The Forum to consider the report from Tracey Anne-Nevitt, Business Finance Partner for Schools and Early Years (AfC).

Tracey Anne-Nevitt, Business Finance Partner for Schools and Early Years (AfC), went through her report. She explained that central government intended to expand the 2-year-old offer from April 2024 and under-2s entitlement from September 2024. Central government gave the Borough a target to pass-through at least 95% of the funding, and the Borough was required to do an annual consultation.

Tracey Anne-Nevitt then pointed towards Table 4 (page 26 of the report), which detailed the funding allocations in which the Borough was to receive per hour for each of the entitlements. She informed that the table did not include the Early Years Pupil Premium and the Disability Access Fund, with the latter being a ringfenced area.

Tracey Anne-Nevitt then discussed the proposed percentage allocations (Table 5, page 26). With the 95% funding pass-through in mind, AfC decided to propose a 4% retention; therefore, leaving 96% to pass through to providers. She presented the 2 models:

·       Model A – Base rate of 85% of the hourly rates, supplements at 2% and SEN Inclusion Fund of 2%.

·       Model B – Base rate of 87.5% of the hourly rates, supplements at 7% and SEN Inclusion Fund of 1.5%.

The 2 proposed supplements included quality and deprivation, which was currently on offer for three-to-four-year-olds.

There was an increase in demand and referrals for SEN Inclusion; meanwhile, AfC had a low budget in this area. From this, AfC proposed that the provider allocation increased, which was reflected in the aforementioned models.

Table 6 (page 27) listed the amount per hour which the providers could expect to receive under the 2 models and included the Base Rate estimate and the Deprivation and Quality supplements. Each setting would receive a Base Rate and one of the Deprivation rates and a Quality rate, depending on which banding their fell.

Table 7 (page 38) detailed how the block funding would be allocated over the entitlements by percentage and the amounts.

Tracey Anne-Nevitt then went over the proposed consultation questions to be sent out to all providers, namely PVI (private, voluntary and independent), the child minders, and the maintained nursery classes and schools. The proposed questions were:

1.     Do the providers support a local cap on the central element at 4% for 2024-25, ensuring further funding would be available for higher hourly rates / SEN inclusion funding to providers?

2.     Do the providers agree with the RBWM proposed approach to fund all entitlements via a base rate and two supplements: deprivation and quality?

3.     Do the providers agree to fund the same rates for two-year-old disadvantaged pupils and two-year-old working parents?

4.     Which of the two models (A and B) do the providers support?

5.     Do the providers support the proposed inflation uplift for the SENIF matrix values of 4%?

The Chair asked if question 5 was related to the 2 proposed models or were separate. Tracey Anne-Nevitt answered that the question was separate to the models. She then pointed towards a table with the SENIF Matrix Values (page 30) and there were bands for Low/Emerging (£600 per term) and Moderate (£1,060 per term). From this, the question which Tracey Anne-Nevitt sought to ask was what the new rate should be going forward termly and annually with inflation taken into account.

Ben Bausor (Early Year PVI) expressed appreciation to Tracey Anne-Nevitt for the report and believed that it was good that the Borough as putting as much funding in providers as possible.

The Chair asked about Table 7, pointing out that there were 2 models but had the same financial outcome. Tracey Anne-Nevitt replied that the total amount which was to be given out needed to return to the block without the ring-fenced items. However, there would be different amounts going through the entitlement between Models A and B. As such, it would change the amount for the SEN Inclusion Fund, but the Central Element and total amount would remain the same.

Sarah Cottle (Maidenhead Nursery Federation) asked whether there was a ‘local authority steer’ if there was a 50-50 split in the choice of models. Tracey Anne-Nevitt replied that the final decision laid with the Borough. In the event of a 50-50 split, AfC officers would discuss the next steps, as well as look through the comments.

Neil Dimbleby (Altwood) queried on the rate figures appearing to be at different amounts and not adding up in Table 6. Tracey Anne-Nevitt responded that this was because there was a different quantum for the supplements. In Model A, 9% of the Block would go through, while it would be 7% for Model B. AfC had reduced some of the rates and then work out what the quantum was based on the high medium, all the combination and how many hours currently go through each element. Despite this, AfC were aware that things would change in-year and that it depended on the use of the entitlements and nay moves in banding; therefore, they would review this and consult if there was any change.

Ben Bausor commented that the supplements would be helpful as the incentive was for settings to invest in staff, namely a higher quality provision would lead more funding.

The Forum noted the report.