New budget - I'm excited!

[gemloving]

I am so glad the topic of childcare is finally being discussed and it seems changed are being made.

I can't see us getting free hours for 1 year olds but 30h for 2 year olds would be fantastic and such a great move into the right direction.

I have a 4 year old and an almost 2 year old in the system!

We have state run community nursery schools. Poorly funded, running at huge deficits because they have qualified teaching staff and a headteacher. Government has not promised any extra support to them or committed to them being open in the long term.

Schools may take on younger children but only works financially as ‘governor led’ otherwise as a nursery class in school, again there is a requirement to have a qualified teacher. I know of schools with a nursery class, where they are running at a loss of £25,000-£35,000 per year. Unsustainable under poorly funded school budgets.

Could a childcare setting say they’re only offering 15 hours of the 30 hours funding for 1 and 2 year olds and children must attend for a minimum 30 hours a week… then charge a higher rate for the remaining 15 hours and make up their weekly total that way?

I have a 5 year old, 2 year old and 5 month old. I’m going back to work end of July and my August childcare bill is £2600. We planned and budgeted for this, and since cost of living issues I’m going back to work earlier than planned so we’re not so long without my wage. The next 3 years we knew were going to be really tight and pretty rough until my kids are in school/30 hours funding. So extending some funding to my 2 year old and my 1 year old when she turns that age would really help. Just trying to work out how my childminder could make use of the scheme so she doesn’t lose out and I can still benefit.

(Before ppl come at me, yes we planned for 3 kids, we can pay for them and we’re prepared for the sacrifices and yes it is up to my childminder what she ultimately does in her setting).

@BernadetteIsMySister "a Whitehall source" 🕵️

I agree, i know so many people who would love to be able to have more time at home with kids but have had to go to work to cover bills... it won't happen though its only going to get worse with the cost of living increasing.

I’m dreading what may come of this, I’d like to say that settings will be properly funded but they won’t be. I get £2.55 less than my hourly rate as it is and I’m only paid twice a term. It just keeps getting worse and I’m considering closing as everything is so challenging with money. I try and provide a caring and nurturing service but I can’t do that if I can’t pay my bills 😔

But if they said we could have the 30 hours and then we top up to what they need to what the government will give them, that would still save me loads of money! I'd happily pay the difference

Yes a setting could choose to only offer 15 of the 30 hours and charge a premium for anything over 15 hours. A lot already do and also specify only a limited number of funded hours per day can be used with premium rate charged for other hours. The issue with this is that parents expect their 'free' 30 hours and then lots are quite rightly miffed when they can only access 15 of the 30 hours and have to pay hundreds of pounds on top.

In my opinion, the only way the government can fix this problem is upping what they pay childcare settings so that they are not at a loss from taking on funded children then the hours will be truly free for parents. However, I don't think think the government has the foresight or budget for this.

I’ve always said a voucher system would be better. Parents and caters receive a voucher towards childcare that can only be redeemed by the setting. The voucher would be for X amount with the understanding that parents/carers have to top up the rest according to the setting’s hourly rate.

Yes a setting could choose to only offer 15 of the 30 hours and charge a premium for anything over 15 hours. A lot already do and also specify only a limited number of funded hours per day can be used with premium rate charged for other hours. The issue with this is that parents expect their 'free' 30 hours and then lots are quite rightly miffed when they can only access 15 of the 30 hours and have to pay hundreds of pounds on top.

If the government does increase the 30 free hours to include 1&2 year olds, it may become far more common for nurseries to offer it in the way you've described above. I'd more than happily pay the difference between what the government provides and what the nursery needs - I know it's not currently set up in a way that allows nurseries to directly charge that difference but I'd pay that amount through whatever set up worked.

Imagine that, during an election campaign, the Government promises to extend the 45p per mile business travel allowance so that all workers can claim a generous amount of free petrol a week. They've calculated that this will be very popular with voters.
The workers are delighted and rush to vote for the Government.

After the election, the Government quietly approaches the petrol companies. "We'll only pay for half that free petrol. You must absorb the cost of the rest. You're not allowed to tell anyone and you're not to go charging extras. If you refuse to offer it, you'll lose business to the companies that have agreed to offer it.
We want the workers to believe we are a generous Government giving them free petrol or they won't vote for us again."

One company embraces the new rules and offers the free petrol to everyone (the owner is a friend of the Government). It takes the hit because it's a multi-national company and it can afford to hold out for now (it's also been well compensated).

The other petrol companies gradually go bust because they can't afford to provide the free petrol and meet their costs. They stop trading until that one company is almost the only one left.

Oh, now they've got the workers where they want them! They increase the cost of petrol, make up their losses and people end up paying far more because there is little alternative. The workers struggle to find petrol stations, where petrol is charged at a premium and withdrawn when their staff can't cope with the demand. The workers are expected to be grateful for anything they can get.

In a very simplified way, that's what's happening with childcare.

We warned back in 2015 that extending the "free" entitlement would actually raise fees for parents and reduce availability. We explained that the Government wasn't even funding the 15 hours adequately and asked where the money was coming from to extend the scheme.
We were ignored.

I disagree
The ratio means that teaches led provision can often be more financially viable. There are cross over points in the funding linked to ratios but governor led provision would rarely be the solution and is actually pretty unusual. Most schools lower the age range and run the provision with registered pupils.

There are less children nationally. That is the biggest impact on school 3 and 4 year old provision at the moment.

In my area the demand for childcare outstrips supply. Speaking as a parent I’d take anything my childminder wanted to offer of any provision including nothing. There’s no chance I can move my DC to another provider for the funding… there just wouldn’t be one.
as PP said I’d prefer a voucher to use instead. I don’t want my childminder to decline the scheme because she’d be out of pocket….. Or indeed to do the scheme and be out of pocket. But I would really appreciate the financial help!

@Livinginanotherworld Every mum of pre-schoolers working full time I know, is absolutely run ragged. No time to cook from scratch, no time to play, no time to relax.

It sounds like you really need to expand your circle.
I work full time hours, finish at 4 with one half day a week due to condensed lunches. I do not feel ‘run ragged’ at all. I have plenty of time to play with my child.

I also don’t understand why you mention that every mum you know who works full time had no time to cook from scratch … is cooking only something a mother has to do? What’s wrong with the dads cooking from scratch?

For this to work gov will have to pay the nurseries rather than giving the money to councils to allocate. Some areas may get £5 per hour, others £4 because their local councils decide how to fund it from the pot.

May be locality based and of course, depending on whether the nursery is full or not.

We have many ‘governor led’ pre schools in our schools. Checked through age range registration on GIAS compared to the offer of places from 3 years old.

Unfortunately for many schools the nursery funding/teacher post isn't viable. Sadly, a way around it is to change to governor led, removing the requirement for a qualified teacher.

@Tanith I wonder if they have been watching too many Pixar movies, especially WALL-E. One organisation owning all provision of services.

This would have been an absolute game changer for me with a young child. Most parents I know happily pay top ups and this will incentivise new nurseries to open. Actually convincing me to vote Tory

If you think this will encourage more settings to open I think you need to open your eyes and re read the posts in this threads from those who provide childcare. The crux of this whole situation is years of underfunding which has been subsidised by settings to keep on running, add on the cost of living crisis and settings are doomed. There is not enough availability now for funded hours for 3yr olds let alone expanding it to 1 & 2 yr olds.

For full transparency I work in head office for a large childcare provider. We have already been looking at a huge expansion of our nurseries because we anticipated something like this. Our profits were up 11% last year. Demand will always increase supply over time. We don’t use our 1&2 year olds to subsidise the older children. We use top ups instead which we receive positive feedback on. I know it’s tempting to pick apart any new government policy, but believe me in saying this is a game changer for working families.

The problem is, your situation is very much a rarity and I’m guessing because it’s a large nursery in a chain (apologies if I have that wrong). You are in a minority of settings that have seen a raise in profits.

But you shouldn't be using top ups.

I live in a town where there is now only 1 nursery for under 3s. This is part of a chain, and has a really poor reputation. I pulled my children out of it due to the poor care.

My children then went to a lovely local nursery which then went bust. We saw a whole group of fantastic staff lose their jobs. Another local nursery has just had to close and we are left with pre schools for over 3s only. Childminders are also few and far between.

I'm lucky that my kids are now in school and don't have to worry about this but there are now many parents of under 3s that have no viable options in this town because of the woeful funding. They need to travel miles out of the town, rely on others to help with local school runs for older children, spend a fortune in travel costs or just move out of the area altogether.

I don't see how this "fantastic" idea that the government have (which lets face it is just to pull the wool over people's eyes and claw back popularity) is going to help the situation in my area at all and I'm sure there are many other small towns in the country facing the same problems.

But we do. And they work pretty effectively. Parents do not tend to challenge these as they understand that th e government is already subsidising them. It’s quite an efficient model

Unless your top up fees are for consumables and labelled as voluntary then their illegal. Other settings have been taken to court over top up fees. Whilst your chain may be happy to conduct itself this way many other settings are not prepared to put themselves at risk.
Your setting is a rarity that's for sure because every setting I know is doing all it can to survive impending closure.

I’ll make sure our legal team are aware. Thank you!