Jump to content
Home
Forum
Articles
About Us
Tapestry

30 Hours "Free"


Recommended Posts

Without meaning to offend anyone here.

I would like to know how you survive?

As nice as it sounds being able to choose the hours you open and the children you want to take.

We are a Pre-School opening 8am-6pm Monday to Friday taking children 2-5 years and school children 5-11years. Without this we would have folded many years ago because we would not have been able to compete wtih other settings in our area.

As for taking 2 year olds we have done this for the past 12 years and we only have one playroom.

If I was to say I don't take autistic children everyone would be saying that I was not inclusive so how can you say you will not take 2 year olds? yes they have different needs but you staff and adjust to meet them. This was recognised with the higher rate of funding for 2 year olds.

If you are a non profit making Pre-School like us I would think that the 30 free hours funding could be a positive one as many day nurseries say that the funding does not cover their hourly rate so may well pull out of taking funded children. Would this not be a business opportunity for Pre-Schools to take these children? Yes I can see that the plan is to have them in schools but until the infrastructure is there we could reap the benefits.

Maybe our area is different but I do have many children that take their 15 hours and more because mums work. We are in an affluent area where many of our mums and dads are professionals so do need the 30 hours childcare.

So I will be very interested in seeing the results of the 30 hours funding being introduced.

I agree with you, we are open 9.30 to 14.30 and I would say half of the funded children pay for the extra hours making it up to 25 hours and even some of the funded two year olds play for an extra day !!!

 

We look forward to the 30 hours with it being guaranteed fees in and not chasing up non payments from parents.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the problem is the cost base for so many of us. If you can be financially viable on taking funded 2 and 3 year olds for 30 hrs then yes, it's great news. The problem is, many of us can't. You only need to read back to the thread on what many preschools pay for premises to get a feel for the scale of the problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the problem is the cost base for so many of us. If you can be financially viable on taking funded 2 and 3 year olds for 30 hrs then yes, it's great news. The problem is, many of us can't. You only need to read back to the thread on what many preschools pay for premises to get a feel for the scale of the problem.

Other 'problems' for some of us is that we can't have large groups, take non-funded children under 2 or 3, run after-school clubs or be open during school holidays, which would give other income than funding.

Edited by Wildflowers
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if we could survive comfortably on funding rates alone then there would be no problem with increasing to 30 hours- however if you read back properly through the thread you will see that for most of us not -just daycare- our funding rates are just not enough to make a financially viable company.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

so this morning ......

consultation to be launched before the summer (better get that out quick!!!)

To be launched 2016

Government are apparently committed to increase the funding (but not sure if they just meant the same rate x double the hours???!!!!!.....call me cynical!)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone is interested.. she does mention the funding consultation..

 

Nicky Morgan answers teachers' questions in live TES webchat

 

https://www.tes.co.uk/news/school-news/breaking-news/nicky-morgan-answers-teachers-questions-live-tes-webchat

 

 

 

PM David Cameron explains childcare changes

 

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/prime-minister-david-cameron-double-free-childcare

 

 

Press release

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-brings-forward-plans-to-double-free-childcare-for-working-families

Edited by Inge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Inge, I certainly am interested! I'm at work though so I can't watch the videos, will have a look later.

'Childcare funding rates to increase, with review promised before summer' - best keep a close eye on this, forgive me but I remain skeptical. They probably will increase the rates, but we have to be careful they don't throw pennies at us or just enough to keep us 'happy'.

There's something else that I think is worth mentioning too: according to the EPPE project (and others probably) 'full time attendence [leads] to no better gains for children than part-time provision'. Not only that, but research consistently points towards the home learning environment being the most important factor in a child's learning and development. Taking that onboard, why is the idea that children in part-time provisions should be taken out of the home environment and placed in full-time provisions being promoted? Is that not totally backwards?

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

'Childcare funding rates to increase, with review promised before summer' - best keep a close eye on this, forgive me but I remain skeptical. They probably will increase the rates, but we have to be careful they don't throw pennies at us or just enough to keep us 'happy'.

 

 

:ph34r: Do you mean just like the 1p per hour Kent gave us this year for an increase ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because its all about getting people off benefits and into work - albeit for 8hours a week per parent - doesnt appear to matter about childs wellbeing....

Its all about the parental need, not the child's...seems just WRONG!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes sunnyday, that is exactly what I mean! I can't imagine that kept anyone sufficiently 'happy' though!

Because its all about getting people off benefits and into work

It's an absolute con I'm afraid - only ~14% (this figure hasn't really changed for a very long time) of welfare spending goes to the unemployed (nearly all of who are actively seeking work). The vast majority goes to those already in work because work doesn't pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I haven't already said this:

'The scheme to extend the free entitlement from 15 to 30 hours a week for households with all parents in work'

'The Childcare Bill, introduced tomorrow, will double free childcare for all working parents of three- and four-year-olds to 30 hours a week.'

You have to already be working to be entitled, and could be worse off anyway! http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1151727/families-could-be-worse-off-under-tax-free-childcare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's okay, I love reading! The 'how do nurseries make up the shortfall?' section is a bit irritating. I'm pretty sure that most providers make it up out of their own pocket, and calling them 'canny' and giving a couple of examples (out of thousands of providers!) where they are forced to use less kind means is frankly rather insulting!

sorry for the triple post :P

Edited by Rob6692
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'how do nurseries make up the shortfall?' section is a bit irritating. I'm pretty sure that most providers make it up out of their own pocket, and calling them 'canny' and giving a couple of examples (out of thousands of providers!) where they are forced to use less kind means is frankly rather insulting!

 

 

Irritating isn't the word - it made me angry! The bottom line is they don't give us enough money, impose lots of conditions then the BBC sneer at us for trying to make ends meet. :angry: :angry: :angry:

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all about the parental need, not the child's...seems just WRONG!

I'm not convinced it is just parental need The Government needs people in work to keep the bills down, especially the pension bill in the future. I really want the Government to allow parents to raise their own children rather than asking others to do it for them in nurseries. Some parents want and need to work, that has always been the way, but many of those given the proper opportunity would rather raise their own children.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I noticed most was the change in terminology from 'early education' to 'early education and care' now just to 'childcare'. This appears to say it all. It's a very different focus from the days when the funding was first introduced.

 

It is extremely important that when any consultation is launched, the whole sector responds.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes sunnyday, that is exactly what I mean! I can't imagine that kept anyone sufficiently 'happy' though!

 

It's an absolute con I'm afraid - only ~14% (this figure hasn't really changed for a very long time) of welfare spending goes to the unemployed (nearly all of who are actively seeking work). The vast majority goes to those already in work because work doesn't pay.

........not in our profession - thats for sure!!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced it is just parental need The Government needs people in work to keep the bills down, especially the pension bill in the future. I really want the Government to allow parents to raise their own children rather than asking others to do it for them in nurseries. Some parents want and need to work, that has always been the way, but many of those given the proper opportunity would rather raise their own children.

I agree - we have a single mum who's child does 15 hours with us - she was told as her daughter was now 3 she needed to be actively looking for work and therefore needed to up her daughters hours at pre-school. she was told she needed to work for 16 hours per week which would have meant her daughter coming to us for four days a week so she could travel to work and back -she was devastated saying she just wanted to spend time with her daughter before she started school and worked out by time she paid for the extra hours, lunch,travel etc it probably wouldn't be any better off .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: - the current suggested 30 hour offer is for households where both parents are working (and I'm sure that I saw somewhere it was a minimum of 8 hours per week each).

 

Sooo - my questions are

 

:wacko: Are we meant to police this - how am I supposed to know if both parents are working 8 hours per week or more?

:wacko: Is this 8 hour working week for both parents going to be an average working week over a 38 week year like the non-stretched funding so that those on zero hours contacts or even term time workers might benefit?

:wacko: How do I know that even if they start a child at my setting on 30 hours because they are working they don't suddenly drop their hours or stop working all together?

:wacko: How are we meant to be sustainable in (if we want to) offering 30 hours a week if the client base is not going to be stable?

 

I haven't even got going on the questions of funding and SEN funding for this increased offer either - Arrgggg :blink: :blink:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: - the current suggested 30 hour offer is for households where both parents are working (and I'm sure that I saw somewhere it was a minimum of 8 hours per week each).

 

Sooo - my questions are

 

:wacko: Are we meant to police this - how am I supposed to know if both parents are working 8 hours per week or more?

:wacko: Is this 8 hour working week for both parents going to be an average working week over a 38 week year like the non-stretched funding so that those on zero hours contacts or even term time workers might benefit?

:wacko: How do I know that even if they start a child at my setting on 30 hours because they are working they don't suddenly drop their hours or stop working all together?

:wacko: How are we meant to be sustainable in (if we want to) offering 30 hours a week if the client base is not going to be stable?

 

I haven't even got going on the questions of funding and SEN funding for this increased offer either - Arrgggg :blink: :blink:

 

There are more questions than answers! :rolleyes:

sen funding is no issue....we don't get any now ...so nothing will change!!!! :o

Sad but very true :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some valid points are raised, but I don't think the author needed to be quite so insulting towards the sector and staff.

 

It seems the Childcare Bill has had its first reading today http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/childcare.html but I can't find any details on it.

I've only just noticed by the way that 'Parents with three- or four- year- olds in full time childcare (50 hours per week) will only be required to pay 40 per cent of the total cost of their childcare for 38 weeks of the year'. http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1151814/childcare-bill-introduced-to-parliament

50 hours a week is a sickening amount of time for a child to be in care! Why is this being encouraged?

Edited by Rob6692
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. (Privacy Policy)