Dear colleagues...a letter from Sam Gyimah

[Simona]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sam-gyimah-letter-to-early-education-and-childcare-providers

[lollipop kid]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sam-gyimah-letter-to-early-education-and-childcare-providers

Nice to see that he's remembered to mention Childminders this time (but not a single mention of Childminder Agencies, interestingly). :D

Sad to see that twice he talks about "15 hours of free childcare" - what happened to the 15 hours of "free education"???

(Perhaps he's just confused on his own policies - or maybe not.)

:censored:

L

[Mouse]

Dear Colleagues...

Sit back and watch me give myself a big pat on the back for doing very little

Love & hugs

Sam xx

:rolleyes:

[bunyip]

Nice to see that he's remembered to mention Childminders this time (but not a single mention of Childminder Agencies, interestingly). :D

Sad to see that twice he talks about "15 hours of free childcare" - what happened to the 15 hours of "free education"???

(Perhaps he's just confused on his own policies - or maybe not.)

:censored:

L

And it's not 15 hours. It's less than 11 hours pw when the weeks they'll pay for are averaged across the year.

And it's not free. It's subsidised by childminders being paid below their standard rate, and providing meals, materials, outings, etc. to subsidise it. That's not to mention the additional unpaid hours we spend on the additional administration. :mad:

[lollipop kid]

And it's not 15 hours. It's less than 11 hours pw when the weeks they'll pay for are averaged across the year.

And it's not free. It's subsidised by childminders being paid below their standard rate, and providing meals, materials, outings, etc. to subsidise it. That's not to mention the additional unpaid hours we spend on the additional administration. :mad:

I for one am sick to the back teeth of this question. I have always encouraged my parents to send their children to the local nursery for their "free xx hours". I am now even more committed to doing this. (The Nursery is excellent anyway.) This way, whatever care the children receive from me will be charged at a rate that I'm happy with (and in control of).

:censored:

L

[bunyip]

Whilst I offer the funded provision, I fully understand why so many CMs do the same as lollipop.

My LA has just this week deigned to tell us which weeks they will fund in April. So I can now begin to figure out which children will be here in a couple of weeks - and this is supposed to help with planning???? :huh: :p :mad:

The latest pack has given us an additional requirement: that we include certain information on every invoice, showing the funded hours and making it clear which hours are funded and which are not. I've written a set of notes to go with each and every invoice, giving all the information the LA now demands we provide. The notes also include some details I suspect the LA would rather parents do not know, thus:-


The level to which I am subsidising the "free" care.
The fact that I provide £5-£10 worth of meals/snacks/drinks (comparable to prices at local food businesses/soft play centres, except that mine are of a higher standard and nutritional value) per day during funded hours for no additional charge
The refusal of the LA to fund the sort of flexible care arrangements required by shift workers and low-paid families working unsociable hours
The truth that a 3 year old may not b able to access funded care until they are 3 years and 4 months old, despite the misleading leaflets/brochures/claims made by LAs that the care is free to all 3 & 4 year olds.
The additional hours I spend on administrating the scheme
The fact that funded care rates are based on out-of-date statistics and have remained frozen for at least 4 years, thus depressing my 'real' earnings, at a time that the LA has made political capital out of supporting a 'living wage' for its own staff and rise in the national minimum wage - and, believe me, Mrs Bunyip and I would love to aspire to making a massive £6.50 for every long hour we put into the job. :(
The fact that LAs frequently draw more money from the public purse for funded childcare than the figure which reaches the hands of childcare providers, and parents may wish to make enquiries with the LA about these facts before they decide where to put their respective crosses in the next round of national/local elections.
The fact that I have to point out all this does tend to prove that "15 hours free childcare for all 3 & 4 year olds" might just be construed as a false and misleading claim by politicians, local councillors and every piece of propagandist literature they put out about it.

[Simona]

I for one am sick to the back teeth of this question. I have always encouraged my parents to send their children to the local nursery for their "free xx hours". I am now even more committed to doing this. (The Nursery is excellent anyway.) This way, whatever care the children receive from me will be charged at a rate that I'm happy with (and in control of).

:censored:

L

In order to understand the reason why it is often called 'free childcare' we have to go back a few years when the 15 hours were introduced under the John Major Govt in 1997...it was then truly FREE to parents and providers.
Bear with me and I hope not to bore you

Parents paid with 'Vouchers' and we all had a lovely sticker we could put up for display in our windows so parents passing by would see it...knock on the door and ask for details....plain, simple and very cheap to display....no website or app to look out for.

How did the free childcare work?...very simple and I did it for years as I owned a preschool until 2001when I became a CM and immediately I was blocked from doing the funding until I had to join a CM network to do so...that was the worst thing I ever did....but that's another story!
We invoiced the parents who paid us in full...we were allowed to 'top up'...parents had absolutely no problems with this
LAs paid us and on time too...less bureaucracy back in 1997

At the end of the term we refunded the parents the 'funded hours'...to this day I can remember the happy faces when they saw the cheque
The only condition on providers then was that one place had to be 'totally free' to one family and we had the right to choose...that was simple too.

I can reassure you...as I still have all the records...that fees stayed stable and cost of childcare went up very little.

Then it all evolved into politics...
Sam Gyimah has been told several times ...as has Clegg and anyone in the Labour party... that we 'subsidise' the 15 hours ...but...there is an election coming so they are not suddenly going to appeal to the 'hard working' families by telling them the truth: your low paid provider is 'actually' paying towards your early education?
Unfortunately all of them suffer from selective hearing!

Many providers now are starting to really explain to parents how it all works and suddenly parents are having to face the truth.
I think all cms should do the same. Put it on your website, contract or Prospectus...clearly worded: we offer 'subsidised education'...talk to nurseries and preschools and learn how they put conditions on funded hours...I have an dknow how they operate...good for them!

I personally think there is a reason for calling it 'childcare' ...not education...and that is linked to the fact the govt is pushing parents into schools very early where their children get the education from the school and we...do the childcare.
Enter 'CMs agencies' like St Bedes Academy...school does the education...cms do the childcare....very clear really.

See this article on school providing childcare...anyone worried about this and why it is publicised this way by the govt?

Performance tables to include school childcare provision | Nursery World (http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1150466/performance-tables-school-childcare-provision?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Bunyip...LAs cannot impose any conditions on you...if they do you can raise concerns...I have done so to many public bodies...they don't listen but I don't care as long as I can raise the worry.
The only condition is you show clearly in your invoice you 'do not' charge extras for the 15 hours...that is the only thing they are allowed to audit you for...nothing else...it is in the DfE Guidance to LAs.

Yes LAs do pay very late but the govt has also told them to improve on that and some are more fair than others.
Write to Gyimah and anyone you can

Unfortunately we also know that some providers actually get more funding than they charge...so they are not really going to come out and fight for equality on this ...are they? it is really a farce!...where are the representing associations on this?

I also believe we should all aspire to bring in a certain minimum amount per hour...why not...after all the National Minimum Wage is the same all over the country so I am unclear why some cms charge so little and never raise their fees?...ah yes 'hard working' parents cannot afford to pay?...but we cannot afford to subsidise them either

The funded rates are based on recent DfE formulas ...unfortunately the LAs continue to 'cream off'...because they can despite the bleatings from the DfE

It is really all down to us as individuals to reflect whether funding childcare is worth putting our sustainability at risk....if we all starting limiting the places and putting quota on places the issue would soon attract attention....or like many of us do refuse to take funded children.

[Ripeberry]

I've never offered the 'Free' hours and never will. I could see what a crock of :censored: it was when I used to deal with it in pre-school! :(

[Simona]

I've never offered the 'Free' hours and never will. I could see what a crock of :censored: it was when I used to deal with it in pre-school! :(

I have taken the same stance as have many cms in my LA...very few offer it so now the LA is asking us to come forward to get more clarification....no we are very clear on it...thank you!
They fail to understand that the low rate for 3/4 year olds is the cause...£3.60 which was raised this year by 10 p since I can recall...over 10 years! For 2 year olds is £6.10

Unfortunately that means that many Good/Outstanding cms are not involved and LAs have to pool into RI Cms...it is a real shamble...but in the end it is the LAs who will lose as they will only get paid 'by result' now....and more children will go into school at 2!

[bunyip]

Bunyip...LAs cannot impose any conditions on you...if they do you can raise concerns...

Without going over old ground (again) you've said this on many occasions. Twice I've raised the conditions they imposed and you agreed the LA actually can impose those particular conditions (mainly based on session length, and times at which funded care can be delivered) because of the need for it to be an educational experience. :(

For this we can think all the CMs who were so desperate to achieve equal status with nurseries whilst losing sight of the majority of parents who want good ol' childcare. :(

[Simona]

Without going over old ground (again) you've said this on many occasions. Twice I've raised the conditions they imposed and you agreed the LA actually can impose those particular conditions (mainly based on session length, and times at which funded care can be delivered) because of the need for it to be an educational experience. :(

For this we can think all the CMs who were so desperate to achieve equal status with nurseries whilst losing sight of the majority of parents who want good ol' childcare. :(

I am sorry Bunyip but I think you have got this wrong
LAs do impose conditions but we can challenge that...there is only one we cannot and that is the audit...as long as all they check is the invoices and not what I hear they are getting away with such a accounts and bank statements...that is a no no.
LAs are asking CMs to get a Level 3 when it is not required....and much more
Session length and times are actually imposed by the DfE in their guidance which I have posted many times for CMs to challenge their LA...that is how I have challenged myself.

The reason CMs wanted equal status was to end the appalling and discriminatory Network elitist stance that only those who belonged to them were privileged enough to do the funding...that is my personal take on that.
Without doing funding CMs will be left holding the baby...literally.

I think many CMs do not go anywhere near comparing themselves with nurseries and unfortunately care and education go hand in hand...you cannot separate them.
as for parents only wanting good old childcare I think times are changing ...for the worse ....as we know parents now demand a lot more because they believe earlier is better....as brainwashed by the govt. and HMCI inspector himself who told parents to put their child in schools and not with the local CM....his statement caused a bit of a stir and upset with PLA taking this on behalf of CMs.

CMs have a choice...do the funding or not...I chose the latter because I do not intend to be dictated by my LA or have a contract with them so I can comply with their conditions which I don't like

[bunyip]

No worries, Simona: I accept your apology, though it isn't really necessary.

But i do distinctly recall you telling me that LAs were allowed to set minimum/maximum session lengths and start/finish times during the day for the delivery of "free" "childcare". Maybe the rules have changed or maybe you found out something to change your view at the time.

In either case, what is the process for challenging such conditions. Is it the usual one of complaining to the LA who effectively polices itself so you just get a standard letter back tell you to like it or lump it? :(

[rickysmiths]

It was never 15 hours of 'Free Education' it was always marketed as Free Childcare to enable parents to get back to work!

[Kiddleywinks]

In either case, what is the process for challenging such conditions. Is it the usual one of complaining to the LA who effectively polices itself so you just get a standard letter back tell you to like it or lump it? :(

Pretty much Bunyip

Just spent months fighting my LA over 'restrictions' they imposed on providers wanting to provided funded places.
In the end, I had to contact the DofE to step in, which they did :clapping:
Was informed by the DofE that the restrictions will be removed :clapping:
Was informed by the LA that the restrictions will be removed :clapping::clapping:

Received 'revised/amended' contracts today - guess what...?


Go on, bet ya can't guess.... :rolleyes:



Oh yes, the LA restrictions are back, under the guise of something else :panic::angry:

And yes, I will be fighting this as well, but in the meantime:
my parents, that were looking forward to receiving the lower fees from Easter due to allegedly getting their 15 hours, will now NOT be doing, so will either have to move their settled child to another setting, or wait even longer for the LA to get it's finger out of it's ears and stop singing 'la la la laaa la' whilst simultaneously sticking 2 fingers up at the DofE and the local childminders!!

So again:
Step1: I will approach the LA with my concerns
Step2: They will start playing letter ping pong with me again until such a time as I am able to go to the DofE again
Step3: Who will take approx 2 or 3 months of advising me what the LA can and can't do and get me to relay this information back to the LA- which is what I already know and is why I contacted them in the first place
Step4: Repeat steps 2 and 3 for a few months
Step5: The DofE will intervene
Step6: The LA will take till April 2016 to redo their contract (they aren't able to redo them during the current year don't you know )
Step7: Return to step 1


Whilst I understand your point Simona, in that the LA's SHOULDN'T be imposing conditions, the fact remains that they are doing!
And as they are the ones that control the 'purse strings' as it were, you either sign up to their rules, or you refuse and your parents have to continue parting with their money for something they are entitled to - you can understand why they'll have no choice but to leave

[Mouse]

What restrictions does you LA impose Kiddleywinks?

I have to say, ours has very few restrictions, mainly because they are desperate for people to sign up to offer the funding. All they really need to do is pay a decent rate and I'm sure more would!

[lollipop kid]

Wow - just read Kiddlewinks post. What a ridiculous state of affairs!

I am now really glad that I'm only 'Satisfactory', as my LA haven't chased me to offer the FEE places (3 year olds) or FEE2 places (2 year olds). I have only been involved with FEE places once, and this was for a child whose Mum begged me to keep her son for the first couple of Nursery terms, as she wasn't in the catchment area for the State Nursery near me, and she didn't think the one nearest to her was the right place for her son at that time. (I'd had him since he was a baby, so I couldn't say No.) It was really hard to take a drop in income - especially as I have never charged extra for meals as I hate giving any parent an excuse to supply their own (quite often sub-standard/out-of-date lunch box) for their child - but that's another story!

It's not something I want to do again in a hurry, but good luck to anyone who does it. For my part, I'll keep recommending my parents to take up the 15 hours at the local state Nursery, which leaves me free to run my business on my terms.

(In case you're wondering, the FEE stands for "Free Early years Education" with my LA.)

All the best,

L

[Kiddleywinks]

What restrictions does you LA impose Kiddleywinks?

I have to say, ours has very few restrictions, mainly because they are desperate for people to sign up to offer the funding. All they really need to do is pay a decent rate and I'm sure more would!

The same as they imposed BEFORE the DofE involvement!!
Before, they wouldn't entertain signing a contract with a CM unless they met the additional criteria of having a level 3, being on the network etc etc etc.
Now, there is an additional 'arrangement with the council that forms part of the funding contract, but instead of MUST, it now reads SHOULD...
So, ok, should isn't a must, but what happens if someone isn't/doesn't...... still waiting for an answer :panic:

[Kiddleywinks]

Wow - just read Kiddlewinks post. What a ridiculous state of affairs!

I am now really glad that I'm only 'Satisfactory', as my LA haven't chased me to offer the FEE places (3 year olds) or FEE2 places (2 year olds). I have only been involved with FEE places once, and this was for a child whose Mum begged me to keep her son for the first couple of Nursery terms, as she wasn't in the catchment area for the State Nursery near me, and she didn't think the one nearest to her was the right place for her son at that time. (I'd had him since he was a baby, so I couldn't say No.) It was really hard to take a drop in income - especially as I have never charged extra for meals as I hate giving any parent an excuse to supply their own (quite often sub-standard/out-of-date lunch box) for their child - but that's another story!

It's not something I want to do again in a hurry, but good luck to anyone who does it. For my part, I'll keep recommending my parents to take up the 15 hours at the local state Nursery, which leaves me free to run my business on my terms.

(In case you're wondering, the FEE stands for "Free Early years Education" with my LA.)

All the best,

L

I don't even WANT to do the damned funding!!!! lol :laughing:

I'm only accepting this grief for existing parents that are ENTITLED to the funding but don't want to move their LO to the local nursery or preschool - why should the parents lose out and have to pay my fees in full when they should be able to get some of it funded...?

[Mouse]

The world "SHOULD" needs to be banned from anything related to early years, LAs and funding :angry: It's so meaningless, but has so much power.

[Kiddleywinks]

The world "SHOULD" needs to be banned from anything related to early years, LAs and funding :angry: It's so meaningless, but has so much power.

Well, unless it is removed from my contract, I won't be signing the thing and will be going back to the DofE because this is getting to the point of ridiculous

[sing-low]

Well, unless it is removed from my contract, I won't be signing the thing and will be going back to the DofE because this is getting to the point of ridiculous
Kiddleywinks, given that the general election is not far off, it might be worth contacting your local MP to see if they can intervene. Our local MP is being very pro-active over local issues right now as ours is predicted to be a close election. Might as well take advantage of their enthusiasm! Cynical, me?!?!

[Simona]

No worries, Simona: I accept your apology, though it isn't really necessary.

But i do distinctly recall you telling me that LAs were allowed to set minimum/maximum session lengths and start/finish times during the day for the delivery of "free" "childcare". Maybe the rules have changed or maybe you found out something to change your view at the time.

In either case, what is the process for challenging such conditions. Is it the usual one of complaining to the LA who effectively polices itself so you just get a standard letter back tell you to like it or lump it? :(

I challenged the LA quoting the DfE guidance...then took it to 'Achieving 2 year olds' who sent me a very long doc suggesting how I could proceed.
I approached the Sustainability Officer...but that was no help
I also wrote to the DfE who said no conditions should be imposed.
There was a way out but I did not trust the LA contract so I decided to let it go....now the LA is looking for more cms to offer the funding!!!

This is the guidance
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-education-and-childcare--2

p5 is very clear on no interference with our private businesses
p8 lists the hours we can offer
p10 LAs do not need to undertake Quality Assessment for providers

In this guidance free childcare also has changed to 'early education'...in my LA it is 'Early Education Funding' EEF...just a reshuffling of the initials.

p13 is about how flexible we can be
p14...the best bit...and I quote...'LAs cannot place additional requirements on any cm'
p17...we cannot be penalised for absence

I agree that the word 'should' is meaningless but in this doc there is an awful lot of 'LAs are required' ...that to me means MUST?.....a few MUSTs appear as well....p27 is full of them.