30 hours free childcare? what does it mean for CMs?

[mumofone]

Just as the title says, is this a bad thing for us CM's in that parents will choose this over using a CM. Should we offer the 30 hours at the 4.50 rate the government are paying (i think?!), i really need to read up on this....

[sarah707]

It has a long way to go before it's law and PLA are very vocal on our behalf :D

Childcare Expo - Alliance comments on government childcare plans following the Queen (http://www.childcareexpo.co.uk/m-news/view/alliance-comments-on-government-childcare-plans-following-the-queen%E2%80%99s-speech%284585%29.htm)

[Simona]

Just as the title says, is this a bad thing for us CM's in that parents will choose this over using a CM. Should we offer the 30 hours at the 4.50 rate the government are paying (i think?!), i really need to read up on this....

I wouldn't offer it yet as it is not set in stone or in legislation...it has to be passed by Parliament and in the C&Families Act.
I am sure you will hear a lot about it but it won't happen until 2017...or so the govt has promised
it was just an election gimmick....the Tories outdoing Labour by 5 hours!

IF it was properly funded it would be a good idea but it is only for working parents...not sure if it applies to single working parents but we will soon find out

I am sure it will be debated at the PLA conference next week and beyond!

[mumofone]

Really sorry to sound stupid guys but what's the pla?

[mumofone]

I wouldn't offer it yet as it is not set in stone or in legislation...it has to be passed by Parliament and in the C&Families Act. I am sure you will hear a lot about it but it won't happen until 2017...or so the govt has promised it was just an election gimmick....the Tories outdoing Labour by 5 hours! IF it was properly funded it would be a good idea but it is only for working parents...not sure if it applies to single working parents but we will soon find out I am sure it will be debated at the PLA conference next week and beyond!

Working parents are my customers though so I don't want them to go elsewhere...

[Simona]

Working parents are my customers though so I don't want them to go elsewhere...

Most of our children have working parents and we can care for those where, for instance, dad is at work but mum stays at home.
The 15 hours is a universal offer not the 30 hours.
I was trying to distinguish between the govt offer to working parents only while Labour offered 25 hours to ALL children regardless.....so all had a chance of good quality early education.
The free offer is for 'early education' although it is called free childcare

While it all sounds very easy there are many barriers the govt has not looked into as yet and I know providers are already asking questions.
As a cm you are more likely to be able to offer 30 hours than a preschool which rents a premises for a short period of time and cannot rent more.
Nurseries will be able to offer it too but they also need to expand.

We have a couple of years to listen and participate in all the coming debates.....stay tuned!

[sarah707]

Really sorry to sound stupid guys but what's the pla?

Pre-school learning alliance :)

[bunyip]

Just as the title says, is this a bad thing for us CM's in that parents will choose this over using a CM. Should we offer the 30 hours at the 4.50 rate the government are paying (i think?!), i really need to read up on this....

Beware of politicians' (ab)use of figures. The £4.50 will go from central government funds to your LA. The figure the LA pays you may be a lot lower than £4.50. Effectively, the CMs on the scheme are raising money for the LAs at a rate of about 75p ph/child.

LA's reserve the right to cream off a chunk of he funding money to administrate the scheme.

CMs, OTOH, are forbidden by LAs' funding rules from charging an admin fee, signing-up fee, etc. etc. to children of parents on the scheme. Fairness - well there's another "British Value", eh? :huh:

[mumofone]

Beware of politicians' (ab)use of figures. The £4.50 will go from central government funds to your LA. The figure the LA pays you may be a lot lower than £4.50. Effectively, the CMs on the scheme are raising money for the LAs at a rate of about 75p ph/child. LA's reserve the right to cream off a chunk of he funding money to administrate the scheme. CMs, OTOH, are forbidden by LAs' funding rules from charging an admin fee, signing-up fee, etc. etc. to children of parents on the scheme. Fairness - well there's another "British Value", eh? :huh:

Interesting thanks bunyip, is this what currently happens for those offering funded places too? How do CMs afford to do it then and why do they do it?

Where's the 75p from?

Sorry maths was never a strong point!!

[Simona]

Watch this clip with PLA CEO commenting on the 30 hours after the Queen's speech and also the clip before the election with a parent who hits the nail on the head about 'free' childcare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0VsXmTruss&feature=youtu.be

[AliceK]

Interesting thanks bunyip, is this what currently happens for those offering funded places too? How do CMs afford to do it then and why do they do it?

Where's the 75p from?

Sorry maths was never a strong point!!

What your LA gets per hour isn't what they pay you per hour. My LA is one of the lowest paying in the country, if I were to offer funded 3/4 yr places they would pay me £3.07 per hour. That isn't what they get from government though. They get a lot more that that. Considering my hourly rate is £4.00 I am then subsidising the "free" childcare by 93p per child per hour. Which is why I can't offer the funded hours. I simply can't afford to do it.

xxx

[bunyip]

Interesting thanks bunyip, is this what currently happens for those offering funded places too? How do CMs afford to do it then and why do they do it?

Where's the 75p from?

Sorry maths was never a strong point!!

For every hour of 3-4yo "free" childcare I provide, the LA draws £4.51 from the State, from which it pays me £3.77. The LA keeps the difference of 74p.

I said 75p because that's as near as dammit is to dommit and the precise 74p sounds a bit odd.

Yes, this already happens.

The Tory regime has yet to say how the general shortage of childcare places will be solved by offering to under-pay providers for twice as many hours as they already underpay us.

I'm sure that somewhere in the bowels of the Dept for Education (ha "Education" - another bad joke :laughing:) the following converation has already taken place;-

"
So, how do we encourage more people to open childcare businesses and thereby create more childcare places?"

"How about we offer to pay them less.?"

"Great idea, have an OBE and we'll run with that one."


Answer to your question: how do CMs afford to do it? = Barely

Answer to your question: why do CMs afford to do it? = Probably a mixture of pressure, fear (of losing out to other setting that do offer "free" childcare) and the usual reason why we all bend over and drop our knickers for parents - we're just that stoopid. :p

[bunyip]

What your LA gets per hour isn't what they pay you per hour. My LA is one of the lowest paying in the country, if I were to offer funded 3/4 yr places they would pay me £3.07 per hour. That isn't what they get from government though. They get a lot more that that. Considering my hourly rate is £4.00 I am then subsidising the "free" childcare by 93p per child per hour. Which is why I can't offer the funded hours. I simply can't afford to do it.

xxx

A lot of settings are already in this position. A lot more are reconsidering whether than can continue to offer "free" childcare if it is doubled. Others will go with it but be forced to cut costs somewhere.

Some will no longer be allowed to offer any "free" hours unless there are significant changes to local rules. Example: many preschools only open for mornings. They are frequently in rented rooms at church halls or community centres which are already hired out for the afternoon to the carpet bowls club, Little Prancers' music 'n' movement class, or Fat Club. Our LA will only pay funding to providers who offer the full entitlement. So, how does a preschool offer 30 hours "free" care when it only opens for 15 hours a week? Answer, it doesn't ................... and it loses all funding, and therefore may lose its clients and have to close.

So the net result of political promises of "more free childcare" could well result in "less free childcare" (ie. fewer childcare places in total.)

When we've settled all this, I remain at a loss as to why doubling the "free" hours for 3-4's is preferable to simply extending the 15 "free" hours to 1-2yo's. The current 'solution' is absolutely no help to mums seeking to return to work after maternity. I'm considering recouping my losses by offering a Birth Certificate forgery service to supply new mums with documents which are backdated by a couple of years (...come on, think about it. :rolleyes: )

It would, of course, be very "negative" of me to suggest this has more to do with focus groups, and the gullibility of the electorate, and far less to do with families and reality. :rolleyes:

[TinyTinker]

Our LA now only pay £3.30 p/h for 3-4 year funded hours! so a lot of childminders in my area whose hourly rate is higher than this have already stopped offering funded places!

[Simona]

Our LA pays £3.60 now...from £3.50 which had been set in stone since 1997....the local fee varies a lot but I know that some charge around £7...some less some even more.

Our LA is creaming off a lot more than 75 pence as in Bunyip's case...for many it is 50%

This is the guide for funding for 2 year olds for 2015/2016
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/392709/Hourly_rates_for_2-year-olds__2015_to_2016.pdf

There is a toolkit that allows you to compare what you get for 3/4 year olds against neighbouring LAs but I cannot locate it.

Mumofone...in order for providers to sustain our business, based on what we have forecast we need to have a small profit, we charge fees to return some sort of turnover that allows expenses and legitimate costs to be taken account of and have a small profit....some cms keep that profit low so they do not lose Tax Credits.

You ask what it means for CMs...it means that we need to charge more for the 'non funded' hours as most of the sector does...we set sessions and include this and that to recover the loss....even the govt has got that message now

The rest of the sector is warning that unfunded hours will go up even more...so CMs must really reflect as many are very resistant to raising fees...bear in mind parents do get lots of help towards childcare fees....while others who do not work are penalised....strange system we have!

Bunyip is also right about the charities putting pressure on the govt to help 'hard working families' even more ...but they seem to have concluded that providers are not hard working.
It has been a huge step in making them stop referring to 'free' childcare as it is not...see Family and Childcare Trust as they drop the 'free'...and also look at 4Children...being hugely funded by the DfE means they have to publicise govt policy regardless!

I also agree it would have been better to give the under 3s equal 'free' hours...not just those working families chosen by Cameron....he gave them more childcare on one hand but will take away child benefits? where is the logic?


Having said all that this govt has to be made to realise they have troubled the cost of childcare, thrown money to the wind but never tackled the real reason for the increase in fees....talk about going round in blinkers!

[FussyElmo]

Or the other side to the argument is mumtoone without knowing your rates and what the las pay.

Is you will get close or maybe even a little more than your hourly rate. Those parents then can access 30 hours of funded childcare/education. You get payed from the la so no (well rarely any issues with the payments) payment issues/excuses of tax credits etc.

So happy parents, happy childminders :-)

[bunyip]

I'm amazed that none of the Tory economic think-tanks have considering how this could progress in terms of cause-and-effect, not to mention The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Let's say 3-4yo's will get 30 hours pw. Under-3's continue to get no support (except the "disadvantaged" 2yo's). Rates paid to CMs remain stagnant.

First up, some 3-4yo's parents will opt for 30 hours care pw, only to get a shock when they have to pay for 30 hours' worth of holiday-time (unfi=unded) care.

As Simona suggests, settings will be obliged to offset the increased level of under-funding by increasing the £rates for paid-for hours. This, together with the likely fall in the number of childcare places (see my earlier post) will have a disproportionate impact on the parents of under-3's. And this will make it far harder for new mums to return to work.

It could almost be a policy designed to hinder women returning to the workplace. Any mum deferring her return to work until her child is 3yo will probably find things have moved on in her field of career, and struggle to find a job of similar status. (OMG, I just became a feminist intellectual. :p)

That's before we even address the question of which parents actually need most help with childcare costs. Being a universal entitlement is all very well, but it does mean that the rich get unneccessary support and the poor get less than they need. Is this sort of 'help' really necessary for the likes of Waity-Katy and the other Palace scroungers, churning out their appalling sprogs for the entertainment of the gutter press? :mad:

[Simona]

This article is one of the best I have read so far on the issue.

Queen's Speech: lots of promises, but challenges ahead on childcare (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/queens-speech-lots-promises-challenges-ahead-childcare)

[rickysmiths]

I'm amazed that none of the Tory economic think-tanks have considering how this could progress in terms of cause-and-effect, not to mention The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Let's say 3-4yo's will get 30 hours pw. Under-3's continue to get no support (except the "disadvantaged" 2yo's). Rates paid to CMs remain stagnant.

First up, some 3-4yo's parents will opt for 30 hours care pw, only to get a shock when they have to pay for 30 hours' worth of holiday-time (unfi=unded) care.

As Simona suggests, settings will be obliged to offset the increased level of under-funding by increasing the £rates for paid-for hours. This, together with the likely fall in the number of childcare places (see my earlier post) will have a disproportionate impact on the parents of under-3's. And this will make it far harder for new mums to return to work.

It could almost be a policy designed to hinder women returning to the workplace. Any mum deferring her return to work until her child is 3yo will probably find things have moved on in her field of career, and struggle to find a job of similar status. (OMG, I just became a feminist intellectual. :p)

That's before we even address the question of which parents actually need most help with childcare costs. Being a universal entitlement is all very well, but it does mean that the rich get unneccessary support and the poor get less than they need. Is this sort of 'help' really necessary for the likes of Waity-Katy and the other Palace scroungers, churning out their appalling sprogs for the entertainment of the gutter press? :mad:

They pay their Taxes the same as we do and I suspect they pay a darn sight more in a year than I will in a lifetime! Anyway most of them won't qualify for the additional 15 hours because Mum doesn't work.

[bunyip]

Or the other side to the argument is mumtoone without knowing your rates and what the las pay.

Is you will get close or maybe even a little more than your hourly rate. Those parents then can access 30 hours of funded childcare/education. You get payed from the la so no (well rarely any issues with the payments) payment issues/excuses of tax credits etc.

So happy parents, happy childminders :-)

That's true. The payments are guaranteed and consistent. We're quite lucky in that we get 70% at the start of term and the balance well before the end of term, so the payments never fall into arrears.

I do have other worries, though, and none of these seem to be mentioned in this morning's media flurry.

How much of a shock will it be to parents when they get a bill for 30 hours' (non-funded) care in the holidays?

If we end up increasing our fees in general to cover the funded hours shortfall, how fair is that? The 3-4yo's will effectively be subsidised by the other parents: especially any 3-4yo's who are TTO.

How much value will fully-funded families out on the service. There is a natural propensity for people not to value anything they get for free. I know settings who have terrible problems with fully-funded children who just don't turn up because mum and dad have taken them out on a trip and not bothered to tell nursery/preschool/CM. And when questioned, they just don't get it.

It makes the setting's position very precarious. What's to stop a fully-funded family walking away with no notice? They don't pay fees, so 4 weeks' contracted notice is meaningless. The setting is left with a gaping vacancy to fill immediately or a big loss of revenue. I know nurseries and a preschool who already suffer from this with just 15 hours funded. When there are 30 hours, it will cover more families and be more damaging to lose them like this.

[Simona]

That's true. The payments are guaranteed and consistent. We're quite lucky in that we get 70% at the start of term and the balance well before the end of term, so the payments never fall into arrears.

I do have other worries, though, and none of these seem to be mentioned in this morning's media flurry.

How much of a shock will it be to parents when they get a bill for 30 hours' (non-funded) care in the holidays?

If we end up increasing our fees in general to cover the funded hours shortfall, how fair is that? The 3-4yo's will effectively be subsidised by the other parents: especially any 3-4yo's who are TTO.

How much value will fully-funded families out on the service. There is a natural propensity for people not to value anything they get for free. I know settings who have terrible problems with fully-funded children who just don't turn up because mum and dad have taken them out on a trip and not bothered to tell nursery/preschool/CM. And when questioned, they just don't get it.

It makes the setting's position very precarious. What's to stop a fully-funded family walking away with no notice? They don't pay fees, so 4 weeks' contracted notice is meaningless. The setting is left with a gaping vacancy to fill immediately or a big loss of revenue. I know nurseries and a preschool who already suffer from this with just 15 hours funded. When there are 30 hours, it will cover more families and be more damaging to lose them like this.

The media is certainly in a flurry this morning and the BBC continues to refer to ' free' childcare
We have now heard that the EY sector will be consulted....however...it does not seem to me that the govt has even done the basic sums before pledging the increase in hours.

30 hours has huge implications on sustainability, we need to do the sums ourselves and work out what it really means.
We can honour the extended hours but not without compromising our businesses.
Raising fees is not the ideal solution but how will we earn enough to pay our basic business costs let alone pay our mortgages?
The main cause of rising childcare costs is the govt reforms since 2010 and the additional costs we have to meet...that needs to be looked into as the govt can throw a lot of money to parents but continues to ignore the very reason for the rising costs to providers

In addition if we honour the 30 hours for 3/4 year olds what will happen to 2 year olds? It seems to me there will be no spaces left for those kids who need it most....this offer is vey unequal and will be seen as a 2 tier system
I hope CMs will voice their opinions and concerns very strongly now that consultation is guaranteed.

Many LAs pay on time...although it is always in arrears...but not all do so and many providers face huge delays in getting their funding as each LA does as it pleases.

[AliceK]

Just worked out that if I had a 3yr old requiring childcare between 08.00 - 17.00 and I was to offer the 30hrs funding, with the shortfall that my LA currently pays per hr, for the additional 3 hrs paid childcare this child would need each day I would have to charge those hours at £5.96 ph.
I would not be willing to take on any 3yr old who wanted less than those hours. I can see the only way around this is if childminders hike up their hourly charge drastically for all funded 3/4yr olds.

xxx

[Ripeberry]

The whole thing will be a disaster! Hope the government don't try and put the blame on the childcare providers! :censored:

[Simona]

The whole thing will be a disaster! Hope the government don't try and put the blame on the childcare providers! :censored:

You can' t escape from discussions on childcare today on the radio, TV and there will be more.
I think the message going out to politicians is very clear....increase the funding or many providers will withdraw from the scheme
It' s a bit of a struggle to get everyone to understand that it is an issue that affects the whole sector...not just nurseries.
Keep voicing your views!

[Mouse]

I'm pleased to see that today's news stories are all highlighting the fact that funding is insufficient.

It makes a pleasant change to have the media saying we don't get paid enough rather than shouting out that we charge too much :thumbsup:

[FloraDora]

You can' t escape from discussions on childcare today on the radio, TV and there will be more.
I think the message going out to politicians is very clear....increase the funding or many providers will withdraw from the scheme
It' s a bit of a struggle to get everyone to understand that it is an issue that affects the whole sector...not just nurseries.
Keep voicing your views!

I and a nursery head friend are going to the next 'surgery' locally for our MP with the information and our book keeping. I think if we all let our MP know the issues then they will raise questions when it is discussed - ours attends a lot of meetings - he is quite a high attender so I am hopefully going to inspire him to attend everything where it is discussed!

[loocyloo]

I'm pleased to see that today's news stories are all highlighting the fact that funding is insufficient.

It makes a pleasant change to have the media saying we don't get paid enough rather than shouting out that we charge too much :thumbsup:

I was listening to Jeremy Vine and he was making that point, plus also heavily highlighting that it is only for 38 weeks of the year! plus a caller or 2 who said that preschools/nurseries subsidising care/can't offer more hours.

but he still got people phoning in and saying 'my childcare costs are too expensive'!

[teacake2]

I am so glad I am finishing Childminding July 2016, there have been far too many changes over the past few years and a lot of them have caused too much damage to childcare provider's ability to develop the care they wish to and many Parents want. I will have been minding for 32.5 years when I finish and feel quite worried for the new Minders setting up, they don't have much support from the LAs now and changes seem to be happening so often. Looking at FB pages and some of the questions asked on here I really feel that some of the new Childminders have had no support, they don't appear to have been taught the basics of paperwork needed, how to do the paperwork and how to run their business. This site is so vital to all Childminders to keep up with everything and have things explained to them.
I am lucky that the LA actually pay me the same amount an hour as I charge for funded children, but I certainly wouldn't do it for any less, why should we have to? Also payments should be made in a fairer way, why should I have to wait 5 weeks for any money at all, then I have to wait for the balance till the end of term? I am technically working for nothing for quite a few weeks of term.
Teacake2

[Simona]

I was listening to Jeremy Vine and he was making that point, plus also heavily highlighting that it is only for 38 weeks of the year! plus a caller or 2 who said that preschools/nurseries subsidising care/can't offer more hours.

but he still got people phoning in and saying 'my childcare costs are too expensive'!

I do think providers let parents believe that childcare was actually 'free' although they must have realised that the conditions imposed on them, such as prescribed sessions and paying for additionals such as music session, was meant to recoup the shortfall.
It was always part of my initial parents' interview to 'clear' the air about this myth of free childcare...so many fell off their chairs when told what the real story behind it is.

I have tweeted so many times that this issue also affects Cms but I am told there are no statistics on Cms because no data was accessible due to Data Protection.....I intend to get this clarified at the PLA AGM on Friday.

I think a funding review is necessary but also looking at why childcare is so expensive under this govt...parents have not a clue on our rising costs.

This is useful to watch ...clueless Cameron with that Priti Patel and my new Tory MP...a receipe for disaster!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZR70_US9_c&feature=youtu.be

[bunyip]

Just worked out that if I had a 3yr old requiring childcare between 08.00 - 17.00 and I was to offer the 30hrs funding, with the shortfall that my LA currently pays per hr, for the additional 3 hrs paid childcare this child would need each day I would have to charge those hours at £5.96 ph.
I would not be willing to take on any 3yr old who wanted less than those hours. I can see the only way around this is if childminders hike up their hourly charge drastically for all funded 3/4yr olds.

xxx

You're right but, if your LA rules are anything like ours, this would not be allowed.

We're not permitted to have a higher rate for additional hours taken by funded children, nor require parents to take up any additional hours. :(

[Simona]

Maybe you could point your LA to the DfE guidance especially p5 for clarification.
LAs cannot intervene in your business outside the funded hours...you can set any fees
All they must ensure you are not charging for the 15 hours

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-education-and-childcare--2

[AliceK]

You're right but, if your LA rules are anything like ours, this would not be allowed.

We're not permitted to have a higher rate for additional hours taken by funded children, nor require parents to take up any additional hours. :(

My LA can't tell me what to charge as my hourly rate. If I want to set a rate of £4.10 for 0 - 2yr olds and then up it to £5.96 for 3 and 4 year olds that's my business. As long as I am not forcing them to book additional hours (which I wont be I'll just pick and chose who I take on based on their requirements) or pay for their 30hrs funded then they can't change my business model.
Parents might think this is "free" childcare but once they realise they have to pay for wrap around care in the day and for school hols they will realise it's not so free after all :panic:

xxx

[SYLVIA]

Reading these sums, it appears that not only are me subsidising the funding through lower fees, but also through the taxes we have to pay so it's a double hit really. A few childminders in my area charge for a day, not hourly, so they invoice for example £50 per day, then take off the funded total and the parent pays the rest. Is this allowed?

[bunyip]

As you know Simona, I'm no fan of LAs attempting to imposing conditions. But for once I think they have a case. They're saying that if a childcare provider imposes conditions on a "free" childcare place, then that does not satisfy the requirement to be "free at the point of delivery".

So we're not permitted to offer 15 free hours on the condition that the parent takes up an additional 5 hours paid-for, and/or that any additional hours for funded children are charged at, say, £6ph if the setting would charge any other parent £4ph. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I spoke to someone at the LA about this. He told me they'd had problems when the current scheme was introduced. More than one nursery had hit upon the idea of offering morning and afternoon funded sessions with a 1-hour break in between. Funded children who stayed over this lunch break were to be charged some crazy figure like £15 for the hour plus lunch, whereas non-funded children paid a lot less. It was clearly done just to make sure anyone taking up the "free" hours was being charged a poorly-disguised top-up/surcharge. :(

If something is "free at the point of delivery" then it should be just that: no strings attached.

An analogy (and this is probably not perfect, but go easy on me here). An optician gives me free sight tests (because of a family history of glaucoma) under NHS "free at point of delivery" rules. I can have the free test, then walk away with my prescription to buy glasses anywhere I choose. They are not allowed to refuse me the eye test because I don't want to buy their glasses. Neither are they allowed to say I can have the eye test for free, but if I do want their glasses they'll put the price of those glasses up a bit more than they'd charge to another customer who'd paid for his/her eye test.

[Simona]

As you know Simona, I'm no fan of LAs attempting to imposing conditions. But for once I think they have a case. They're saying that if a childcare provider imposes conditions on a "free" childcare place, then that does not satisfy the requirement to be "free at the point of delivery".

So we're not permitted to offer 15 free hours on the condition that the parent takes up an additional 5 hours paid-for, and/or that any additional hours for funded children are charged at, say, £6ph if the setting would charge any other parent £4ph. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I spoke to someone at the LA about this. He told me they'd had problems when the current scheme was introduced. More than one nursery had hit upon the idea of offering morning and afternoon funded sessions with a 1-hour break in between. Funded children who stayed over this lunch break were to be charged some crazy figure like £15 for the hour plus lunch, whereas non-funded children paid a lot less. It was clearly done just to make sure anyone taking up the "free" hours was being charged a poorly-disguised top-up/surcharge. :(

If something is "free at the point of delivery" then it should be just that: no strings attached.

An analogy (and this is probably not perfect, but go easy on me here). An optician gives me free sight tests (because of a family history of glaucoma) under NHS "free at point of delivery" rules. I can have the free test, then walk away with my prescription to buy glasses anywhere I choose. They are not allowed to refuse me the eye test because I don't want to buy their glasses. Neither are they allowed to say I can have the eye test for free, but if I do want their glasses they'll put the price of those glasses up a bit more than they'd charge to another customer who'd paid for his/her eye test.

I totally see your point...if it is free than no extra charge should be imposed...but...how can we survive if the funding is so low?...especially now our training and support is so expensive
Maybe nurseries have pushed the boat out a lot but the govt cannot believe that it would not happen?
Suddenly Cameron et al have realised that unless they listen their scheme is going to fall over....where have they been for the last few years we have been grumbling?

I was running my preschool in 1997 when the free hours were introduced and it worked a treat...now is a mess due to the constant meddling of politicians and the 'childcare market'...that allows providers to charge as they like and places are in short supply....I have deep suspicions about this expansion the tories talk about, how can nurseries suddenly expand to provide 30 hrs in a years' time?

my view is that working parents will probably need the 30 hrs and a bit more, as that is only 6 hrs a day, so we need to decide how can recoup the loss.
I find it very worrying that women are booking their places at nursery even before they become pregnant...that was a turning point for me 'booking a child into an institution' before birth!

My biggest problem is accepting this is ONLY for working families...it should be for all children especially the poor 2 year olds
The other problem is having to subsidise well off parents when some cms earn very little....the low paid supporting the
better off?
The last problem is 'childcare' when the funding was supposed to be for early education...over to you!

[k1rstie]

An analogy (and this is probably not perfect, but go easy on me here). An optician gives me free sight tests (because of a family history of glaucoma) under NHS "free at point of delivery" rules. I can have the free test, then walk away with my prescription to buy glasses anywhere I choose. They are not allowed to refuse me the eye test because I don't want to buy their glasses. Neither are they allowed to say I can have the eye test for free, but if I do want their glasses they'll put the price of those glasses up a bit more than they'd charge to another customer who'd paid for his/her eye test.

I think this is a good analogy Bunyip.

[k1rstie]

If we put our non funded rates up, to claw back some of the shortfall, this will cause 3 problems.
The first being, that we should charge the same rate for all children, so children not claiming with you should also be charged the higher rate.
Secondly, if we put up our rates to cover the shortfall, how are we ever going to get any business as we would be so expensive
Thirdly, if we put up our rates, all the other childminders locally will put theirs up too, as they don't want to miss out on a good thing, but they are not offering funding, so they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Because I am offering funding, I do not want non funding childminders to get a pay rise.

[k1rstie]

The funding is offered over 38 weeks of the year, by other settings. We are open all year round, so we can spread the funding hours across the whole year.
For example.

15 hours per week = 570 hours per year, For a 38 week year.

If the 570 hours is spread over 48 weeks ( allowing for some holiday ), that's 11.875 hours per week.

30 hours per week = 1140 hours per year, for a 38 week year.

If the 1140 hours is spread over 48 weeks, that's 23.75 hours per week.

This spreading is done by a local childminder with assistants that need paying all year round. She says it works well.

[natlou82]

Well I hope we can claim for family once the new terms come in as at present I care for my Nephew 27 hrs per week (therefore my SIL could get those hours free with me) but at present I am not going to be able to offer it to her which means she will have to claim her hours elsewhere even though I've cared for my Nephew since he was 5 months old - mad :-#

[hectors house]

It's been on the news today about the extortionate rates charged to hospitals for bank staff employed by Nursing Agencies - you wouldn't get their Nurses working for a pound an hour less than the normal nurses get but this is exactly the same as the Government and LA expect from Nurseries and childminders who offer funding. We should be able to send the LA an invoice for the funded hours at our standard hourly rate or the funding should be for an amount of money and the parent use it to offset nursery fees - give it to the parents in a voucher account like employers voucher schemes especially as the extra 15 hours are supposed to be for working parents.

[Simona]

K1rstie...what you have described is a 'childcare market'...where service providers compete to attract business...except you have made this between you, who offer funding....and those cms who do not do funding and you do not wish them to get a 'pay rise'

There are many...thousands of Cms.... who refuse to draw funding because their loss would be great...in my LA only a few Cms offer it.
We need to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have considered sustainability to be the main issue including their family's financial needs and the bank manager's scrutiny, their mortgage, their future retirement or even their accountants' stern warning?
others refuse to be dictated by LA teams and comply with their useless conditions and intrusion in our private businesses.

The childcare market was created against providers' wishes but we had no choice with the last govt and the likes of Truss...so we have no choice but to somehow compete....watch the new employment minister Priti Patel... Truss' clone but more sure of herself!!

The 1140 hrs apparently will save parents £5000 per year...without considering the £2000 they will get via the Tax Free childcare and Tax credits....not mentioning child benefits.
I do not begrudge parents any help towards childcare but I feel it has to be balanced and we should also gain a little.

We cannot subsidise childcare and we would like to see a review of benefits for delivering Early Education under a statutory framework...Cms benefits have remained stagnant for 35 years...same old entitlement to a few ££ off the council tax!

Nurseries have adapted and now charge a lot ...sink or swim...I think cms can do the same and not resist a small yearly rise in fees. Some have not reviewed their fees for years and years...and yet they compete in the childcare market?
it should not be the low fees that attract parents but the quality of the setting and the CM.

We have made Cms seen as the cheap option...why?

If you divide £5000 : 1140 hrs = £4.38 per hour...that is the govt calculation...some LA give as low as £2.87

My LA pays £3.60 so I would subsidise the 1140 hours by 0.78 p per hour.
0.78 pence x 1140 hours = £889 per child per year

With our low ratio the rest is easily worked out and for CMs the loss is greater than nurseries....that is why I keep asking and tweeting for cms to be mentioned in this funding issue....Cms matter too....50,000 of us!

Finally the BBC did it last night and we got mentioned several times ...and by PLA too!
A small step!

I agree that we can spread the 1140 hours over the year but somehow I think we will have less room to do so...30 hours is an awful lot to allow such flexibility for all parents.

[greenfaerie]

My LA sent me an email just after registration, asking me if I wanted to sign up to take funded children. I read the paperwork they attached and it informed me that I would be paid £3.00 an hour. *blinks* *blinks again* I charge £35 a day for a 10 hour day. I would be losing £1.50 a day for those 3 hours, losing £30 for every 4 weeks. I also insist on being paid upfront, apparently the LA doesn't want to do this and they want to pay me in arrears. My business doesn't like this much either, nor does my budgeting.

I am confused as to why I would want to sign up for this "offer". The only plus that the LA seemed to offer me was "assured payment". As far as I am concerned I get that by charging up front. If they passed on more of the money that they are assigned then I would consider it. At the moment they are offering neither a carrot or a stick, just a bad offer with a knowing, optimistic nod.

I feel a slight niggle of guilt that parents in need are having to struggle to find "free" hours, but even that guilt is limited since Cameron is extending this to "working" parents only. I'm curious do the poor who are on insecure, zero hours contracts and having to feed their family at food banks count as "working".

There are many areas of my life where I like to express selfless behaviour, I think it's irresponsible to have my business and sole source of income be one of them.

[Mouse]

Don't believe the funding is assured payment. They forgot me once and I had to wait an extra 3 weeks while they chased my money and eventually paid me. I did ask if I could add my late payment fees, but I didn't get a reply to that email!

[greenfaerie]

Haha Mouse! Thanks for making me genuinely laugh out loud. :D If only more people thought about treating the LAs as fairly as they treat others. Maybe I'll just start paying my bills whenever the desire strikes me... (Probably never, let's be honest) :P

[Ripeberry]

My LA sent me an email just after registration, asking me if I wanted to sign up to take funded children. I read the paperwork they attached and it informed me that I would be paid £3.00 an hour. *blinks* *blinks again* I charge £35 a day for a 10 hour day. I would be losing £1.50 a day for those 3 hours, losing £30 for every 4 weeks. I also insist on being paid upfront, apparently the LA doesn't want to do this and they want to pay me in arrears. My business doesn't like this much either, nor does my budgeting.

I am confused as to why I would want to sign up for this "offer". The only plus that the LA seemed to offer me was "assured payment". As far as I am concerned I get that by charging up front. If they passed on more of the money that they are assigned then I would consider it. At the moment they are offering neither a carrot or a stick, just a bad offer with a knowing, optimistic nod.

I feel a slight niggle of guilt that parents in need are having to struggle to find "free" hours, but even that guilt is limited since Cameron is extending this to "working" parents only. I'm curious do the poor who are on insecure, zero hours contracts and having to feed their family at food banks count as "working".

There are many areas of my life where I like to express selfless behaviour, I think it's irresponsible to have my business and sole source of income be one of them.

Well said! I've never offered funding and parents have accepted that.

[mumofone]

Has this been passed now? Is it going ahead?

[Simona]

Has this been passed now? Is it going ahead?

It will take a bit of time to pass this Bill...if you look at the other thread you will see that it has arrived at the House of Lords and they are certainly not pulling their punches on how unclear it is!!

[mumofone]

It will take a bit of time to pass this Bill...if you look at the other thread you will see that it has arrived at the House of Lords and they are certainly not pulling their punches on how unclear it is!!

Oh that's why I thought but they were talking on tv this morning as if it were a given that it would go ahead...bit misleading!