Rea Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I havent seen a copy of the 10 yr statedgy, but from what I've heard the NEG is going to be increased to cover 38 weeks. Comments on the U5's site appear to suggest that there isnt actually any extra money, just that if a child attends 3 sessions with the entitelment being 55 overall, those children can have the extra sessions paid for i.e the 2 sessions over the term until they've reached the 55. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Guest Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Hi Rea The topping up of extra sessions for those children who attend 4 or less mornings/afternoons a week is already happening here in Stockport. So, for example, if this term a child attends 3 sessions because we are open for 15 weeks we can claim 45, whereas in the past we would only get 33. From what I have seen of the strategy it does state that weeks will increase to 38 in April 2006 and increase further in the future-but I am not too sure of the details on that. Whether the money will actually be there to fund it is another matter altogether. Some cynics are already saying it is all a pre election stunt to attract young parents votes along with other policies that have been put into place in recent months. Linda
Guest Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I havent seen a copy of the 10 yr statedgy, but from what I've heard the NEG is going to be increased to cover 38 weeks. Comments on the U5's site appear to suggest that there isnt actually any extra money, just that if a child attends 3 sessions with the entitelment being 55 overall, those children can have the extra sessions paid for i.e the 2 sessions over the term until they've reached the 55. Can anyone shed any light on this? 28884[/snapback] Good afternoon Rea Here is a copy Hope you can make use of it (IT'S 91 PAGES LONG) All the best Carolann ten_year_child_care_stra.pdf
Guest Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Funding funding funding This is what I mean about a level playing field. Stockport obviously have a different criteria on how they fund to Surrey. Your parents receive flexibility in the way there children are funded. Surrey has no more money and will not look to change the 33 weeks unless the new Code of Practice due in August this year dictates that they must. This whole issue of the amount of funding given and for how many weeks is going to be a logistical nightmare. Already we know that parents living in one borough living five minutes away in another can and do receive completely different funding. What role does Equal Opps play here? I know of many groups who are having to rethink the whole way they operate as many are now faced with the problem rightly or wrongly of not being able to charge top ups now for the extra weeks they would have done and therefore impacting on their bottom line as the NEG funding does not cover their basic costs here in the South. Regards Nikki
Inge Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 our funding changed to the same as linda from April with the 38 weeks being funded for the year if a child has less than 5 sessions a week this covers all costs, but on 5 sessions a week top up fees apply, they fund each child a maximum of165 sessions a year after that the parent pays top up.. The plan is that this will be 38 weeks for all children up to 5 sessions from next april, we await to see if the amount they give us increases with the number of extra weeks we will be open, or will the actual income drop with no top up and out goings increase with additional minimum wage increases planned for the next 2 years..... We do have lots of rules and regulations to follow... no charge to anyone for anything done during the funded session... trips etc all have to come from the funding given... not allowed to ask for more from parents for these...no charges for children who are eligable if they start after head count... so we can be asked to take children with no income!!!! these are just a few. lots more. seems that all areas have differnt interpretations for the same thing. We took a child from a neighbouring council and as their rules were differnt had a real headache getting the funding soted. parent ended up having to pay because of this. A bit unfair. Parents are confused, providers are confused.. will it ever be sorted out. As soon as we get to grips and think we understand it, it changes. Inge
Rea Posted April 7, 2005 Author Posted April 7, 2005 Thats very unfair that you have to take a child who misses head count day without being able to charge. We charge if they miss the headcount, always have, if we couldnt charge we wouldnt start the child. Parents are usually understanding once we've explained it. We even had a parent last year who after deciding her son wasnt ready for playgroup paid all the sessions fees up till christmas even though he didnt attend. Our committee told her it would keep his place for him. I reaslise this wasnt to do with NEG but it shows just how parents are happy to pay for something if they really want it. Obviously earn more than I do!!!
Guest Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I haven't heard about not charging for trips Inge. That seems unfair as the local school nurseries charge for them. As with schools it has to be on a voluntary basis and they do say that if parents cannot afford to pay the child can still take part. But if too many children want a free trip then it won't take place. And most here in Stockport ask for a minimum of £1 per week for snacks, baking activities and other bits and pieces. Again it just shows up the inequality between different areas and types of settings. Linda
Guest Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 My funding criteria is flexible over 33 wks, same as Linda. We can't ask "activity" extra's same as Inge. We can't charge "Registration fee" for funded children. Yes Nicola, I agree with you, re: Level playing field does not exist. My recent problem is that because Spring term was only 10 wks long, parents were proportionately well funded for the term, now they have recieved their invoices for a 15 week summer term, they see a high rise in what they have to pay ( extra 4 weeks unfunded) they are coming to me in their droves saying " I can't afford that, I thought I was funded, I'll have to drop the number of sessions etc" Although I explain that the term is half as long again as the spring term and funding is only for 11 wks of the term, In their mind, they have not paid much last term, now they have a lot to pay. Their financial budgets are on a "day to day" basis. We as practitioners have struggled with managing funding and budgets, how can we expect parents to when they are not privvy to the extensive documentation we receive to decipher and inform our future budgeting. Why can't the government just pay over the number of weeks a setting is open for in a year ( pro rata) then parents and us will be able to plan to a "consistent" annual income. headache or what!!! Peggy
Guest Posted April 8, 2005 Posted April 8, 2005 If you ask me and nobody has but it is all bloody (sorry) madness - the amount of adminstration that most go on throughout the country by local councils in determining who gets what why and how must surely be an ineffective waste of time and money and only serves to reduce the amount that we need to actually run our settings. Whilst I realise there are differences nationally - if they set one amount based on what the highest area needs then wouldn't it be so much simpler. Or is this being too simplistic or unrealistic bearing in mind there is not enough money to go around and support everyone in their endeavours? Nikki
Recommended Posts