My friend nursery says it's open to all those who receive 2 year old funding?

[sociallydistained]

She has asked my thoughts on sending dc. Her ex partner wants child to go! They aren't keyworkers, child isn't vulnerable etc. The email just says just a reminder it is open to keyworker children and those who receive 2 year old funding.
Wtf??? Not even a notice about please keep at home if you possibly can and information about how to prevent the virus spreading etc. It also stated normal hours and days will be the same.

...I've obviously told my friend NO and stated why. She's practicing social distancing in every other aspect I don't know why you'd even consider it anyway. I'm wondering is there anywhere I can report this nursery?

What are you reporting them for?

Maybe I've jumped the gun a bit but it's totally irresponsible! My friend, on the guidance of that email thinks she can send her 2 year old in as she's been told days and hours are normal as she receives funding... she is a single parent but she isn't working she's perfectly able to look after him at home as she goes on the days he doesn't attend!!

Our nursery sent a detailed list out with links to all government guidelines and stated clearly please keep your child at home if you possibly can!

I know people need to use common sense but they bloody aren't and I'm so frustrated!

I thought only vulnerable 2 year olds got funding. (Scotland)

Two year olds who receive funding by definition will fall in to that category.

Info here:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/family/education/school-and-pre-school-education-s/early-learning-and-childcare-s/

In my school, vulnerable children are REQUIRED to attend unless in the 14 days self isolation period.

Two year funding is only given to vulnerable children - those in foster care or under the care of social services. They are children who benefit from getting out of the house every day (maybe the parents don't play with them or give them attention, maybe the parents need the break). For some of these children nursery is the only place they get a proper meal or their teeth cleaned.

There must be a reason that your friend hasn't told you why her child gets a place. She may find she doesn't have a choice but to send them.

The only 2 year olds who get funding are those considered vulnerable, otherwise it’s not till 3. If she’s getting funding for her 2 year old it’s cause they’re considered vulnerable

It’s not true to say all 2 year old funded children are vulnerable. They may just be poor which doesn’t by any means they are automatically at risk in the safeguarding sense. However it’s probably just the easiest way of doing it with the zero time to implement a policy. Since children who are under social services in some way will also have two year old funding.

I agree with OP that if you can you should always keep them at home whatever your job or circumstances.

Give the nursery a break though. They are trying to do the right thing with very limited guidance.

Well vulnerable also doesn’t mean at risk in terms of safeguarding. Being poor will make them vulnerable with not enough food, warmth, resources etc.

Thinking about it, two year old funding includes meals. So that’s probably why as they won’t get the FSM food vouchers. Ask you friend for supermarket vouchers in lieu of food at nursery and to keep home.

Vulnerable is not just child protection. It includes the poorest households whose children experience poverty which makes them vulnerable.

I think my friend has her information incorrect re her child's funding then? He is certainly not vulnerable!

Is 3 next month. She obviously has some sort of funding for him but his dad has a good job pays full maintenance and has him every other weekend. The kid doesn't want for anything and they are not poor but she doesn't work so who knows. I've told her my stance and said he and her are safer at home. I hope she listens.

He also goes 3 mornings a week and doesn't have lunch (or breakfast) there so I'm baffled re: food

Most funded 2 year old places in my nursery are simply because their parent/carer earns under a certain amount or dont work. My own DS recieves 2 year funding, yet I work 4 days a week and he is far from vulnerable.

As others have said OP, your friends child is better off out of the house, he is vulnerable, he qualifies for a nursery place aged two.

They don’t hand these places to anyone.

I wouldn’t consider him to be safer at home at all. You are wrong and you should keep your beak out.

As others have said, the 2 year funding is in place for parents who are on a low income and claiming certain benefits. They are classed as vulnerable children. Therefore the nursery isn't doing anything wrong.

She isn't working so she will be on benefits, that's why she gets the funding. I got it when my DS was 2 as I was in the same situation. Doesn't make any difference how much maintenance she gets at that isn't means tested.

I think a lot of people don't realise what the two year old funding is for - and they perhaps deliberately don't publicise it because then there might be some stigma to it. It's not there to enable parents to work, like the 3 year old 30 hour funding is. It's for children in groups identified as being at higher risk of starting school behind - which includes those with parents on a low income or from workless households, but it's a risk not a certainty - to try and close that educational gap. They are, on some level, saying that those are children who benefit from being somewhere other than home for some of their time.

2 year old funding is not just given to vulnerable children, it’s given to children who’s parents are on very low income / certain benefits and also children who have been adopted (so yes previously vulnerable but no longer under any form of ss care / intervention when adoption order granted)

Regardless though they shouldn’t be attending unless parent is a key worker and there are is no other appropriate childcare