Oh my goodness...this govt is getting panicky and releasing 'pie in the sky' information
My calculations point to the opposite directions...
Nursery reforms could cut childcare costs by 28%, DfE calculates | Money | The Guardian
Oh my goodness...this govt is getting panicky and releasing 'pie in the sky' information
My calculations point to the opposite directions...
Nursery reforms could cut childcare costs by 28%, DfE calculates | Money | The Guardian
So am I getting this right ? They are suggesting a nursery will have 73 children in each day 5 days a week full time..
Well I would love my child to be one of 73 wouldn't everyone....
I think this would refer back to the earlier article of the week 'battery farm childcare'
:laughing::laughing::laughing:
Current rate @ £4 per hour = £2336.00 per day
Versus
Government projection @ £2.88 per hour = £1681.92 per day
And the powers that be think the lower amount is a viable option to companies that are in the business of making a profit :laughing::laughing::laughing:
No wonder we're in a financial mess as a country! Politicians eh?!
more likely to cut childcare provision by 28% :panic::panic:
Somebody get the straight jackets ready...
Not anywhere in this article has it mentioned the poor practitioner who now has to look after more children. I am sure that if they do get a small rise in their wages (probably about £50 per month). It will not be anywhere near worth it for all the extra work. Why don't they just pass a law which states 'as this country is in a big financial mess everyone has to produce 50% more output from their work, in the same amount if time for no more pay.' See what fuss will be caused then! Ridiculous figures quoted.
Has anyone actually drawn some figures as to what it would cost if they were to increase their numbers and found that it would actually cut costs??
the article is clever in saying lower costs would be passed to parents...how? and why 28%? and of course blames Clegg for this...another political manoeuvre...sad really!
I am trying to draw a financial projection with the costs that are a 'MUST' and those which are 'OPTIONAL' taking account of the present ratio (I get full fees as I am not in the network) against an increase in children but with the lower Free Entitlement
The problem in my view is that real figures of delivering high quality have never been presented by anybody...all research points to an increase in fees but does not reflect an increase in our costs...
Simona we have no way of making those projections until we know what the true cost of being an independent childminder is - registration and inspection fees , training costs , insurance costs which are likely to rise as the risks increase with higher ratios.
My ability to take extra under 5s doesnt mean that I will financially be a lot better off - If i went this route i could do less wrap around care as my overall number of children remains unchanged.
I have a feeling that once the figures are available my costs will actually increase more than my income and so fees , if anything , would increase.
You make a very good point there. The fact that our overall numbers will remain the same means we're not going to reduce our charges for under 5s as we'll be losing income from over 5s. It's simply redistributing where the money is coming from. Anyone taking on an extra under 5 is going to lose the income from an over 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by mama2three
There have been figures quoted regarding our future inspection fee...not confirmed of course, we also can roughly calculate how much it would cost for statutory training such as First Aid if we had to buy it
My calculations are based on costs now and what they maybe in future...what helped is seeing the final accounts for 2012/2013
Cms will still be able to look up to 6 children under 8 and some will also do the over 8 and holiday cover while others will only concentrate on young children
The DfE calculations are based on nurseries ..the word cm does not appear once so we are not even considered
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...r_on_ratio.pdf