Nurseries cannot charge extra to access free hours: updated guidance

[MidnightPatrol]

The DfE has updated their guidance to say while nurseries may ask for voluntary contributions towards nappies, food etc - they may not have mandatory top up fees to access free hours. Councils will have the power to fine providers who are asking parents to pay extra.

news.sky.com/story/amp/parents-must-not-pay-mandatory-extra-charges-to-access-free-childcare-government-says-13313166

This is surely only going to reduce access to free hours for the majority, and push up costs for those paying for unfunded hours? And quite possibly, lead to nurseries closing.

Other consequences which we are already seeing:

• Minimum attendance to access free hours (4 days for the 30 hours or 3 days for 15). I am not clear if this would be banned under the guidance.
• Nurseries not offering the free hours
• Unfunded hours becoming more expensive to offset

YABU - nurseries should not be able to charge extra
YANBU - nurseries need to be able to cover their costs

Given the funding is not enough to provide places, what exactly do the government expect the nurseries to do?

My childminder just subtracts the total funding amount she gets for us from our bill, so I know exactly what the council give her per hour.

She isn't "allowed" to do that.

Which is a shame, as it is the simplest, most logical, and most transparent way for the Gmnt subsidy to work.

It is not enough.

Ours have gone up 14 percent this year alone. They were the highest in the area prior to the increase. Now they're significantly more. I worked out you could send your kid to the nearest very sought after independant school for over 3k less than you can send them to nursery 5 days a week.

The legal minimums for things like pay and staffing ratios literally don’t stack up for someone to be a millionaire from running one nursery.

Which will be far worse for low income parents. If they call it food or nappies etc rather than a vague term then UC will not pay this part. That will lead to parents either struggling financially or a two tier system where children of wealthier parents have a hot meal cooked on site and the other children have a pack lunch.

Unless she had a chain of nurseries or no rent or business rates or staff to
pay - I don’t know how this is possible (unless it was hundreds per hour)

Another win for the government who are enforcing this.

My child’s nursery is quite cheap for the area and it is totally brilliant. They write really apologetically each year that they have to increase fees, and we just want them to increase the fees massively to make sure they don’t have to close. Waiting lists for alternative nurseries are about a year around here.

Im pretty sure this was always the rule. Have they now said it will be enforced more strictly?

No one is saying you shouldn't have to pay for those things or provide them if your child needs them. £22 PER DAY top up is way more than those things are costing thr nursery though, and many nurseries are charging it even if you provide your own nappies and packed lunch!

It is honestly soul destroying when you know you could earn more working in a supermarket.

But that's because the government have dictated how much they will pay for the funded hours. How else so they bridge the gap? You're right it doesnt cost that for nappies etc but where else can they get income from?

Surely the easier way to do it is to set an "affordable rates" mandate to all nurseries, so prices can only rise in line with inflation,

Then, allow parents who access and pay for childcare to claim direct from Govt for a benefit to offset this.

But ultimately, parents pay to the nurseries according to their costs (monitored and regulated) and claim a benefit towards it.

Then govts can support Nurseries with reductions in rates / utilities etc with a rule X number of places occupied at the Affordable Rate results in govt funding towards 25% of your rates/utlities/insurances

I also (and have said this before) think large employers of 1000 staff+ should legally have to fund a nursery/daycare close to their offices payable as a work benefit before taxes.

Yep, I agree. This is not new but included under the conservative government who were notorious for promising the world to parents without funding their promises.

I wasn't responding to anything about the funding amounts. I was responding to someone saying it was surely reasonable to have to pay for nappies if your child is using them.
I worked for a preschool, they closed because the funding wasn't enough.
I know families who are unable to send their child to preschool before they start school because they don't have the disposable income to cover the top up fees that are not optional at all the local ones.
I get it from both sides so am not getting into that debate, just correcting someone who clearly wasn't aware of what the money being requested is actually for.

How does Lancashire get so much more than London given the discrepancy in property prices?

I think parents forget that every sheet of paper a child draws on has to be paid for, as does every crayon, pinch of glitter, every pot of paint, every lump of play dough, every bag of sand etc are all consumables that have to be replaced constantly. Toys, books, puzzles etc need replacing often. Every cup, plate and spoon will be replaced at some point along with a thousand and one other bits and pieces that are need in a nursery. These things have to be paid for and the fee's have to buy them. The staff need a living wage although some parents think they do the job for the love of it. Insurance is not cheap, food is expensive and the list goes on. Some parents spend more on coffee a day than what the Government pay the nursery for "free" hours.

We are waiting for more guidance from Pacey. At the moment if right it's going to cause even more shortages

It's supposed to be optional and only for things not required for the EYFS they should not stipulate additional hours either. This is the reasoning behind the latest update nurseries not following what has always been the rules. Unfortunately funding doesn't cover the actual costs so nurseries are forced to bend the rules.

The rate reflects nursery ratios which are higher for babies than 3 year olds.
Your childminder is not supposed to do it this way she's supposed to bill you for hours over the funded. Will you be happy when she starts charging you for funded hours as your child gets older?
Hopefully she will be audited and her error sorted out.

I have just looked and Lancashire pay 5.41 for 3 year olds. It does seem high as locally it is a lot lower than that although higher than I quoted earlier as I haven't looked for a long time.

On the south coast they get 5.10 for 3 year olds, so I am surprised that Lancashire gets a lot higher funding per hour as it is a lot cheaper place to live.

The published rates are the average that the government pay the LA per child who then take some as administration costs then apply a funding formula to give sen settings more, pay pensions to state settings etc the rest is then shared out. In my area even childminders rates vary

The published rates are not necessarily what is paid to a setting take off la admin and funding formula. In April rates are set again so I will work 3 weeks before being told what they will pay ....and we will be paid 3 weeks late so incur debts have to borrow money to live etc....i won't pay my council tax until they pay me out of principal. It happens every year.

We currently have to pay £3.50 per funded hour. They’ve already announced a price rise in April - I dread to think what it’ll go up to now. He only goes two days a week so we’re already only able to claim 12 hours instead of 30…