Funded places for 2 yo: risks, flaws and solutions [Archive]

Mouse

01-07-2014, 08:16 AM

I think a lot of that is very true.

Our LA took part in the pilot 2 year old scheme a few years ago. Children were referred through a social worker, or similar, carefully placed in the most suitable setting (sometimes a childminder, sometimes a nursery) and monitored to see that they were getting the help they needed. Each setting had input from a teacher and were supported with extra resources. The help really seemed to be targeted at the children and required a lot of commitment from the practitioner, which is why many didn't want to join in.

As the number of 2 year olds increased, our LA was desperate for places to put them. We've had a huge number of nurseries expanding their premises and pre-schools being set up in church halls etc. Grants have been handed out here, there & everywhere - the more 2 year olds you could take in, the more money you'd get. I know a nursery owner who received a lot of money to expand her premises. She now has a building specifically for 2 year olds & piles in as many as she can. She doesn't really have anything to do with the day to day running of the nursery, but has a firm grip on the business side. She employs the minimum number of staff that she can get away with, pays them minimum wage - and is very happy with the profits she gets from the constant supply of 2 year olds.

But, there is little LA support now. No one checks on the standards of care provided, or that the children are where they should be. As long as the LA is finding spaces for the 2 year olds, they're happy. Many of the nurseries around here have been graded inadequate, but the LA has to keep funding them as there's no where else to put the children. It doesn't seem to matter what quality of care the children get, as long as they are going somewhere,

The whole point of funding 2 year olds seems to have been lost :panic: