Guest Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 I am sure someone can put a link to this. Its all getting a bit nasty now but a level playing field MUST be achieved if we are delivering the same EYFS. My blood boils when I read this kind of thing. The PVI sector provide good quality childcare or at least I hope we all strive too and have not been in it for the money-what money???
JacquieL Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/n...nding-education
JacquieL Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 And also http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/n...schools-funding
Guest Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Thankyou!! Please read the comments at end of articles. How is cutting our hourly rate going to make us rich???? I get a fraction of a teachers pay and work 7 days week 51 weeks year because I love the job.
lynned55 Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 (edited) What a load of garbage!! Honestly it really makes me mad, this has obviously been writtn by someone who had no idea of how EY's is funded or run in thos country. I wish they would get their facts straight before they print these articles Edited November 3, 2009 by lynned55
HappyMaz Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 I think the Single Funding Formula is going to cause a lot of problems, no matter whether we work in the PVI, state or maintained sector. We need to try to avoid turning our complaints about the SFF into an argument about where the grass is greener, who is paid more or who will be most adversely affected by it. It is really important that we analyse the new formula and work out how it will affect our own settings, and make sure our views and worries are communicated to those who are in charge of making this new system work. If you have been invited to attend a briefing meeting, then you should go if at all possible and be prepared to speak up for the children in your setting. If you have been asked to give a formal response as part of the consultation period then you should illustrate your response with clear hard facts about how the SFF will affect you, and what the long term outcomes for your children will be. I know that some people are thinking this is a waste of time because the decisions have already been made, but even if I can't change anything, I will feel very guilty if I just let this happen without giving the powers that be the benefit of my opinion! I am losing a lot of sleep about how the SFF is going to affect my very small group, and personally have never been more pessimistic than I am feeling right now. But I know that I'm not the only one - everyone is scared about the future both for our own jobs and personal security but also about what the effects might be on the children and families we support. We're all committed to providing the best we can for our children and we should join together to make sure our professional opinions are taken seriously. I wonder whether the unions are experiencing a sudden upsurge in the number of new members as practitioners come to terms with what this might mean for their future employment prospects? Maz
Guest Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Having read the articles it makes it seem as if the private sector is cash rich and only out to make money. And we all know that, on the whole, that is not true. The impression I got was that the private sector would benefit to the detriment of the maintained. I feel that all providers will be worse off after this exercise. I honestly feel that the governement, while recognising that the early years are important, have realised that they don't have the money to fund it. So they are trying to jig the money around-and nobody wins. And where is the surprise in that? And when will they realise that they are wasting so much money? Our money at that!! Linda
lynned55 Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Linda, you have hit the nail on the head! There just isn't enough money to properly fund EY's and therin lies the problem, not SFF or who gets what, but quite simple just not enough money and until they decide to put more money in to EY's then it's never going to work properly.I came away from our last consultation over the SFF thinking,This time nect year we are going to be a group that is so well stocked with resources (thanks to the nearly £8k & counting. we have had from Capital Funding ) but I dont know if we are going to afford to stay employing the amount of staff we have!! Ridiculous situation.
Helen Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 This is such a worrying situation, and is setting one sector up against the other when we had the perfect opportunity (with the EYFS) to work together. I'm astounded when supposedly well-informed people such as Megan Pacey make claims such as: "The maintained sector deals with children at risk. They are the kids that the private sector doesn't have the skills or resources to pick up. It will hit those children and families the hardest." Where on earth she got this information from, I've no idea, but it gives such a poor impression of the quality of EY in the PVI sector.
Inge Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 articles like that one really make be quite angry.. as Helen has said it gives a poor impression of the PVI sector and the training and qualifications we all have, as well as the many years experience working with this age for which there is no qualification bit is invaluable. To say we are not capable of dealing with children at risk as we don't have the skills is just coming from someone who really has no idea on how it works or the level at which we are all qualified to. The suggestion taht the money is also to be adding to our profits is the other one which is not understood... I ran for 8 years with a loss... only last year did we make a profit , just, it was just over a thousand pounds.. hardly a huge amount.. which was quickly swallowed up and more with Government initiatives such as increased holidays and minimum wages and nat ins! I wish we did not have to employ at minimums... we tried so hard not to but the minimum wage increases did not in any way match the funding increases each year and the gap eventually ended up narrower.. We did pay as much as we could afford.. any more and we would have been in more debt each year.. it became so that we could not increase wage as we had no funding increase to cover it.. but will this help PVis if some are ending up on less because of enhancements etc... I really dont know what the answer is to this, but whatever happens someone will lose out... I also don't understand what extra costs a maintained setting has to cover out of the funding they receive... is is all the other things PVI have to cover, like rent, insurance, Ofsted fees, etc etc etc as well as wages? It is beginning to make we wonder ? Inge
fimbo Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 sorry, can i jump in with a daft question that one of the comments from the article triggered -- do we get funding for each child we have on the register or for each child we are registered (with ofsted) for ?
Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 I wonder what will happen if the conservatives get in will they continue with these plans??
Sue R Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Helen, thank you for your comment - it chokes me to think how little someone like that thinks of the private sector. Does she think we walk around with our heads in the sand? Where does she think any existing support for new school entrants has come from? (For the most part, we have had a huge uptake from funded places and that is where we pick many up, if they haven't been with us since babies) Sue Off to read those articles...
HappyMaz Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 sorry, can i jump in with a daft question that one of the comments from the article triggered -- do we get funding for each child we have on the register or for each child we are registered (with ofsted) for ? ROLYMO this is only for children following their third birthday. Until they reach the term after their third birthday you can charge them whatever the market will stand - but once they are funded then you cannot charge anything extra for their 15 funded hours, no matter how big a shortfall that may give you. However you will then be able to charge the full published rates for everything over 15 hours. Of course state or maintained nurseries who are currently offering fully funded places for three and four year olds will be unable to do so from September 2010 (unless they can fund it from elsewhere in their budget). So it might just be that those parents whose children will only be able to access 15 hours' funding may well be looking for wrap around care and may well send their child to a local pre-school setting. In which case the group would be able to charge parents their full published rates. Wouldn't it be ironic if we all just started charging more for our children who are not funded, and more for the hours children attended over their entitlement? The very measure that is intended to make childcare affordable would actually make it more expensive - and how long before parents realise that they are in effect subsidising everyone else's free entitlement? Has anyone written to the Guardian to try to correct the misconceptions contained within the articles? Maz
JacquieL Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 There is nothing in the letters' page today Maz.
HappyMaz Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 There is nothing in the letter's page today Maz. Well perhaps we need to organise a letter writing campaign. After all if we don't tell them what life is really like for all of us in early years just now, how will they know the error of their ways? Maz
Guest Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) I went to a consultation meeting yesterday where there was a very vocal gentleman representing a maintained nursery. He spent the whole meeting moaning to everyone on his table and got quite nasty about the fact that most of the maintained nurseries in our LA would lose funding but all of the PVI setting would gain. He did not listen to the fact that PVI settings had not had SEN funding or deprivation uplift, nor to the fact that we have only ever been funded for the places used, not those available (as maintained settings have been). So I just had to put him right and point out that we couldn't lose funding becuase we'd never had it in the first place. I think the main problems are that we are either a. Not taken seriously as having a full role to play within the EY sector (working to all the same standards as the maintained sector but for much worse terms and conditions) or b. There is a real misunderstanding about the rubbish conditions we have put up with for years. Overall though I do agree that the Govt are robbing Peter to pay Paul and I wouldn't be happy if I was in the maintained sector and faced having my budgets slashed. There should be proper funding available for everyone to meet the standards our children deserve. Edited November 4, 2009 by Guest
JacquieL Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Britain at the nursery stage in early years provision. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/n...ucation-funding
anju Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 whoever it was who asked if we are funded for actual children or number of children registered for - that's one of the main points of the SFF that everyone will now be funded per child attending NOT per place on offer. this is where under-subscribed maintained settings are currently better off but will lose out under the new formula.
fimbo Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 whoever it was who asked if we are funded for actual children or number of children registered for - that's one of the main points of the SFF that everyone will now be funded per child attending NOT per place on offer. this is where under-subscribed maintained settings are currently better off but will lose out under the new formula. it was me ! - its all a bit clearer now, as we had the consultation event last night.
Recommended Posts