30 Hours Free Entitlement

[AnonyMouse_33773]

I misunderstood the PLA info with regards to the £100,000. This is from the Government:

"The additional 15 hours will be available to families where both parents are working (or the sole parent is working in a lone parent family), and each parent earns, on average, a weekly minimum equivalent to 16 hours at national minimum wage (NMW) or national living wage (NLW), and less than £100,000 per year. Working will include employed and self-employed persons. Parents do not necessarily need to actually work 16 hours a week, but rather their earnings must reflect at least 16 hours of work at NMW or NLW, which is £107 a week at the current NMW rate. This includes those parents on zero contract hours who meet the criteria."

Edited March 6, 2016 by Wildflowers

[Guest]

I also puzzled over this figure. How someone on minimum wage can get even near this figure?

£7.20 x 40h (week) x 52 weeks in a year = £14976 (NMW)

£8.25 x 40h x 52 = £17160 (NLW)

 

Does it mean that the document should be read as "and each parent earns, on average, a weekly minimum equivalent to 16 hours at national minimum wage (NMW) or national living wage (NLW) or above, but less than £100,000 per year"?

[AnonyMouse_73]

Yes this has been clarified in the draft statutory guidance which is on the consultation page

https://consult.education.gov.uk/early-years-funding/childcare-free-entitlement

 

It is income based rather than hours based so I guess theoretically, you could work two hours per week, at £60 an hour and still qualify. That's how I am reading it, anyway!

 

As ever, if you have a view, have a voice!

[AnonyMouse_13453]

So potentially, correct me if I am wrong, this would allow the parent to work more hours to increase their income.. Yes?

 

So that would mean they are earning more and so don't qualify any more, and can't afford to have their child in for the additional hours so withdraw them, leaving the setting with its additional staffing, minus some income?

[AnonyMouse_12960]

who exactly is meant to "police" eligibility?

 

let me take a wild guess .............US????????

[AnonyMouse_51737]

So potentially, correct me if I am wrong, this would allow the parent to work more hours to increase their income.. Yes?

 

So that would mean they are earning more and so don't qualify any more, and can't afford to have their child in for the additional hours so withdraw them, leaving the setting with its additional staffing, minus some income?

My thoughts exactly from what I understand it's based termly as is EYPP however if say 5 children are eligible for 30 hours so you staff it accordingly then you data check some weeks before new term and now only 2 are eligible then 3 drop their hours to 15, we are left with staff to pay and places to fill. It's hard enough getting staff without having to get staff on stupid adhoc temp contracts.

 

Plus it's just more things the authorities are putting onto us administration wise to increase our work load yet the funding they hold back for administration doesn't then see it's way to us. Now I'm off to build an office as I'll need one at this rate lol

[AnonyMouse_51737]

So potentially, correct me if I am wrong, this would allow the parent to work more hours to increase their income.. Yes?

 

So that would mean they are earning more and so don't qualify any more, and can't afford to have their child in for the additional hours so withdraw them, leaving the setting with its additional staffing, minus some income?

My thoughts exactly from what I understand it's based termly as is EYPP however if say 5 children are eligible for 30 hours so you staff it accordingly then you data check some weeks before new term and now only 2 are eligible then 3 drop their hours to 15, we are left with staff to pay and places to fill. It's hard enough getting staff without having to get staff on stupid adhoc temp contracts.

 

Plus it's just more things the authorities are putting onto us administration wise to increase our work load yet the funding they hold back for administration doesn't then see it's way to us. Now I'm off to build an office as I'll need one at this rate lol

[AnonyMouse_73]

If I am reading correctly, it would all depend on how many parents you have who are likely to make over 100k. Not many I'd think for most members here? So they can increase their hours and income up to 100k (each) and not have to lose their entitlement.plus if they did earn over the 100k, wouldn't they still need the place anyway?

[AnonyMouse_19802]

Would work the same way too though - if parents lost their job/had hours reduced - would'nt it?

 

Sounds risky....which is why I would'nt touch this with a barge pole!! Just had 4 expected places for Autumn pulled today!

[Guest]

Childcare bill Policy statement states that “the additional hours will be available to families where:

• both parents are working (or the sole parent is working in a lone parent family);

• each parent has a weekly minimum income equivalent to 16 hours at national minimum wage or living wage; and

• neither parent has an income of more than £100,000 per year.”

 

The biggest confusion causes the last statement about £100,00 per year. It seems that some providers believe that this entitlement only for families on low income, so basically those who earn NMW or NLW and working not more than 16h per week. I read it as if parents (individually) earn minimum £115.20 per week (£7.20 NMW x 16h) or £132 (£8.25 NLW x 16h) but not more than £100,000 per year then they fall within eligibility criteria. Am I right or wrong?

 

Our Local Authority is currently collecting data about how many potentially eligible children we have. How can we ask parents to provide this information? How can I request the information about working hours and income? I think it is a bit over the limit.

[AnonyMouse_73]

 

The biggest confusion causes the last statement about £100,00 per year. It seems that some providers believe that this entitlement only for families on low income, so basically those who earn NMW or NLW and working not more than 16h per week. I read it as if parents (individually) earn minimum £115.20 per week (£7.20 NMW x 16h) or £132 (£8.25 NLW x 16h) but not more than £100,000 per year then they fall within eligibility criteria. Am I right or wrong?

 

Our Local Authority is currently collecting data about how many potentially eligible children we have. How can we ask parents to provide this information? How can I request the information about working hours and income? I think it is a bit over the limit.

 

I read it the same, it won't be just for families on low incomes, but it is still all draft at the moment so do feedback your views.

I imagine we'll be looking towards the early implementers for how eligibility checks will work in practice.

[AnonyMouse_12805]

Oksana, I think I would be inclined to tell your LA that you feel it is not your place to be asking parents such personal information as salary earned and days worked. As I understood it (but it could have changed) HMRC were going to determine eligibility for the additional 15 hours. Although if it takes as long to filter back to us as the EYPP then we most definitely will not be able to take part.

 

BTW- your figures are wrong NLW IS currently £7.20 per hour with NMW at £6.70.

[Guest]

Ops, sorry have no idea where I googled£8.25. :-)

[AnonyMouse_51737]

I don't think anyone of mine earn over the limit, my concern is say one of a partnership reducing hours/leaving job rendering them non eligible. I have had quite a few start jobs then find it hard / financial decrease / change of circumstance etc and they leave the job. That choice to leave job will have a knock on effect to the setting, a lot of mine have to look for jobs to get off benefits from job centre and they try different ones but then quit etc I'm planning on becoming an ostrich and putting my head firmly underground !

 

Look for the positives I keep saying (I'm still looking lol)

[Guest]

Seems like we're all going to have an awful lot of questions for the pilot areas come September! The main issue with all of this is speculation and interpretation - none of us know for sure!!! My main concern is that the pilot will be undertaken in a way that we don't actually get to know the 'truth' of how things really are! I wonder if the rates for those areas will be published for example and also the contract caveats that we all have to adhere to?

 

I suppose time will tell!

[AnonyMouse_1490]

None of my parents are interested in 30 hours anyway - Perfect !!!

[AnonyMouse_19762]

None of my parents are interested in 30 hours anyway - Perfect !!!

Phew!

 

Have you asked them then?

[AnonyMouse_30128]

None of my parents are interested in 30 hours anyway - Perfect !!!

so are you saying you have no parents where both parents work...even part time?

[AnonyMouse_1490]

None of my parents want their child to attend for 30 hours. At the moment a few parents have an extra session. I have 3 children who attend a childminder they have 15 hours with them and 15 with me.

[AnonyMouse_1490]

Yes I have already been asked to do this by the early years. It was not easy because the criteria for elegibility is not clear yet. As parents do not want the 30 hours it wasn't necessary to ask the embarrassing details of their income.

[AnonyMouse_30128]

would it ONLY be for 30 hours though...what if people want something between 15 and 30 hours?

[AnonyMouse_1490]

Most of my parents have more than the 15 funded hours it just means they won't have to pay. I have not said that I cannot provide 30 hours because I could do that easily. I have just said that at the moment the most hours that parents want is 20 hours so I don't need to apply for capital funding or think about opening for 6 days or offer stretched funding throughout holidays. I only have a few parents who work full time anyway and their parents use a childminder as well because they are dropped off at 7 am and collected at 5 pm.

[AnonyMouse_30128]

Most of my parents have more than the 15 funded hours it just means they won't have to pay. I have not said that I cannot provide 30 hours because I could do that easily. I have just said that at the moment the most hours that parents want is 20 hours so I don't need to apply for capital funding or think about opening for 6 days or offer stretched funding throughout holidays. I only have a few parents who work full time anyway and their parents use a childminder as well because they are dropped off at 7 am and collected at 5 pm.

ah I see..that makes sense...will you be able to cover costs on funding amounts alone? The government are suggesting that funding can be split between three settings (including childminders) so that might apply in your case

[AnonyMouse_1490]

Yes my fees are less than the funded money so nothing is really going to change. I don't actually have many unfounded children now and always feel a bit sad for them because they cannot usually afford to pay for more than 2 sessions whereas the funded 2's can have up to 15 but again not many parents work so they don't usually want 15 hours. Last year I was asked to hold places for 15 funded 2 year olds to attend for 15 hours we all made a fuss so they funded the spaces. I only filled a few of the spaces because parents did not want the full 15 hours. I do work very closely with a local childminder we message each other most days to discuss progress or other important issues.

[AnonyMouse_55063]

Although an increase in funding is welcome and would improve quality of staff possibly, I have thought a little more in detail recently and i actually believe this 30 hours funding would be a benefit to most settings. I only say this based on what information i personally have regarding funding rates etc, and these circumstances differ from setting to setting, area to area.

 

In many areas the funding rates differ and it is reasonable to assume some settings do better than others! This is unfair and needs to be addressed. I have, however been to local meetings that many settings from my area attend and the consensus was that, the funding was too low! I think this was in preparation for the new Living Wage and Pension schemes adding to the costs.

 

For example, in our area there is a Base Rate, extra for opening hours (+10hours per day), extra for Deprivation and also extra for employing a QTS or EYT. So the rates can look much better if all criteria are met.

[AnonyMouse_12805]

Yes BroadOaks the rates could look much better when all criteria are met. We meet all the criteria for our LA yet our funding rates are still 40pence an hour less than our fees AND from September 2016 will be 80 pence an hour less.

 

Unless our funding increases by a significant amount (and I cannot see it increasing by the amount required) then we just cannot afford to offer funded children 30 hours. Besides that it could mean us taking in a considerably lower amount of children then we have now.

[AnonyMouse_55063]

From the Pilot schemes and the provisional funding amounts being promised.. it is looking bleak!

 

The rates being mentioned are that the first 15 hours are the same rate as now and the extra's apply the same as now, for example

 

£3.20 + £1.50 = 4.70 for the 15 hours and then for the next 15 hours the rates are increased to £3.90 but no extra supplement!

 

So on this basis alone it would actually reduce our income rather than increase it!!

 

I don't want to sound selfish but I was thinking positively about the 30 hours funding due to the rate we get for the 15 hours at this time but now it isn't sounding too good!!

[AnonyMouse_55778]

Funding wise, it isn't going to be a huge problem for us because we already charge less per hour than the funding rate so for the children who are already here for 30 hours we will be receiving more. However, I realise that many settings have different costs and due to capacity and hours and other limiting factors that many settings cannot possibly make it pay at those rates, so I don't support the initiative in principle and I am also appalled by the whole way it has been rolled out and I am upset that something so important is once again being done to us, rather than with us.

[AnonyMouse_9650]

Funding wise, it isn't going to be a huge problem for us because we already charge less per hour than the funding rate so for the children who are already here for 30 hours we will be receiving more.

 

If your charges per hour less than your funding rate per hour is there not a danger that your funded children could be seen as subsidising your non-funded children? I mention this because I'm sure (but don't ask me to find it) that there is a funding condition that says your funded children can't "subsidise" your non- funded. I remember this "condition" from years ago when once upon a time funding rates were a few pence more than our non funded rates and we had to increase our rates to at least match the funding amount per hour.

 

With regard to hourly rates for the 30 hours I was sent this link - talk about make a system as complex as possible!

 

http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1157272/local-authorities-reveal-details-of-30-hour-rates

[AnonyMouse_19802]

That article in Nursery World is well worth perusing - just to see, what a complete mish mash the pilot scheme appears to be!

 

And why is the first 15hrs 'child education' considered to be worthy of less funding than the 15 hours 'childcare'???? Kind of makes you wonder how much real value is put on the eyfs? No? Thought we were all supposed to be heading to qualify as an EYT - what, to wipe bums and noses? (no disrespect to childcare of course)