Jump to content
Home
Forum
Join Us
Articles
About Us
Tapestry

30 hours funding and 2 year old's problem!


BroadOaks
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is looking like come September 2017 when the 30 hours funding is available for many 3/4 year old's and / or if the rate increases, many 2 year old's could simply not have places available!

 

Given a choice and looking at the business model itself, and with the increase in eligibility for 2 year old funding, many 2 year old's could struggle to find a place!

 

Maybe there is a gap in the market for childminders and a lot will be required?

 

Your thoughts please.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been told by Suffolk that we have to keep spaces for the children on our waiting list who'll be turning 2 over the year. I think it may have been specifically those who'll be eligible for 2 year funding over the year, but that's most of my 2 year olds anyway.

 

We can take up to 28 children a session, so currently book no more than 24 for the Autumn term and no more than 26 for the Spring term to accommodate this. Until someone phones up desperate for a space for a Child in Need...

 

If we have a paying 2 year old on the register taking up less than 5 sessions, we also hold the rest of the spaces for them, (ie, had a child turning 3 in December who had 2 am sessions in the Autumn, so held the other 3 ams for her for January. She went to school nursery instead...)

 

That's lovely for being able to accommodate children of course, but doesn't put money in the bank.

 

The other thing to consider is that if we are able to take eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours, 'ordinary' 3 & 4 year olds and funded 2 year olds for 15 hours, who will have places for the children who turn 3 over the year who weren't eligible for 2 year funding?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree Broadoaks. And as for any authority expecting a provision to keep places vacant for a term, is just ridiculous. Do they actually understand that provisions are struggling even if full. Can you tell I'm weary with it all.:(:(:(

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I know what I would say to my LA if they suggested we keep places open- gosh that has really made my blood boil- how dare they pay you rubbish funding and then tell you to keep places empty 'just in case'

 

When the 3/4 year old funding very first started there was a criteria (much like the 2 year funding is now) they used to tell us then that we had to keep at least one place empty over the year 'just in case' I dont think any one ever did though and funding was quite a bit more than our fees were then!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been told by Suffolk that we have to keep spaces for the children on our waiting list who'll be turning 2 over the year. I think it may have been specifically those who'll be eligible for 2 year funding over the year, but that's most of my 2 year olds anyway.

 

We can take up to 28 children a session, so currently book no more than 24 for the Autumn term and no more than 26 for the Spring term to accommodate this. Until someone phones up desperate for a space for a Child in Need...

 

If we have a paying 2 year old on the register taking up less than 5 sessions, we also hold the rest of the spaces for them, (ie, had a child turning 3 in December who had 2 am sessions in the Autumn, so held the other 3 ams for her for January. She went to school nursery instead...)

 

That's lovely for being able to accommodate children of course, but doesn't put money in the bank.

 

The other thing to consider is that if we are able to take eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours, 'ordinary' 3 & 4 year olds and funded 2 year olds for 15 hours, who will have places for the children who turn 3 over the year who weren't eligible for 2 year funding?

What sort of setting are you Lyanne? If you are PVI, they have no right to tell you to hold places!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see how they worded this request?

 

With the recent High Court case regarding Term Time Holidays it has proven that some LA's interpreted the wording "Regular Attendance" in order to fine parents for taking children on holiday.

 

Government gave powers to head teachers and LA's so to be able to send "fixed penalty notices" for repeated truancy. This is simply a quick effort to put a stop to truancy and I understand this is a good thing. The problem is that it is unlawful to actually fine anybody without a day in court. So when taking money from parents, without a conviction and with no law being broken being able to even get a conviction, it could be classed as fraud!!!

 

Anyway I don't think the LA telling you to leave a space open (potential income loss) is fraud... but it would be an interesting argument :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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)