2 Year Old Pilot ?

[AnonyMouse_21338]

my LA is part of the new funded 2 yr old pilot scheme - was wondering if anyone on the forum has the pilot running in their area and how they are finding it ?

 

our age for intake used to be 2:9 -we then tried taking 2 year olds + for a half term to see how we could logistically manage (minimum staff ratio, 1 room, all age ranges had to be in the same session as we couldnt afford a seperate session ) - tbh it was not easy, so we decided as a team, and the commitee agreed -to lower the admission age to 2:6.

well - the commitee have now decided without consultation to lower the age to 2yr olds, to register for 2 yr old funding, and have already accepted a child meeting this criteria -with another 2 in the pipeline !!

for a child to be able to recieve 2 yr old funding they / the family must meet certain criteria -which may mean that the child has additional emotional needs - and im worring that due to the constraints of our setting, we will not be able to to the best for them :mellow:

[Guest babyjane31]

may not be much help fimbo but just to let you know we are registered for 2 year funding and have 3 children accessing the funding at the moment but still only take children from 2 years 6 months, as long as the children are 2 and meet the criteria they can access funding via children centre ( not sure if this is different in different areas)

[Guest]

Hi, I think the circumstances around the priorities of this funding indicate that the children are going to be 'vulnerable' - and highly likely to have additional needs or be functioning at a level lower than their chronological age - so more like an 18 month old...or a developmentally 'normal' 2 year old child who lives in a volatile/emotional etc environment and so would benefit from socialising in peer groups and the family benefit from input from staff in a relaxed, less pressured way

 

Not particularly helpful for you (though I think you are so right to be concerned) but a huge consideration in staffing to meet the children's needs - and the physical/emotional environment (big numbers/groups of children may not be ideal)

 

It's very easy (especially in a recession) for a committee/business to identify additional revenue - but miss the fact that this (and any allocation of government money!) tends to come with an additional workload in addition to just 'caring' for the child for that short period of time - tac (team around the child meetings) preparation of reports, working more concentratedly (is this even a word!) with a family etc

 

unfortunately the way the government is rolling this funding out at speed, it is likely that, due to the high numbers meeting the criteria for it, there will be many placements that wont be entirely 'suitable' - but will be 'physically' able to take the children - which as we all know in high quality provision is not the same thing!

 

my mantra is - if it comes with money it comes with expectations!!

Edited May 30, 2012 by gingerbreadman

[Guest]

ooo and where will all the additional (well trained, up to speed with working with 2 yr olds) come from at such a roll out

[AnonyMouse_22628]

Hi, I think the circumstances around the priorities of this funding indicate that the children are going to be 'vulnerable' - and highly likely to have additional needs or be functioning at a level lower than their chronological age - so more like an 18 month old...or a developmentally 'normal' 2 year old child who lives in a volatile/emotional etc environment and so would benefit from socialising in peer groups and the family benefit from input from staff in a relaxed, less pressured way

 

Not particularly helpful for you (though I think you are so right to be concerned) but a huge consideration in staffing to meet the children's needs - and the physical/emotional environment (big numbers/groups of children may not be ideal)

 

It's very easy (especially in a recession) for a committee/business to identify additional revenue - but miss the fact that this (and any allocation of government money!) tends to come with an additional workload in addition to just 'caring' for the child for that short period of time - tac (team around the child meetings) preparation of reports, working more concentratedly (is this even a word!) with a family etc

 

unfortunately the way the government is rolling this funding out at speed, it is likely that, due to the high numbers meeting the criteria for it, there will be many placements that wont be entirely 'suitable' - but will be 'physically' able to take the children - which as we all know in high quality provision is not the same thing!

 

my mantra is - if it comes with money it comes with expectations!!

 

We have been in receipt of 2 year old funding for over a year now and have had 20+ children receiving the funding. Most of those children are simply from single parent households and therefore eligible. A few others have come from families where the parents have disabilities. I think we have only had 3 children that are from vulnerable backgrounds but even those had no developmental problems and settled really well with us.

The biggest thing for us in the increase in children in Nappies, this obviously does increase the workload.

[Guest]

We have had funded 2 year olds since the pilot scheme and have found that the majority of children are from families who meet financial criteria rather than having additional needs. Most of them use other forms of support such as family support or health visitors and access children centre activities so there is a good support network in place for nurseries to access to aid with meeting these families needs.

[Guest]

i'm down off my soap box now! :huh: - I just get so :angry: that the government set these things in motion (with very good intentions at times) and leave the workforce to pick up the pieces - and not necessarily always equip us (or lets be honest, fund us) to do the best for these children/families (looks toward the 3yr old funding and how many settings are subsidising placements) but still expect so much from the sector

 

I'm so pleased that the funding is meeting a diverse range of needs and that settings aren't being stretched too far - it sounds like our LA's have deployed different (but within the guidelines) criteria for allocating places, especially as many areas will have more eligible children than places - or maybe that just in general, different parts of the country have different needs

 

(Hadn't meant for my post to be stereotypical, just steered by own experiences - it's easy to normalise and think that what happens on your doorstep happens elsewhere)

 

Wouldn't it be nice if childcare was free for all

[AnonyMouse_6716]

I think, in our area, you have to have an ITERS (think that's what it's called - the infant version of ECERS) and score over a certain level to be considered to provide care under this scheme. We did look into it but the payment they were suggesting (more than the 3 year old grant but not massively so) didn't seem adequate to cover the expectations really when you consider that they need a higher staff/ child ratio than the 3 year olds and the childcare provider is supposed to attend home visits on a regular basis. We were told the child's keyworkers must be level 3 or over so, in our setting, it would fall on the same few people who get all the "extra jobs" anyway so I think we decided to leave it a while and see how it goes.

[Guest]

Annie pops, isn't it amazing how different authorities manage things. In our area the funding is hugely more than the 3 year funding and makes it very viable, there is no expectation of keyworker levels or home visits and luckily no need to have ITERS (what ever that is!). When will it become a level playing field for all of us?

[AnonyMouse_11962]

We've been part of the pilot since April 2010. The local requirements are that the family meet certain benefits criteria AND that there is an additional need, either by the child or sometimes the family (e.g. parent's disability) or the child is subject to a Child Protection Plan. The children we've had have varied; some have had speech and language delay, some are CP, some have had more significant SEN. There is 'extr'a work but the funding is higher and of course these children tend to stay on so we get their custom through to school. In my setting, we have lots of families amongst the 3 and 4 year olds that require my attendance at meetings, extra liaison with parents, HVs etc so we are used to that anyway. The 2 year old funding has helped keep us sustainable to be honest.

 

As a setting we have had to have a graduate leader (or someone on an EYPS route), a Level 3 practitioner in charge of 2 year olds, a good or outstanding OFSTED and someone has to attend Level 2 three day training given by the Local Safeguarding Children's Board.

 

As they roll out the 2 year old funding to 20% and then 40% of all 2 year olds, these criteria will have to be revisited as there are not enough settings which meet it to deliver enough places.

 

 

In the last 6 months there has been such a shortage of places (there are only around 120 places in the city) that only children with a CP plan have been given the funding.

 

Incidently, I don't think your committee should make changes like that without consulting staff!

Edited May 30, 2012 by anju

[AnonyMouse_12805]

We've yet to have a child that meets our LA 2 yr funding criteria (basically on benefits) so I cant really comment. Although I certainly wouldn't lower our age intake which is 2 yrs 8/9mths and wouldn't need to .

I have to say I agree with anju, I really dont think your committee should be making those sort of decisions without consulting at least you as Manager.

[AnonyMouse_19920]

we were one of the areas that took funded two year olds first and i must say we have had no problems. we had an ITERS and went to some meetings to talk about two year old funding - the two year olds we take meet criteria set by local authority which could be because of parent and/or child problems.Most children have had speech problems, lone parent family, or parent has some issues which mean child needs to socialise as parent doesnt do this at moment.

think the idea is good but someitmes not sure it is thought through enough and also need more money to accomodate these extra issues such as staff ratios, extra support for parents etc.,