Jump to content
Home
Forum
Articles
About Us
Tapestry

Funding


Fredbear

Recommended Posts

Posted

I guess none of this really matters as I'm sure all these extra hours can be absorbed by the enormous amount of new provision now provided by the much feted child minder agencies.......hellooooooo, is there anyone out there?

 

Sorry seem to be in a sarcastic mood tonight!

  • Like 3
Posted

"This is an exciting time for the childcare sector" ......let me just do a cartwheel :P

 

"The review has also shown that some business models do not make full use of the flexibility in the regulatory system – and that high quality provision can be delivered by providers that do use this flexibility".

 

What is this supposed to mean ? are they wanting us to lay off the very people they're trying to get back to work at quieter times ?

 

but there is a silver lining.... if our 3 & 4 yr olds need more hours there definitely won't be room for the 2 yr olds so that'll scupper their plans to increase the number of 2 yr old places...I don't think they've thought this through :wacko:

  • Like 4
Posted

So in a nutshell we will get a small increase but not until 2017 - all that faffing around with EYPP and justifying spend and filling out more paperwork will be a waste of time if EYPP is going to be "incorporated" into the new rate.

 

An increase in 2017 will not help when the living wage and pensions become a reality for pretty much all of us next year!

 

We are our own worst enemies for striving for high quality and listening to all that comprehensive research regarding having high quality staff in sufficient numbers to improve children's outcomes.

 

We need to staff more efficiently by laying off 15% of our workforces so that we can make ends meet and provide good quality care - note good quality is now OK rather than high quality.

 

Surprise, surprise - settings with "higher than average" numbers of children with SEN need higher ratios - maybe we need to be a bit less caring and make things even more challenging for these families by just not accepting them so that we can keep our costs under control!

 

In no way should be endeavour to raise the pay rates of an already chronically low paid workforce - aarrrgggggg

 

Forgive me - it has been a long 12 hour day - yet another twilight briefing to attend - oh of course unpaid to keep costs down - regarding how important we all are in doing our bit in terms of Early Intervention - how deliciously ironic!!

 

For info I have scanned through the review - blood boiling stuff - if you have adobe I have highlighted various "points of interest" and added some comments!

 

 

151124_Analytical_review_FINAL_VERSION.pdf

 

  • Like 4
Posted

I don't understand the bit about it including EYPP. This announcement was surely about the raise in funding rates because of the extra hours, but children who get the EYPP won't qualify for them anyway! just another way of screwing us over, making it sound better than it is never mind what will happen after the LA top-slice it, at this rate we will be getting less compared to what we get now after we take into account all our other costs! Makes me want to say 'get stuffed' to all of the funding and only take unfunded, paying children and then at least i wouldn't have to bow down to the LA. (It wouldn't work i know, but i can dream!)

  • Like 3
Posted

Thanks SueJ for posting that. I can honestly say I agree - it is blood boiling stuff!!

 

Seems to me that all that was once held dear has been scorned at by Mr G and Co.

 

We used to pride ourselves - and indeed were encouraged - to offer 'better than statutory ratios'. Now we are deemed to be squandering the entitlement cash!!

 

Arrrrrggggghhhhh. Totally demoralising. : (

 

Well next school year, they get what they get from me - sadly someone will be leaving my team. my 15% saving!! I shall no longer be scrimping and going without to provide 'high quality', it will be just 'good enough quality. According to 'findings' parents are'nt looking for higher staffing ratios anymore - just a dumping ground it seems.

 

Feel really mad!

  • Like 2
Posted

I don't understand the bit about it including EYPP. This announcement was surely about the raise in funding rates because of the extra hours, but children who get the EYPP won't qualify for them anyway! just another way of screwing us over, making it sound better than it is never mind what will happen after the LA top-slice it, at this rate we will be getting less compared to what we get now after we take into account all our other costs! Makes me want to say 'get stuffed' to all of the funding and only take unfunded, paying children and then at least i wouldn't have to bow down to the LA. (It wouldn't work i know, but i can dream!)

Too right pebbles! Wouldnt be surprised if the future of small settings will be exactly that - All into school with 1:13 ratio - just what the Government ordered!! A very caring society - not!

  • Like 2
Posted

It's ironic isn't it. I have worked in lots of sectors and the one thing that I have learnt about early years is that we are absolutely brilliant at scrimping and saving, adopting a real "make do and mend" philosophy. Yet, we are now viewed as inefficient, and need to work harder to become more efficient. Strikes me, that for all the 96 pages of analysis, the conclusion could well have been written before any of it was done- they have promised free hrs, can't actually fund free hours, don't dare to meddle with ratios ( as parents complain too loudly about this) so therefore the only conclusion to make the model "work" is to say it's our fault as we are inefficient.

 

Mr G, if you think it's so easy...go on, try it for yourself. Good luck!

  • Like 5
Posted

Does the government pay the same hourly rate to every LA at the moment, and does anyone know what that rate is (before LA takes their slice off)? Just so we can see what they are actually 'giving' us!!!! It's difficult to make the comparison because we all end up with such different rates.

Posted

Ok so here is the optimum and most efficient business model:

 

Wharehouse children for 30 hours per week for 38 weeks in a setting staffed by 50% qualified staff aged under 25 and preferably under 21 and 50% apprentices.

 

I intend no disrespect to colleagues here but those are the most "savings efficient" staff.

 

Have zero hours contracts and ensure that when a member of staff reaches either 21 or 25 they are no longer offered any hours - that way you can continue to maintain efficiencies by not having to make staff redundant and take new younger staff on to keep those efficiencies up.

 

Encourage existing staff with any scruples, aspirations or vocational vents (particularly those over 21) to see the benefits of working in an industry that actually places value on what they do.

 

Do you know it is getting harder and harder to keep sight of those things that I for one hold dear and drew me into this profession in the first place :-(

  • Like 3
Posted

Sue

 

I totally agree with what you are saying - no-one making these decisions has ever been in the position of actually running a nursery, I am sure.

 

I have to say, a couple of the comments you added to the Analytical Review made me smile - it was quite late last night, so not sure if it was a cringe or from amusement!

 

lsp

 

I think that is a really good point - I'm not sure exactly how we find out. I have tried really hard to find out exactly what my local maintained nursery receives from the LA but without much luck. I'm sure it will be a higher rate due to having "teachers", but I always manage to keep some of the children that are offered places as parents prefer to have the lower ratio - and we have a better Ofsted report :)

Posted

The information about rates paid to all authorities is in the public domain and has been posted on here before. In a bit of a rush but should be able to search for it.

From my point of view these rates are ridiculous ...we live in one of the most expensive areas of the country and though I agree that funding in the north is derisory the rates/rent and costs of living here are so high we will soon be out of business. Schools round here do not and will not take younger children because they have no room and there is no space to build ...so what is the answer???? Most of my parents will not be able to claim EYPP (very little council housing or support for those under the K16 )

I have always been proud to be flexible and come up with solutions to the stupidity of government but this is stretching my imagination to the limit....can't see how we can be sustainable on these levels.

  • Like 5
Posted (edited)

Thing is, the govt only allocates the designated school budget. It's the schools forum at local level that actually agrees what piece of the pie is given to early years. so the DSG varies widely and then the piece of EY pie also varies widely within that. Hence the need for a change to the system allocating the budget to LAs.

Edited by mundia
  • Like 5
Posted

Do we really need so many staff within the LA that are paid above the Living Wage, on most occasions? Yes i understand if the ones with years of education and training and experience are more valuable and i am sure these are paid a very good rate, and it's only fair to pay these "professionals" higher rates, but there are many workers within the education sector that might be a Secretary or office worker, data inputter, etc (less or unqualified jobs) that you can see advertised on job websites at at least £9 per hour! I saw a caretaker position advertised at £14 per hour! I don't mean to be disrespectful, but these jobs would easily be taken up for the NMW (LW) and thus saving a lot of public money.

 

Also within the LA the "top dogs" are earning silly amounts of money, and for what?! This is how a lot of savings could be made and then given to the people who deserve it or would benefit more from it.

  • Like 2
Posted

Thing is, the govt only allocates the designated school budget. It's the schools forum at local level that actually agrees what piece of the pie is given to early years. so the DSG varies widely and then the piece of EY pie also varies widely within that. Hence the need for a change to the system allocating the budget to LAs.

Make us Academies!! GIVE US THE MONEY!! : )

  • Like 1
Posted

It is all very worrying isn't it.......

 

But let's try hard to not 'jump the gun' - the wait is nearly over and it may not be as bad as we are all thinking - she says hopefully :blink: :rolleyes: :1b

:o Did I really say that - what was I thinking :blink:

 

I'm still thinking about all really - what a huge disappointment :(

  • Like 3
Posted

So in a nutshell we will get a small increase but not until 2017 - all that faffing around with EYPP and justifying spend and filling out more paperwork will be a waste of time if EYPP is going to be "incorporated" into the new rate.

 

An increase in 2017 will not help when the living wage and pensions become a reality for pretty much all of us next year!

 

We are our own worst enemies for striving for high quality and listening to all that comprehensive research regarding having high quality staff in sufficient numbers to improve children's outcomes.

 

We need to staff more efficiently by laying off 15% of our workforces so that we can make ends meet and provide good quality care - note good quality is now OK rather than high quality.

 

Surprise, surprise - settings with "higher than average" numbers of children with SEN need higher ratios - maybe we need to be a bit less caring and make things even more challenging for these families by just not accepting them so that we can keep our costs under control!

 

In no way should be endeavour to raise the pay rates of an already chronically low paid workforce - aarrrgggggg

 

Forgive me - it has been a long 12 hour day - yet another twilight briefing to attend - oh of course unpaid to keep costs down - regarding how important we all are in doing our bit in terms of Early Intervention - how deliciously ironic!!

 

For info I have scanned through the review - blood boiling stuff - if you have adobe I have highlighted various "points of interest" and added some comments!

 

 

attachicon.gif151124_Analytical_review_FINAL_VERSION.pdf

 

Posted

Sorry Sue - no idea what I did there - just wanted to say thanks for adding that link - I have downloaded but not really had the time nor the inclination to read properly yet........

 

Should we have known that this 'increase' would not be introduced until September 2017 - I certainly didn't :blink:

  • Like 1
Posted

I was sooooooooo utterly fed up with it yesterday I think I began to lose the will!!!!!

 

However I shall have a proper look through over the weekend to see if there is any joy to be found anywhere in THAT report.

 

Whilst any increase is truly welcome I do feel that the implications is that we should be sooo very grateful for these few crumbs that have been scattered our way and quite frankly I'm finding it hard to be grateful

  • Like 5
Posted

I was sooooooooo utterly fed up with it yesterday I think I began to lose the will!!!!!

 

However I shall have a proper look through over the weekend to see if there is any joy to be found anywhere in THAT report.

 

Whilst any increase is truly welcome I do feel that the implications is that we should be sooo very grateful for these few crumbs that have been scattered our way and quite frankly I'm finding it hard to be grateful

Sue did you find any joy from THAT report at the weekend? :P :P :blink: :ph34r:

Posted

In a word - NOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

In essence the report

 

  • Shows a staggering lack of understanding of the PVI sector and how we operate and wherever possible makes inappropriate assumptions about how costs can be reduced.
  • Makes the assumption that term time only settings are mainly voluntary and therefore they have lower operating costs
  • That providers can easily operate at capacity and therefore reduce their unit costs, extend their opening hours and therefore fill those extra hours with fee payers paying rates that will add to our overflowing coffers!
  • That providers can operate more efficiently and reduce their unit costs by operating with staffing ratios that do not exceed statutory requirements (e.g., reduce staffing levels by 15%) thereby boosting their profits!
  • That staff costs are only incurred during opening periods e.g., if you are open for 38 weeks you only have to pay 38 weeks wages!
  • That most providers are able to meet their operating costs - well obviously we do because if we don't keep our costs down we go bust - the fact that we have to pay our staff well below what they are actually worth to do this, fund raise, scour charity shops for resources etc. is not something that even appears on the radar.
  • That there is there is absolutely no interest in paying a rate that enables providers to actually pay their staff what they are worth.

 

However - a glimmer of light on the horizon - the PVI sector provides most of the funded places - perhaps the time has come to get militant!!!

 

Maybe we should band together and rather like other industries globally pull the service on certain days on a regular basis until the powers that be get the message!!

  • Like 5
Posted

I vote for pulling Tuesdays ...I hate Tuesdays, and now a staff member down.....maybe Mr G isn't doing anything today and he could come and visit the real world, does anyone have his number ;-p

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

 

Quote:

However - a glimmer of light on the horizon - the PVI sector provides most of the funded places - perhaps the time has come to get militant!!!

 

Maybe we should band together and rather like other industries globally pull the service on certain days on a regular basis until the powers that be get the message!!

 

 

 

Like your Style! I vote for Wednesdays!!

Edited by pebbles133
Posted

Surely this is the job of our support organisations though ....where is the support from the PSLA/NDNA etc etc......what ARE we paying THEM for?????? Why are they not shouting out loudly against this underfunding...they should be our lifeline with the government....they need to get off their bottoms ... :angry:

  • Like 7
Posted

Surely this is the job of our support organisations though ....where is the support from the PSLA/NDNA etc etc......what ARE we paying THEM for?????? Why are they not shouting out loudly against this underfunding...they should be our lifeline with the government....they need to get off their bottoms ... :angry:

Absolutely fm - oh but actually I'm not paying them at all this year :ph34r: could not possibly afford it......wonder why.....

 

If we are 'striking' - I'm in the 'lets pull Wednesday' camp - definitely the most tricky day of the week for me :blink:

  • Like 1
×
×
  • 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)