Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Just a thought, have you completed a risk assessment for including this child in your setting? You can hopefully then show your committee ( and anyone else-LA, parents) that you only want to do your best for this child and the others at your setting and show you have thought through a way to meet his needs (1:1) and the time frame you require to do this. You could also include a costing to your setting. It may buy you some time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouseketeer Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 A different reason, but I emailed our funding officer last year as I had a child who attended over their 15 hours but the fees incurred were not being paid, in line with our policy that says following various steps the place will be withdrawn, I wanted to know if we were allowed to do this or would they still have to be given 15 hours and only withdraw hours over, I have just found the reply and quote "you are perfectly entitled to refuse any child attendance at your nursery" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louby loo Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Our LA would let us make a late claim for someone moving into the county, inter-county moves rely on goodwill. We've had a little trouble with the 2year funding, with parents 'demanding' 15 hours, and we- like max123 have been commended/supported by our advisers for putting the child's needs before parent demands. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Our LA would let us make a late claim for someone moving into the county, inter-county moves rely on goodwill. We've had a little trouble with the 2year funding, with parents 'demanding' 15 hours, and we- like max123 have been commended/supported by our advisers for putting the child's needs before parent demands. x Stop using dirty words '2 year old funding' I have resisted this - I don't want to play.........I don't take 2 year olds, I don't want to take two year olds, I won't take two year olds I have made this quite clear to the 'powers that be' on several occasions - do they listen - do they heck........ I have my 'Business Officer' - or whatever she is calling herself these days coming out (yet again) for a meeting about 'Free for twos' - give me strength! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louby loo Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Stop using dirty words '2 year old funding' I have resisted this - I don't want to play.........I don't take 2 year olds, I don't want to take two year olds, I won't take two year olds I have made this quite clear to the 'powers that be' on several occasions - do they listen - do they heck........ I have my 'Business Officer' - or whatever she is calling herself these days coming out (yet again) for a meeting about 'Free for twos' - give me strength! I don't blame you- if were down to me we wouldn't have them either . This is why we [me!] restrict hours - some settings are 'geared up' for 2yr olds which is fair enough, but I'm being totally honest in saying I do not feel we are. ................. I'd best stop as this should be a whole new thread x 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Hello Don't dispare we were in a similar situation last year. After many phone calls we found support was available from a few avenues. 1, children's centre - one of their team members can come in to offer story time or PALS ect offering your staff time to work with said child. 2. Offer 10 hours within setting but ask to claim 15 obviously you need to explain the situation and gather information from previous setting to build yor case. 3. Offer 15 hours but stipulate someone like mum must attend a set amount of sessions. If mum is deployed correctly this will allow the child to become ofay with the rule and boundaries, get used to the staff whilst ensuring there is enough bodies around the setting to get everything done. I hope this is helpful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upsy Daisy Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Just to be clear, Devondaisy, are you saying that you would have a space available if the child didn't need 1 to 1 support or are you saying that all your staff time is already being used to give extra support to others with additional needs therefore, although your ratios would allow for another child, you are not able to take any more on regardless of their needs? If you simply don't feel it is appropriate to take on any other children at all, disability discrimination legislation doesn't apply because you are not treated this child less favourably because of his disability. I think there are two other important issues here. 1. How can a setting take a child for free for several weeks with little hope of claiming the cost from the child's previous setting? This is a significant failure of the system and maybe the combined brains of FSF can come up with a way to tackle the powers that be and get things changed. It is one of the reasons that I refuse to accept funding as a childminder. 2. How does disability discrimination legislation affect the allocation of places in an Early Years setting? Would putting other children's care and education at risk in order to take on a child with a disability be considered a reasonable adjustment? Would postponing offering a place to a child until the setting is able to offer the support they need be seen as reasonable or is this discrimination? Is a setting required to offer 1 to 1 support to a child simply because a previous setting has offered it? How can a setting protect itself from prosecution under the DDA while also ensuring that no child comes to harm because they have taken on a child whose needs cannot be met from available resources? It is quite a minefield! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devondaisy Posted February 28, 2013 Author Share Posted February 28, 2013 To clarify, the child concerned does not have a disability as such, he has challenging behaviour which manifests itself as violent and aggressive physical and verbal outbursts which I have witnessed first hand. Technically according to ratios we could take him, and yes, if he did not need additional support we would - is that discrimination? I feel my priority is the safety and meeting the needs of the children we currently have, and being forced to take this child without having the necessary support in place for him is wrong, for his wellbeing and that of all the other children. Having said all that, I offered a start date of the week after next, and he has now been taken to another setting where he can start this week. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upsy Daisy Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I think that the child could be seen as having a disability under the DDA. You would be discriminating in that the child's difficulties would cause you to treat him differently from a child who did not have those difficulties. "I feel my priority is the safety and meeting the needs of the children we currently have, and being forced to take this child without having the necessary support in place for him is wrong, for his wellbeing and that of all the other children." I think you are morally completely justified in your view and I would feel exactly the same. My question is how whether the individual child's rights under the DDA trump his right and the rights of the other children to adequate care and education. I'm glad that the issue has now been resolved for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyMaz Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 My question is how whether the individual child's rights under the DDA trump his right and the rights of the other children to adequate care and education. Something else strikes me about this. What about the rights of the child himself when (whether under pressure from the LA or not) a group accepts a child who has clear needs for additional support without having the resources in place to provide that support? I'm glad the debate has become academic in your group's case, Devondaisy! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts