Guest Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Anyone in Cheshire attend the meeting this afternoon re: the implications of the funding and the 'flexible' entitlement? Well if you missed it - get to the next one! You really need to be there! Wow! Lots of 'very strong' views expressed across all sectors of PVI providers to the LA reps regarding how the proposals for the NEG is going to be allocated etc. I don't think the LA was quite prepared for such a consensus of opnion. Never been to anything quite so emotive before. I am sure there will be further meetings, as people left with questions unanswered and there was an awful lot to take on board. Will keep you posted of Cheshires developments for the future. Some of the sessional pre schools which were represented have asked for a seperate meeting as the implications are quite complex and financially fragile for some pre school settings. Quote
HappyMaz Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Sounds like quite an event, myhenroxanne! It does you good to get things off your chest - especially if you think 'they' are listening... Maz Quote
apple Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Hi there myhenroxanne is this the increase in hours from 12.5 to 15? and the requirement that these hourse need to be as flexible in order for parents to decide? I am in a school nursery and I had the bursor showed me a memorandum that has been sent through from the LA. As from 2009 we have to offer our most disadvantaged children the increased hours first it will them roll out to all in 2010. I am keen to know how other settings similiar to our own will address this change to the working hours. Currently we are a 52 PT nursery with some FT children. The hours are 8.55-11.25 and 12.40-3.10pm. I would be keen to hear what other people are planning to do. One thought is maybe to start at 8.55 and finish at 12noon and offer these places to our most disadvantaged children first. (Although most children in our catchment could be considered this!). For the first year we would keep the afternoon slot as normal which cuts down on our preparation and lunchtime- maybe this would force us to get a distant time for lunch in As for flexibility it sounds a logistical nightmare trying to match parents needs up with available places/time slots. I am also worried about the implications that if a parent has the right for increased hours and immediate start to Nursery this might not fit in with the childs needs; the child may well not be ready and time to settle in may be overlooked - a Unique child eh? Quote
Guest Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 I'm not sure 'they' were listening, I have a feeling things are pretty much cut and dried. Basically, after the meeting I think a lot of people left the building feeling very depressed and uncertain about their future. Personally, I interpreted it as " if you don't play ball with us, our way, you won't be playing ball at all" (in other words your other option is - you could choose not to take part in the NEG system!?!?!) oh Yeah? Quote
Guest Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 (edited) Apple - yes it did touch on the increase from 12.5 to 15hrs, but as this is another issue it was decided to hold another meeting regarding those implications. The main discussion was about finance. How the NEG will be changing, it won't be distributed in the way which we know it. Edited February 27, 2008 by Guest Quote
HappyMaz Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 (in other words your other option is - you could choose not to take part in the NEG system!?!?!) oh Yeah? Oh dear. Is it actually possible to withdraw from the NEG system? When you put it that way, it does rather seem to be that the power is all in the hands of the LA. Unless every group withdrew from the system at the same time... but we're not really that militant in early years are we? It will be interesting to see how this whole issue develops (you see what a master of the understatement I can be?) Maz Quote
Andreamay Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 hi myhenroxanne i didnt get your message til later adn wouldnt let me relply for some reason. anyhow wish i had been there now!!! Had literally come back from macc though picking my mum up from hospital.unfortunaltly had to go back into work later.let me know when the next one is please (didnt know about it) i will try to be there. Andrea Quote
hali Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Maz isnt that what our friend from Windsor said she would do - withdraw from NEG system - sure it was !!!!! Quote
HappyMaz Posted February 27, 2008 Posted February 27, 2008 Maz isnt that what our friend from Windsor said she would do - withdraw from NEG system - sure it was !!!!! Well yes, I think you may be right. Perhaps I'm getting confused about not being able to 'opt out' of the EYFS as discussed on the 'threat to toddlers' thread, and withdrawing from the NEG system altogether... And I'm ashamed to say that I'm not sure how the Kent situation resolved itself Maz Quote
Guest Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 The main discussion was about finance. How the NEG will be changing, it won't be distributed in the way which we know it. What are the proposed changes? Quote
Guest Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) Very non - specific, but I got the distinct feeling of a hidden agenda. Lots of talk about 'equality' across the broad range of settings, but then they said that equality doesn't necessarily mean 'equal' in terms of funding. So interpret that how you want!? This meeting was applicable to settings in Cheshire, so I can't say it would apply to other LA's, each LA will determine their own criteria etc. Cheshire are still trying to gain information about how reliant settings are on the NEG. But had received a very disappointing response to forms sent out to find out this information, so we all took a cost analysis form to complete and return. What was mentioned however a few times in the same sentences as to how the NEG will be distributed (which was worrying), was taking things into consideration such as the settings ofsted reports ( especially Outstanding) inclusion work, high qualifications of all the staff, flexible entitlement being offered. To me it seemed - if a setting is not seen to be jumping through the hoops, then who knows what will happen to their funding - it could be distributed to settings which are. Edited February 28, 2008 by Guest Quote
Inge Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 but could it not aslo go the other way.. those doing well (well trained staff etc) seen not to need high levels of funding as they already have the experience etc and any failing or those in need getting more? Inge Quote
Guest Wolfie Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 When I was at a course last week, Chris Pascal said that there is about to be a big government announcement about quality in early years settings and that there is going to be funding available to PVIs to help recruit/retain graduate staff - the fund had a name that I can't remember, I'm afraid, but she said the announcment would be made in the next couple of weeks.... Quote
Guest Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 but could it not aslo go the other way..those doing well (well trained staff etc) seen not to need high levels of funding as they already have the experience etc and any failing or those in need getting more? Inge Yep, that's exactly what my colleague thought. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.