits-all approach can work?

At the Carol Jane Montessori Nursery School in Enfield, north London, managing director Carol Medcalf says, 'There is much talk of how much would be sufficient to cover costs, when in reality this question asked of ten different providers would receive ten different answers. Inevitably many providers will need to make up any shortfall.'

Ms Medcalf also feels there is a case to give increased funding for degree-led settings. 'This is provided at a huge cost for these settings and it seems only fair they get more money as a result of having done what the Government would like - ie, having highly qualified staff.'

MORE POWER FOR OFSTED

A move to 'simplification' under the current proposals involves a new role for Ofsted, which gives the regulator a far more proactive and powerful role. In effect it becomes the sole arbiter of quality while local authorities will lose their power to impose funding conditions and will no longer be required to provide information, advice and training.

Currently it is local authorities which have the say on who they choose to fund to deliver places. Statutory guidance states that local authorities should fund those rated satisfactory by Ofsted, only if they can demonstrate that they meet additional quality requirements from a 'basket of measures', such as participation in a local authority's quality assurance scheme.

But under the proposed changes the current overlapping of quality regimes will end and it will become clear that Ofsted grades are the sole benchmarks of quality.

The problem with this is that Ofsted itself will have to change radically. It will have a responsibility to ensure that there is a greater emphasis on under-performance and it will have to swell its resources to ensure weaker settings are inspected more frequently and that demand for paid-for re-inspections is met. It will also have to work in more of an advisory capacity, which has never been part of its remit. Will providers have confidence in its ability to do all this?

Sharon Garforth, a speech and language therapist who works with Shropshire Council and others to deliver the Listen to Lucy programme, believes there could be advantages and disadvantages with this vision.

'Any part of the roles of Ofsted and LAs which involve duplication are obviously a waste of money and so should be discontinued.

'However, I have worked with some excellent early years advisory teams over the years and am well aware that most early years providers highly value the regular, frequent if necessary, easily accessed advice and support from teams, whether this is regarding the EYFS, specific children, or appropriate available training,' she adds.

'Less regular and less accessible visits or assessments from Ofsted inspectors who lack local knowledge cannot replace this service.'

ACCESSING TRAINING

The Government believes that early years professionals on the frontline are the best judges of their training and development requirements. At a time when local budgets are squeezed it also says it makes no sense for local authorities to be impelled to deliver support services to providers who do not want it or need it.

This is a position which Ms Medcalf is happy to support.

'To be honest, it is always the providers who are good or outstanding who never used this local authority support service and often found it to be just another box to tick or person to keep happy, rather than being of constructive help. I do believe if someone running a nursery needs the help and advice of a development worker to hold their hand every day, they should not be in the position they are.'

She adds that all nurseries will need to continue to keep up to speed with first aid, food safety and child protection. 'For some time in our borough a few nurseries have networked to provide private training for staff as council training is of a low standard. This in future will increase and we can offer exactly the right training, at a time and venue that is suitable and of high quality.'

Calvin Hanks, director of CJ Associates Training, believes that there will be concern where providers are receiving strong training support from their local authorities, while others who are compelled to receive training as a condition of receiving funding will be encouraged by the changes.

'Some will be concerned about the cost of using external providers or feel unsure about where to source their training,' he says. 'However, there are many excellent external early years training providers that can easily be accessed and they offer open training and bespoke courses.

'The sector has for some time recognised the importance of CPD and training and those who value it will continue to support the training needs of staff in their settings whether it is through the local authority or not. Some may use external providers, coach and train people in the setting or maybe team up with other local settings to share training.'

Mr Hanks believes the proposals could be a breath of fresh air. 'Some will welcome the opportunity to source their own training based on their needs and following identification by Ofsted of quality improvements to be made,' he says. 'Some have interpreted this aspect of the proposal as local authorities no longer having a support role for early years but this is not the case. Rather, while local authorities will not be legally bound to deliver support services, they still have the power to do so under the proposals.'

However, as part of its consultation, the changes will heighten the responsibility on managers to identify and access training independently. As Ms Medcalf says, 'I do think taking away the duty from local authorities will provide a sink or swim situation for a lot of bad nurseries that are not good or outstanding, but I don't think this is a bad thing.'

INCENTIVISING THE MARKET?

Limiting the conditions that local authorities can place on PVI providers to qualify for Government funding is hoped to result in increased transparency and greater national consistency. It is also expected to incentivise more early providers to enter the market and help to address the shortage of affordable childcare.

Last but not least the Government hopes it could also help to achieve a more level playing field for PVI providers and maintained schools that deliver funded places.

In line with this the Government proposes to state in statutory guidance that the only conditions local authorities should set in return for funding are those that guard against the charging of 'top-up' fees and those which support the flexible delivery of early education places. But top-ups and flexibility are inevitably thorny issues for the sector.

Ms Medcalf says, 'One size will never fit all. The funding base rate can be whatever the Government likes, but each provider needs to be allowed to charge a shortfall enabling them to run their practice as they see fit.'

As the NDNA has noted, with the consultation set to close on 6 May, the sector has not been given very much time to respond. However, given the wide-ranging implications of the Government's proposals, it is vital that as many people as possible make their views known.

Consultation responses can be completed by emailing fundedearlyeducation.Consultation@education.gsi.gov.uk.