Rea Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 hi Wheel, is all this because funding is to come from local government now instead of central? I've been reading that there is a general fear that LA's will be skimming off some of the NEG for other things. Is this the start of that? I will be looking at funding in my area very carefully now. I was interested to read what Steve told you about consulting with other providers etc about local needs. Our local primary head is building a very secret nursery (obviously we all know because the other school staff talk to us) The nursery will seriously damage us at playgroup but at least now I know there is a code of practice i can get more involved and we can all have a say. So thanks Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 surely rea if the head is getting a nursery, the lea has to consult other providers in the area. The nursery can be vetoed if other interested parties object as it would damage their existance. I am sure of this bec my nursery wanted to change the 2 term intake to 3 term and we were told that the local pre-school had to be consulted as it would affect thei numbers and funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rea Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Hi Leo, thats good to know. Thanks, I will keep an eye on things or I could be out of a job in a couple of years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted June 28, 2004 Author Share Posted June 28, 2004 You're welcome Rea I think the allocation of funding might be a slightly different issue than whether or not a school should be able to begin a nursery class though. As far as I understand the Local Authority is responsible for ensuring that there is a variety of settings to expand parental choice. If there are already quite a number of primary schools with nursery classes that might be different, but it's difficult to see how the LA would be able to dissuade the school from making it available. As long as it doesn't then (as Wheels experience above suggests) manipulate parents into taking up the maintained places in preference to private or voluntary setting places. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rea Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Thanks Steve. I'm going onto the LA web site now, see what I can find out from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 yes Steve but interested parties could make it very difficult to give the final yes to the lea school nursery. Our nursery building was up and ready for 5 years (used in the measntime by reception) before the pre-school allowed the go- ahead. There is a clause that parents wihtin the school could object or soemthing similar and since the pre-school committe had children within the school they were in a position to hold the school to ransom for 5 years. The only way we got the go ahead was to rent the nursery in the afternoon to the pre-school.......but that's another story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Received forms for funded three year old places today. Each parent HAS to apply to two maintained nursery classes before funding in another setting can be applied for. It seems sad that parental choice is being limited, this policy also adds to the impression that the provision we provide is inferior in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Just read your reply from earlier Steve and I am going to contact Surestart now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 For interested parties - Nursery World cover dated 1st July 2004 carries an interview with Margaret Hodge which touches upon this issue. She seems to be firmly pro-choice, with the field being open to all, maintained, private and voluntary. Just my two-pennorth, but a deeply held two-pennorth!! Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 Hi Wheel - As mentioned before, I strongly recommend you contact the Sure Start phone and email contact numbers I gave out. What you're experiencing is clearly not in line with the guidance. If you can have to hand some of the documentation you have, including the newspaper ad, I'm sure you will find some help! Keep us in touch with what goes on, and keep your chin up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 Hi. I am in Hampshire. We get up to 5 sessions a week for 11 weeks a term. I queried the code's intention that SEN children should receive the full 5 sessions grant regardless of how many sessions they actually do, plus the question of spreading the entitlement over more than 11 weeks and Hants said that the code has only just come out (!) so they are having to consider how these provisions would be funded for the future. On another note, the code states that the free session must not be topped up by extra fees. I charge £11 for a three hour session. I deduct the grant £7.82 approx from that sum and the parent pays the rest. The parent also pays for the extra sessions in a term where a term is longer than 11 weeks. To comply with the code, I shall have to allow/show 2.5 hours per session as absolutely free, and charge the parents for the remaining half hour at £3.18! I believe that settings who only operate 2.5 hour sessions but who charge a higher fee than the grant allows for will be in difficulty. Anyone had any thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 Just a quick Hi to sarahben, there, before I get off to the hospital. Good to see your first post!! Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beau Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Hi Sarah, Almost a whole year before your first post! Glad you joined the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Hi Sarah, Welcome, and thanks for making your first post. The Code really confused me last year, and I was particularly worried about the statements that seemed to be saying we were obliged to offer free 2.5 hour sessions to anyone who wanted them! I telephoned SureStart who said that this is not what it meant at all, and it was unfortunate that the wording was so misleading. They also said that it would be changed to a clearer statement the following year. Not so It still says the same thing, but I was assured that if I want to charge a top-up for a longer session and insist to parents that that is the only thing on offer, that is fine. However, we have a four hour session, and your point about a 2.5 hour sessional rate being more than the grant is a valid one. I don't have the answer to that. Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rea Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 Hi, my sister-in-law has been asking me about having to pay even though my neice will be eligible for the NEG. From what I can see the Code of practice says (page 14, section 90) Parents of eligible children should pay no charge in respect of their childs free entitlement...parents will be expected to pay for any additional care received which exceeds the free entitlement. I take it to mean that if you offer 2 and a half hour sessions and charge £10 it's basically tough! You cannot take the extra money, but if you provide a four hour session you can charge some extra. I've read somewhere recently that the NEG is for a FREE place not an assissted place. I also read that settings in Kent can charge the extra and that they have their own version of the code, is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 I wouldn't have thought that they have their own version of the code in Kent Rea. It is a national document but they may put their own slant on it, as many authorities do. The idea of a free nursery place is that children must have a 2 and a half hour place for 5 sessions a week for 33 weeks of the year, where the sessions are available. They can split the sessions between more than one setting and any additional care over and above those times can be charged for. Linda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 Thank you for putting it so succinctly, Linda. I'm with you all the way! Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 Hi, I'm based in kent and we follow the 'national' code of practice, however we were issued with a user friendly step by step guide on how it is implemented. I opened my setting 3 years ago (2001) , the NEG was funded for 11 weeks each term, I would charge parents for any additional weeks we were open. I was soon told by parents that other preschools in the area didn't charge for extra weeks. (some children attended 2 settings). My local grant administrators (LA) told me that as my fees were below the grant figure I should use the balance to offset children's attendance fees after the 11 weeks. I was concerned that I may have been doing something illegal so I searched the internet for the parliamentary papers from which the code of practice was based from, regarding the education grant 'act' ( not the correct title)... anyway... it was a very difficult document to understand.... In April 2002 - I challenged our local grant administrators again regarding their interpretation of the code and they gave me the contact number of DFES - Mr Paul Stubbs (020 72735681) He was very helpful, he said he had written the legal parlimentary papers, so he obviously understood it very well!!!!! From his conversation I was assured that charging parents for the extra weeks was ok. He clarified that the NEG is an allocated amount for the purpose of education ( at this time there were different rules between 3 and 4 yr olds) My fees at the time were below the grant level but the grant is not a replacement for fees it should be used for educational staff, equipment, extra costs for staff administration to meet the curriculum requirements, staff planning meetings etc. In fact Paul said that by using the grant to subsidise additional sessions ie: attendance over the 55 sessions per term was in fact not what the grant is for and would therefore be deemed as being misused. Anyway I informed the LA who chose not to inform other settings in the area about charging for extra sessions. Up to date - This summer (2004) we received a user friendly guide (not a different code of practice) and these are the major changes that I have clarified with the LA.. 1. All children are entitled to 55 sessions per term 2. Because the spring 2005 term is only 10 weeks long ( total 50 sessions) we have to provide 12 weeks in the Autumn 2004 term which will all be funded. ( total 60 sessions) 3. If a child attends only 2 sessions a week and does not attend another setting he/she will be funded in the Autumn term up to a maximum 60 sessions ie: As my preschool is open for 14 weeks in the Autumn term I can claim 2 sessions X 14 weeks = 28 sessions granted. The top up means that no extra charges can be made for the 2 1/2 hrs 'education' time. The government has decided that the grant amount is sufficient for meeting the cost of education within the time period. However I say Government, I'm not really sure if different authorities pay different amounts to providers. My sessions are 2 per day & 3 hrs long, I have never charged for the 1/2 hour difference, however to maintain sustainability I may have to do this in the near future. My fees at present are £6 per session ( £2 per hour) so I may charge 50p for the additional half hour funded children attend the session. My thoughts on this however are that we should not impose conditions to parents choosing to attend NEG sessions, therefore if some parents choose not to attend the extra half hour, and some do, this would make staff ratio planning quite difficult. It is all a real nightmare. Why can't they just allocate a (realistic) sum of money per year, per setting, for a set number of places whether they are filled or not. Much less admin, settings could better plan long term budgets, staff levels would not have to reduce in the Autumn terms ( which are very quiet for many settings) and the LA would have a smaller admin work load. I hope this has helped and hasn't confused. Peggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rea Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 Thanks for that Peggy, no chance of confusing me, the Government beat you to it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hali Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 I agree with that one Rea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 hi peggy, i know where your coming from with this one. I had brought this matter up earlier in the year with my committee, they decided that parents would not be able to afford to pay for extra ( funny that, parents of non funded children have no problem with paying for sessions) NEG children are already getting 55 sessions a term for free. My fee's are only now up to £4.25 this sept, for a 2 1/2 hr session. I too have had to cut back on staff in sept to save costs, but the planning, staff meetings, training etc all still have to continue and be funded from somewhere. I proposed the payment for extra payments, but no-go, maybe now i have a new committee i can put it forward again. I dont think this problem will ever really be sorted, and its up to the individual setting to decide. But you can see why so many playgroups struggle to keep their heads above water. This money is supposed to help with wages, but we also have to fundraise to help, which i know we shouldnt be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Hi Ruthie, The point you could take to your committee is that the grant IS ONLY FOR THE 21/2 hours. It SHOULD NOT BE USED to subsidise longer sessions. This is what Paul Stubbs made clear to me. All recipients of the grant can be audited at any time, I'm not sure what this entails whether they just check numbers of children etc, but it may include how the grant is spent. It is not a fee, but a payment to educate 3 & 4 yr olds. Good luck with your new committee. Peggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts