Reduction in Early Years funding

Whether or not you can afford to offer it surely depends on your numbers?

It's not meant to be free childcare neither do the government advertise it as such, it's meant for parents to be able to access pre school education if they so wish. Upto you if you want to offer that and, if you do, then you know the rate that the government will pay.

The only way I've heard is to charge a higher rate for the over 3s, but that penalises those who are claiming the funding elsewhere.
Likewise raising fees overall.

The stark choice is to subsidise it ourselves, or get the parents to subsidise it (even if they aren't actually claiming).

I would definitely change the rates for those at an age to receive funded hours, that is allowed surely? And I'm sure parents would understand, not many people would be able to work for that pittance.

HSMM one of my cm friends has just written to all her current parents informing them that with much regret from September she will no longer be offering the funding. She explained about the latest reduction in fees & stringent rules top-ups etc and much lower ratios cm's have compared to nurseries but for the same fee and how she simply couldn't afford to continue at the current rate of pay. She obviously won't be taking on any new eyfs and is yet to find out if any of her existing parents will leave although all have been very sympathetic & understanding.

We're lucky that there's always high demand for cm's so it was a measured risk on her behalf and she is confident she will fill any leavers before too long but I know feels bad for the parents. In your situation I would be going down the same route or at the very least not offering any new funded places.

I keep thinking about stopping offering funding, but it's so hard when parents have openly said how much it helps them and how they like their child staying in a home environment, rather than a pre school or nursery school. At what point would I stop? While the current children are receiving funding? Before the next lot start, even though they're expecting it? Realistically if I allowed all the children I currently care for to have their funded spaces, I will still be doing it in July 2017! By that point some parents would feel hard done by, because other children have a funded space.

This post has just reinforced my reasons for not offering EYFS funding. I have a 3 year old on my books who should see a reduction in fees now as I'm eligible to offer funding but I can't afford to lose out as our la rate is nearly half my hourly rate

tbh, I'm more amazed that any CMs do take funded dc, rather than that any decide they are not going to.

You know, it's a bit ironic when you think about it - our LA have spent good money commissioning a group to recruit more CMs to take the Triple E funding, as the capacity in the LA is nowhere near the numbers of eligible dc. I can't help thinking that money would be better spent paying a reasonable hourly rate to the CMs in the first place, then there wouldn't be a place shortage!

We are not allowed to have a different hourly rate for Funded Children's hours compared to what we charge non funded children.

There is no way I would take on any child for just the funded hours. I will only do it for children who are at least 4 days a week and are with me full time. Other wise why should I subsidize other people's childcare costs? Let them go to Pre School or a Private Nursery and I guess if Funding gets cut by too much they will stop offering it as well.

Why should Private enterprise be bullied into subsidizing the care of children.

Crossposted HSMM. I am so angry for you, and Tanith and the others. The Local Authorities behave like they are royalty dispensing charity, but they are messing with people's livelihoods, and playing on your loyalty to your children and families to completely screw you over. How would they feel if they were told their pay would be decimated for no good reason? And again, why aren't PACEY up in arms about yet another example of a postcode lottery?

Then that is rough, but I still think there is such a thing as unreasonable and unenforceable contract terms, so you cannot be held to a contract if the terms are unknown or unreasonable. But as I said above, I'd take legal advice (probably through my insurers). If everyone said no thanks, they'd have to think again.

Gosh how rubbish, that's disgraceful.

And if I said no to the LA, they would just tell me not to offer funded places. That would be fine by me, but wouldn't help parents. Luckily my parents regularly moan to the LA about the shocking rate.

Jinxxx mine isn't a breach of contract, because my contract clearly states that rates are set each April.

Has the reduction got anything to do with the new early years pupil premium thing? I have just read the email i recieved and i can claim an extra amount for children 3/4 yo who meet certain criteria it is extra paperwork but worth doing i think it amounts to just over 300 a year for full time space i am in the west country though so may not be everywhere - sorry not much help but it may roll out ?

Tanith, if a parent said they were going to arbitrarily cut the rate they paid, you would rightly say they were breaching the terms of their contract, and tell them to pay up or go. I can't see it's any different if the other party is the council - they are proposing to breach the contract they had with you by paying less than agreed, so I don't see how that is any different. I would take legal advice before accepting this.

We have this problem, too. Next term, I will have eight children claiming the EYFE for between 6 and 15 hours a week (I work with DH). The funding is just over half what I normally charge per hour and I understand it's being reduced again from next month.

Of those eight children, five of them are reducing their hours so that they only claim the free hours while their parents take maternity leave or career breaks.
Not only will we be forced to half our fee, we will also be made to block between 4 and 7 hours a day per funded child to accommodate this.

All so the Government can claim they are giving parents free childcare

It would be a great shame if you were to resign. I do think you should turn down the new "offer" and make it clear that this is an insult to your training and professionalism. It needs more CMs to just say NO. What are PACEY doing about this scandal? In fact, what are they doing about the constant barrage of media rubbish claiming that childcare is overpriced and suggesting that providers are raking it in?

The underfunding of the so-called free places is a disgrace. LAs are trying to help working parents but are trying to force childminders (also usually working parents) to work for peanuts. Living in one of the most expensive parts of the country, we are offered one of the lowest hourly rates. It is not a level playing field - nurseries and pre-schools not only have much higher ratios, many of them have accommodation and other resources provided free or cheaply (for example using school or charity premises) and they have access to grants which childminders cannot claim. I definitely see an agenda to get all toddlers into nurseries and out of home from home settings, which will ultimately take away parental choice.

Nurseries can have 1:13 if they have a qualified teacher (which I am, but I can only have 1:3).