Agenda item

Avril Allenby introduced the report (Agenda Item 12) which sought to update the Schools’ Forum on the deficit recovery options considered by the Early Years Funding Group.

Avril Allenby provided some background, which was detailed under section two of the report. Avril Allenby stressed that any plans for recovery would impact upon a very wide range of providers. The report provided background information on action taken so far including by the Early Years Funding Group (EYFG), which had explored a range of options, which were included under Appendix A to the report.

Section three of the report provided some information on the Early Years Budget for 2020/21. The current year forecast was showing a reduced deficit of £999,952 and the main reason for this was because of a higher than expected grant adjustment for the hours relating to 2019/20. Avril Allenby reported on the significant impact on the sector from Covid-19 including on vulnerable children, which was detailed under section four of the report.

Avril Allenby drew attention to recommendations from the EYFG included under section five of the report. This group included a large range of providers from across the early year’s sector.  Section five highlighted that the impact of Covid-19 had resulted in early evidence of financial difficulty for many early years providers with many being close to closure. The ongoing uncertainly was likely to further compound issues being faced. Therefore the recommendation from the EYFG was to apply a tapered reduction in rates with a lower impact on rates in the first two years increasing to meet the deficit over a five year period. The EYFG had proposed that Option 4 Version B be adopted because this option was fairly equal in terms of its impact and safeguarded funding for the most vulnerable children. The EYFG also recommended that the deficit recovery plan was delayed until April 2022 to ensure current providers could deal with the ongoing impact of Covid-19.

Avril Allenby drew attention to section six of the report, which reflected discussions that had taken place at the Heads’ Funding Group (HFG). Avril Allenby highlighted that although the HFG was represented on the Schools’ Forum there were limited representatives with early years classes attached to their schools.

The HFG had challenged the proposals put forward to delay the deficit recovery until April 2022 and had recommended that this be removed. The HFG had also suggested that further modelling work take place to ensure the full amount of the deficit was recovered by the end of the five year period. Comments from the HFG had been taken on board however Avril Allenby wanted this information to be presented to the next EYFG before returning to the Schools’ Forum for agreement. 

Avril Allenby concluded that further work was required to develop a suitable model that covered the deficit in full but also ensured that the impact on all types of provider was carefully considered to ensure no part of the sector was disadvantaged.

Maria Morgan reminded members of the Forum that in early years funding was attached to children’s age rather than a cohort. Many early years settings were only full in the summer term and this funding often acted as a buffer for other times of the year when settings were not full, to help meet fixed staff costs. Many settings had lost private income normally generated in the summer, due to Covid-19. Also regarding the early years pupil premium funding, Maria Morgan raised the point that it worked differently in early years. Schools only had to apply for this once, whereas early years setting had to apply for this funding on a termly basis.

Ian Pearson commented that there had been a very in depth discussion on the item at the HFG. He referred to section six of the report, which detailed the recommendations of the HFG and these needed to be considered by the Forum in terms of agreeing a way forward.

Brian Jenkins felt that points raised were very valid however, stressed that the ongoing threat of Covid-19 to early years settings further exacerbated the issues already faced by the sector. Covid-19 was having a devastating impact on the early years sector.

Brian Jenkins felt that the recommendations under section 6.1 of the report were inappropriate and he urged that a different approach should be taken to give the PVI sector a chance of survival. He felt that the EYFG were better positioned to make recommendations regarding the sector than the HFG.

Ian Nichol commended the work that gone into the financial modelling and he supported a tapered approach, given the current economic situation. Ian Nichol noted the needs of vulnerable children that had been reported on and felt that an equalities impact assessment should accompany the final report that would be considered March 2020.  He was concerned about the proposal for the HFG and concurred with Bryan Jenkins. Given the huge uncertainties and nature of the sector he felt to decide on a set of savings in March 2020 that needed to be implemented from April 2020 was inappropriate and there should be an opportunity for the sector to adjust to any decisions taken. Ian Nichol stated that he would also like to see a report on how the HFG had engaged with the sector in forming its recommendations.

Reverend Mark Bennet stated that it was hoped that Covid-19 was a short term issue however, it was acknowledged that the impact would be high. Reverend Bennet stated that he had been unaware that the level of support from The Government for the early sector had been so low. Catch-up funding had been mentioned however for vulnerable children it was known that crucial time was in the early years. He felt that there was a political point that need to be raised and suggested that elected Members who advised the Forum could lobby on the issue. It was also an issue that would impact on schools later on as children in early years moved into schools.

David Ramsden, as a member of the HFG explained that the group had undertaken a very detailed and robust discussion on the matter. The group was recommending that there was no delay in a budget deficit recovery for a year and a half. The HFG had suggested that the recovery begin and regular reviews be undertaken and did not feel it would be wise to delay deficit recovery until 2022. The HFG had been of the view that a sensible approach to deficit recovery overtime should be taken, which supported the sector but could also be adjusted accordingly.

Gemma Piper concurred with David Ramsden and had also formed part of the discussion at the HFG. Gemma Piper referred to comments made earlier in the meeting that there was uncertainty around how much needed to be saved by when.

Maria Morgan referred to the comments made by Reverend Bennet regarding Covid-19 and vulnerable children being affected. Early years was the gateway service into special needs The current waiting time for some services was 12 months  and therefore some children might not be able to access support services until starting school. This highlighted the vastness of the impact in terms of how schools would be impacted on going forward.

In response comments made by David Ramsden, Brian Jenkins reported that the deficit for early years had reduced as highlighted in the report. This showed that the issue was ongoing and had been tackled. He was not requesting that efforts should stop in terms of achieving the deficit recovery position however, it would be wrong not to delay plans and allow the sector a fighting chance.

Ian Pearson reported that a decision was not required on the report currently. The root of the issue was how the sector was funded. The Government needed to look at funding for the early years sector and the impact on children moving through education.  Ian Pearson highlighted that a decision on the deficit recovery plan was not necessarily required at the next meeting of the Forum in December. The Early Years Budget was normally set in March. Given the volatile situation around Covid-19 and funding, Ian Pearson did not feel that they would be in a position to set the budget in December 2020. The EYFG needed to consider the recommendation from the HFG and put together a model that started the deficit recovery in April 2021. A counter model could however, be put together by the EYFG that begin in April 2022. Both models could then be presented to the Schools’ Forum and a decision taken.

David Ramsden added that it had been made clear at the HFG and within the report that there did not need to be the same level of deficit recovery achieved in each year and it could be tapered. The HFG were however, keen that recovery efforts were not left until 2022.

Councillor Dominic Boeck noted that a political view had been sought. He sympathised with the challenges being faced by the sector and that funding for early years needed to improve. Local MP Laura Farris was keenly interested in education and particularly early years and Councillor Boeck confirmed that he would raise the issue with her. Councillor Boeck concurred with David Ramsden that there was a problem to face and work needed to commence on this as soon as possible.

The Chairman invited the Schools’ Forum to consider whether it endorsed the proposals from the HFG. 

RESOLVED that:

• Councillor Dominic Boeck to raise the issues discussed regarding the early years sector with Local MP Laura Farris.
• The Schools’ Forum endorsed the proposals from the HFG that would be considered by the EYFG.