16 replies to this topic

[SueJ]

This a link to the spending review document - pages 41 and 42 refer specifically to education for anyone wanting the intial impact stuff.

Spending Review October 2010

No doubt the detail will make interesting reading.

[SuzieC8]

Sounds to me like education has indeed been spared the worst. In fact extending the grant to some 2 year olds is surprisingly far sighted.

Apparently even with all this spending review stuff, all it is doing is returning spending levels to those we had in 2006/7 anyway!

Shame about the BSF thing but EMA I think is a mixed blessing from my conversations with college tutors.

[eyfs1966]

But where are all the new 2 yr old places going to come from? Are they thinking Sure Start or PVI or both? And what is the funding for 2 year olds set at?

[hali]

we are not out of the woods yet - yet have to see what the local govs will do with the money they have????? Especially as its not being ringfenced!!!!

[JaneCrawford]

What it says is the cash for Children's Centres will be "maintained". Does that mean that it is really one of these real cost cuts because it won't go up in line with expense?
Also it says that the money will be spent on Health Visitors which must also be a cut to Children's Centres staff, surely.
Thirdly i can't say I understand how Children's centres show that they are value for money.
So I'm not any surer about how things will be than I ever was.

[SueJ]

eyfs1966, on Oct 20 2010, 18:37, said:

But where are all the new 2 yr old places going to come from? Are they thinking Sure Start or PVI or both? And what is the funding for 2 year olds set at?

I have a couple of funded two year olds at the moment (PVI setting). The children are funded at a slightly higher rate than the 3 and 4 year olds and at present are funded to a maximum of 10 hours per week. In order to qualify for this funding the children are coming from a significantly disadvantaged start in life and in order to qualify for this funding they have to pass through a number of central and local government hoops. I haven't seen the detail but would guess that the "hoops" will remain but the entitlement will rise from the current 10 hour level to 15 hours per week (again only for 38 weeks).

[bubblejack]

I am in the pilot for 2 year old funding and the criterea for us is families on benefits+either one of these, drug/alcohol abuse, family member with disability, child with English as 2nd language and teenage parents.
The funding for each child is about £12
I think the promised funding will be available to parents that are eligible for free school dinners.

[hali]

yes we also have a pilot for 2 yr olds - i think criteria will stay the same for those who are disadvantaged familes and the money the LAs get will be targeted to help disadvantaged families

[eyfs1966]

"yes we also have a pilot for 2 yr olds - i think criteria will stay the same for those who are disadvantaged familes and the money the LAs get will be targeted to help disadvantaged families "

But where will these additional places come from. In my area we have a waiting list as long as my arm for places, as do all other local nurseries, but funding and lack of suitable premises is a limiting factor, and I can't see where additional new places are going to be created.

It will also be interesting to see how the review of the EYFS will fit into the new vision, and I can't wait to see how the government are going to encourage more providers into the childcare market. No doubt the model they want is all day care provision, and not the sessional care that my parents so desperately value.

Edited by eyfs1966, 20 October 2010 - 09:18 PM.

[eyfs1966]

And can I please also (perhaps controversially) state that one easy saving that has been missed would be the removal of the early years grant from nurseries in independent prep schools. It makes my blood boil that these schools can access public money for the most wealthy few. Frankly I believe that all PVI nursery education funding should be means tested. If you want a free state place, then great, but should be needs based, and if you want to access the private sector then you should pay accordingly. (Am waiting to be shouted down now.....!!!)

[bettsdavies]

JaneCrawford, on Oct 20 2010, 19:27, said:

What it says is the cash for Children's Centres will be "maintained". Does that mean that it is really one of these real cost cuts because it won't go up in line with expense?
Also it says that the money will be spent on Health Visitors which must also be a cut to Children's Centres staff, surely.
Thirdly i can't say I understand how Children's centres show that they are value for money.
So I'm not any surer about how things will be than I ever was.

As a QT working in a Children's Centre I can say that in my experience the services that are offered and received are life changing. It's always difficult to put a real measure on the effect and the stats produced are rarely conclusive. But spending any time close to the families involved reveals just how significant a lifeline Children's Centres are.

[Scarlettangel]

I also don't wish to be shouted at or shouted down, but about 3 years ago we had a very small satellite type childrens centre built on our school grounds, taking up a large chunk of playground.

The school and local (disadvantaged) community were promised all sorts of services................ HV, midwife etc

Do you know what goes on at our childrens centre?
TWO..........

Yep just two sessions a week are held in there................... a stay and play and a mesy play.

This build cost £450,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The parents who access these sessions are not from the families we would REALLY hope to see using the service, they are parents who would be using a playgroup/ mother and toddler group anyway regardless of where it was!!!

I don't know the answer and I am sorry if my post annoys some but this appears to me to be a dreadful waste of money and the families who are most in need are still not accessing these rather limited services!!

I am hopeful that my own experience of CC is isolated but is it though when money is such a big issue? Were the plans so much larger and then money ran out?

[mundia]

eyfs1966, on Oct 20 2010, 22:24, said:

And can I please also (perhaps controversially) state that one easy saving that has been missed would be the removal of the early years grant from nurseries in independent prep schools. It makes my blood boil that these schools can access public money for the most wealthy few. Frankly I believe that all PVI nursery education funding should be means tested. If you want a free state place, then great, but should be needs based, and if you want to access the private sector then you should pay accordingly. (Am waiting to be shouted down now.....!!!)

This is one of the reasons for the no top up ruling came into being, so many independent settings take chidlren for the EYE that then go onto other schools. However because of not being able to charge top up fees, a number of independent schools are withdrawing from EYE for that reason.. perhaps we have members here affected by this who can share their experience?

I had a feeling that the idea of means testing might appear in this review, so I was half surprised that it wasn't in there.

It only talks of 'extending' the two year old funding so it might be just more hours for those already receiving rather than more chidlren receiving it, I didn't think that was quite clear. In my LA, more than half of our settings receiving two year old funding are pack away pre schools.

Scareltangel I do hope your experience is an isolated one, Im with bettsdavies, that a good CC is worth its weight in gold, and can really make difference to the lives of people in real difficulty.

[SuzieC8]

I rather like the fact that the entitlement is for everyone, because it means that early years education echoes schooling, i.e. it means that the sector is seen as important enough for everyone to have a right to access it.

What I'd like to see now is a recognition that to be successful, voluntary run preschools should be funded in a similar way to state schools/nurseries. I can dream!

Philosophically I can see what you mean about prep school nurseries, and personally I'm morally opposed to private education. However, if we're just talking about the money side of things, it could be argued that those children who go into private schools don't have to be financed by the state, and therefore save the state money.

The issue I think with means testing is that it can often cost more to do that than would actually be saved, because it's so complicated to do.

[lynned55]

Well I'm with Scarletangel on CC's. Sorry but I'm yet to be convinced that they are worth the amount of money it has cost us or actually benefit enough people.
Our borough has been funding 2 year olds for the last year, however they had to relax the criteria a bit as there were only 2 children in the borough that met the criteria in the beginning. Mind you they also spent £1000's on a consultant who told them how to administer it.