CEY1427

Written evidence submitted by Cuddles Day Nursery

Childcare Entitlement:

It isn’t affordable to parents as the funding provided by the government does not cover the cost of providing the place.  The government refer to free hours and this causes confusion as in reality nurseries are not able to provide completely funded places and are forced to charge parents for additional extras.  In addition, the references to 15 or 30 hours per week do not highlight that the funding is only supplied term time only.  Parents often assume that they will get this funding all year round.  Many working parents need all year-round care and they expect their funding to go further.

Consider a voucher scheme – parents would be aware of the value of their funding and could then choose which setting to use their voucher at.

Consider increasing the deprivation rates; these children are often the ones that come with additional challenges and these funds would be invaluable, providing 3 meals etc.  The deprivation should follow the child – it shouldn’t just be awarded to a setting based in a deprived area.

The real cost of providing a 2 yr old FE place is an additional £4.38 and currently we receive £5.37 making the real cost £9.75ph

The real cost of providing a 3 & 4 year FE place is an additional £3 and we receive £4.35 making the real cost £7.35ph

The cost of childcare is too high because the funded provided does nor cover the cost of care.  The funding has decreased in real terms considering the raises in NLW/NMW, inflation, energy costs etc.  In addition, even 30 hours funding does not stretch to cover working full time, all year round.

 

The Tax Free Childcare scheme is working and represents a 20% saving to parents.  As a setting we encourage parents to use the scheme but maybe more could be done.  However, the scheme is not open to all parents and we believe the eligibility criteria is aimed at encouraging parents to work.  However, at a time where all families are struggling, perhaps they could look at opening up the criteria for example, removing the requirement for both parents to be in work.  Consider linking the entitlement to household income rather than income per individual.  The help via the benefits and tax credit system is confusing and not enough information is available to parents and settings.  Making payments direct to the parents can sometimes lead to the funds not being used for the childcare costs for which they were intended.

 

Early Years Provision:

The sector is in a recruitment crisis, especially in early years.  There are not the qualified staff out there, and there is a massive shortage of new entrants to the profession.  This is due, at least in part, to the barriers faced by individuals joining the provision.  Historically childcare has been a low paid profession, this has only been worsened by the real time decrease in the government funding.  Individuals often find that they can find better paid employment, with less responsibility i.e. not responsible for the education, safety and well-being of children, in other sectors. 

Increasing the ratio of adults to children is not the answer.  This will lead to more stress and challenges on the workforce leading to more staff leaving the sector.  The quality of care and education will decrease and, in a sector already struggling, will not lead to a decrease in childcare costs. 

One possible area of improvement would be to review the qualification requirements; an experienced unqualified practitioner can be as good as, or even better, than a newly qualified practitioner. 

 

The pandemic highlighted how undervalued the early years sector is.  There was a lot of publicity about key workers – delivery drivers, NHS staff, supermarket workers & teachers – but no mention of the early years staff that enabled all those groups to go to work.  It was somewhat demotivating to an already struggling sector.  The pandemic gave people more time to sit and reflect on their work-life balance; people want more out of life than working.

 

At the moment, the sector is not meeting the needs of SEND children.  The funding that is received is not sufficient to cover the increased costs associated with dealing with the additional challenges.  The funding does not cover the cost of an additional member of staff to cover 1 to 1 care for example and therefore we are making a loss with every SEND children that we take on.  The is exacerbated by the recruitment crisis.

Due to the rising cost of SEND children in early years, the LA have deemed it necessary to withdraw additional funding for children with minor additional needs, they have taken some of the base rate to use towards the deficit in the high needs block in the DSG.  Due to this, we have been forced to stop taking on new SEND children. 

One way this may be improved is by going back to the LA providing specialist practitioners to work with SEND children so that they bear the staffing cost.  There are more and more SEND children and this is only going to add to the issue.

The pandemic highlighted the crucial role that the Early years sector plays in preparing children for school.  Primary schools noticed a significant decrease in children entering schools in September 2020, especially in deprived areas.  A local school governor has been particularly vocal about how unprepared the children were and the amount of time the school staff had to spend in order to assist the children in this area.

 

BCP still have a few children’s centres, which are now called Family Hubs.  Their role has changed but they are still there to help signpost families in disadvantaged areas.

January 2023