From Fees to 'Free' Places: What the Early Years Funding Changes Really Mean for Your Setting
“Our biggest priority is the children. But we can’t keep showing up for them at the level we want to if the system is this broken.”
Clare Crowther - Director, Atelier
“When there’s no consistency from one local authority to another, how are settings supposed to stay compliant?” This is one of the many questions we’re tackling in this episode of Atelier Talks. This episode is essential listening for any Early Years provider navigating the increasingly complex world of fees, funding and “free” entitlement.
Joined by sector trailblazers Jo Morris (Play Steps, CNLF, Early Years Voices) and Jen & Rose from Snapdragons Nurseries, we unpack the real implications of recent government funding changes, from April’s updated guidance to the September expansion of entitlements. We talk about transparency, administration overload, and the widening gap between funding rates and the real cost of delivering quality early years education.
If you’re a nursery owner, manager or educator trying to protect the quality of your provision while staying financially sustainable, this episode offers clarity (and solidarity!) and perhaps some inspiration from other settings navigating these changes.
In this episode:
- What changed in April and September, and what’s coming next…
- Why the “voluntary” charges guidance has made things more confusing
- How the narrative of “free childcare” is misleading families
- What additional services EY settings can charge for and what’s now restricted
- How the changes are affecting family choice, local partnerships, and team morale
- Practical tips for preparing your invoices, agreements and audit trail
- Why providers in multiple LAs are struggling to stay compliant across regions
- What the clawback risk means for your operations
- What Early Years Voices is doing to campaign for real change
Find out more:
Connect with our guests:
- Jo Morris / Champagne Nurseries, Lemonade Funding – Facebook group link (CNLF)
- Early Years Voices – https://earlyyearsvoice.org/
- Snapdragons Nurseries – https://www.snapdragonsnursery.com/
Connect with Atelier
Website and newsletter: ateliernursery.co.uk
Instagram: @ateliernurseryltd
Consultancy enquiries: Contact us via our website
Together, we’ll unlock the potential for incredible growth and learning.
Atelier Talks is a Decibelle Creative original podcast
Produced by Decibelle Creative – decibellecreative.com / @decibelle_creative
Keywords: early years funding 2024, free childcare, 30 hours funding, voluntary charges EYFS, early years admin, EYFS fee structure, funded hours nursery, sustainability nursery funding, early years voices, champagne nurseries lemonade funding, local authority audits EYFS, clawback childcare, early years DfE guidance, provider agreements, nursery compliance UK
Transcript
>> Clare: Welcome to Atelier Talks, the Early Years
Speaker:Collective. This is the podcast brought to you by
Speaker:the Atelier Nursery team, exploring the art and
Speaker:science of early years education. We're here to
Speaker:share knowledge and insights from our unique
Speaker:research led approach. So if you're passionate
Speaker:about early years education, you're in the right
Speaker:place. Let's find out what's in store for you on
Speaker:today's episode.
Speaker:>> Clare: Welcome to Atelier Talks, the Early Years
Speaker:Collective. Today we're really excited because we
Speaker:have our first full guest podcast. So we're joined
Speaker:today by Jo Morris from Play Steps Nursery in
Speaker:Swindon. So Jo's got two nurseries there, but
Speaker:she's also the spokesperson for Champagne
Speaker:Nurseries Lemonade Funding admin for the Day
Speaker:Nursery Hub on social media and more recently the
Speaker:board member for Early Years Voices. She's a huge
Speaker:advocate for, for fairer funding campaigning for
Speaker:the last 17 years on making sure that the
Speaker:challenges providers and Early Years settings are
Speaker:facing around funding is really hard. And we also
Speaker:have the lovely Jen and Rose from Snapdragons
Speaker:Nurseries who, if I'm honest, I'm a little bit in
Speaker:awe of. I don't quite know how they do what they
Speaker:do all day, every day because they have 10
Speaker:settings across three local authorities and are
Speaker:offering over 3,000 childcare places. So a very
Speaker:different offering that we offer Atelier. so it's
Speaker:a really exciting day to be able to bring together
Speaker:such huge voices within the Early Years sector
Speaker:together. So welcome Jo. Welcome Jan. And welcome
Speaker:Rose.
Speaker:>> Jo: Thanks Clare.
Speaker:>> Alison: Thank you.
Speaker:>> Clare: So today's a little bit different. Today we're
Speaker:taking a step outside the doors of Atelier and
Speaker:we're looking at all things fees and funding. So
Speaker:we know that actually there's a lot of talk on the
Speaker:ground at the moment about fees and funding. We've
Speaker:seen some significant changes really coming across
Speaker:into the sector, when we're looking at Early Years
Speaker:in Tycoon and the entitlements that families are
Speaker:able to access. So Jo, do you want to give us a
Speaker:little bit of an overview about some of the
Speaker:changes that Settings have faced, since September?
Speaker:>> Jo: Yeah. So I think the biggest one is obviously that
Speaker:now a huge, a huge part of our income now comes
Speaker:from funding as opposed to coming from parent fees
Speaker:which the the biggest challenge I think with the
Speaker:funding of, aside from the underfunding of the
Speaker:particularly three and four year old offer is the
Speaker:amount of admin that it's bought. It's bought a
Speaker:huge amount of administration, and we're already
Speaker:stretched for time. We already all have enough to
Speaker:do. And I think from speaking to lots and lots of
Speaker:providers, the admin side of it probably has been
Speaker:one of the more challenging. We've had lots of
Speaker:parents who've had difficulties getting codes.
Speaker:There are some complications and confusion over
Speaker:when parents can get their codes. There are
Speaker:deadlines that are set for the forgetting of the
Speaker:code, but actually then don't work with the la,
Speaker:deadlines for receiving the codes. So I think the
Speaker:admin overall has been really, really difficult
Speaker:for people.
Speaker:>> Clare: and then as I say, the.
Speaker:>> Jo: Secondary to that obviously is the fact that we
Speaker:know that the sector has been underfunded for a
Speaker:very long time, particularly those three and four
Speaker:year olds. And at the moment, currently the baby
Speaker:rates and the two year old rates are broadly
Speaker:workable. but we know that that won't continue. So
Speaker:it's not just necessarily the concerns that are
Speaker:there now, but the concerns that are kind of
Speaker:building for future years as this new funding
Speaker:doesn't keep pace with the cost of provisions.
Speaker:>> Clare: Thank you, Jo. So I think what you've done there
Speaker:was kind of summarise the whole podcast in just a
Speaker:few minutes. So we know that from September we saw
Speaker:an increase in the funded hours available to
Speaker:working families. So all of a sudden children, the
Speaker:term after their ninth month birthday, if that's
Speaker:such a thing, were entitled to have up to 30 hours
Speaker:worth of funding within a setting. So Rose, this,
Speaker:you know, we have talked long and hard, haven't
Speaker:we, for the last, gosh, what, five years, about
Speaker:the challenges of funding within Bath Northeast
Speaker:and Wiltshire. and one of the things that we
Speaker:really wanted to kind of look about was the
Speaker:challenges between what parents were facing and
Speaker:how they were almost being pitted against
Speaker:providers and how actually as providers we've
Speaker:almost been left with the really tough job of
Speaker:explaining what actually is included within the
Speaker:funding and what they are really entitled to. And
Speaker:Jo, as you said quite rightly, that that funding
Speaker:actually isn't covering the cost of delivery that
Speaker:is expected. So when we're think about families
Speaker:and we're thinking about providers and we're
Speaker:looking at all of the clarity that we're kind of
Speaker:looking for at the moment, what's exactly changed?
Speaker:Why is it that providers are now asking for
Speaker:greater clarity from their local authorities and
Speaker:families are really seeking more understanding of
Speaker:what is eligible? So we knew, you know, we know
Speaker:what's happened since the 1st of April, we know
Speaker:what's happened since the 1st of September. But
Speaker:just for our listeners, can you, Jen, perhaps
Speaker:clarify what happened, on the 1st of April and
Speaker:that guidance change?
Speaker:>> Jen: Yeah, so 1st of April, the local authorities
Speaker:issued sort of updated guidance on particularly
Speaker:the additional charges that nurseries are allowed
Speaker:to put onto funding. So although we get a set
Speaker:funding, a set amount per hour for each funded
Speaker:child, differing per age group, it doesn't cover
Speaker:everything that most nurseries will provide. Food,
Speaker:additional activities, outings, the list goes on.
Speaker:But, nurseries are able to charge for those and
Speaker:childminders, nurses and childminders are able to
Speaker:charge for those additional services that we
Speaker:provide. And for most nurseries, if I pick food,
Speaker:for instance, you probably find that they're
Speaker:offering the food themselves. They've got a really
Speaker:developed menu, they've got an in house chef
Speaker:that's preparing the food freshly. So they're not
Speaker:really allowing packed lunches. We're dealing with
Speaker:quite young children. There are issues around
Speaker:storage, reheating of food. and then one of the
Speaker:big ones will be health and safety, sort of
Speaker:choking, allergies and things like that. You've
Speaker:got young children, it's much harder to stop a
Speaker:toddler, for instance, from reaching across to
Speaker:someone else's lunchbox and understanding that
Speaker:they can't eat certain foods. So most nurseries
Speaker:will prepare their own food on site that they know
Speaker:is nutritious and safe for all the children in the
Speaker:setting to eat. Obviously in April the government
Speaker:issued new guidance around these sort of charges
Speaker:and saying that in essence, nurseries need to make
Speaker:it easier for parents to opt out of these charges.
Speaker:They need to be truly voluntary and make it sort
Speaker:of easier for parents to access the funding
Speaker:completely free of charge. Do you think that's a
Speaker:fair summary?
Speaker:>> Clare: I think that's a really fair summary. So Jo, when
Speaker:we're thinking about what Jen has said, so, you
Speaker:know, we had that April 2025 change come into play
Speaker:and from my understanding that guidance was about
Speaker:transparency. It was around actually the
Speaker:government saying, you know, yeah, it's okay to
Speaker:charge for these consumables, it's okay to charge
Speaker:for your meals, it's okay to make your additional
Speaker:service charge for the additional services or the
Speaker:quality care that you might provide or for the
Speaker:difference, the standalone things that might be
Speaker:different in your setting, but it's got to be
Speaker:transparent to parents. But then it kind of moved
Speaker:through a little bit further, didn't it, into the
Speaker:local authorities and there seems from, from our
Speaker:perspective at atelier, a real feel that actually
Speaker:now this service, should be offered and it should
Speaker:be offered completely free of charge. From what
Speaker:parents are understanding, it can be that their
Speaker:hours are free, but the statutory guidance tells
Speaker:us as providers that it's okay to charge. So if
Speaker:the charge is meant to be voluntary, the guidance
Speaker:is really, really clear. The funding received is
Speaker:not meant to cover the meals, it's not meant to
Speaker:cover the consumables or the additional services.
Speaker:But the charge can't be made mandatory. Who is
Speaker:meant to be covering the cost?
Speaker:>> Jo: I think what this stems from is there's a case, a
Speaker:case where a parent complained basically around
Speaker:additional services charges and it actually ended
Speaker:up in the High Court. And the High Court judgement
Speaker:was that this childcare, is supposed to be free.
Speaker:It doesn't say in the judgement that actually that
Speaker:everything around that you would expect to be
Speaker:covered by you know, the term childcare. When
Speaker:parents hear 30 hours free or 15 hours free, they
Speaker:think this is great, everything is going to be
Speaker:free. I can walk into the setting, have it all and
Speaker:it will all be free. That's the message that the
Speaker:government has delivered very loudly, very clearly
Speaker:and very consistently through a £90 million PR
Speaker:campaign. However, the guide, the actual, the
Speaker:legislation hasn't significantly changed. What has
Speaker:changed is the wording around charging. So we went
Speaker:from the previous wording was around funding does
Speaker:not, is not intended to cover these things so
Speaker:parents can expect to pay for them. What happened
Speaker:when this judgement then was, was handed down was
Speaker:actually the government, then the DFE changed that
Speaker:guidance and actually released this guidance on
Speaker:the 21st of Febr, giving us very, very, very short
Speaker:notice to actually put it into place that actually
Speaker:now says that effectively, charges must be on the
Speaker:basis of parents willing to opt in. It can no
Speaker:longer be a kind of an opt out. You have to almost
Speaker:opt in. And that's been the biggest change.
Speaker:Although it's a subtle, subtle wording, it's a
Speaker:huge change in terms of how we're then expected to
Speaker:deliver. And I think one of the things that we
Speaker:certainly have seen is a rise and particularly
Speaker:with families who are new to obviously funding,
Speaker:who are coming in now at nine months or at two.
Speaker:And as you say, they're funding now kind of come
Speaker:down through the age groups are walking into
Speaker:nursery saying, well this is great, it's all free.
Speaker:and it's, and it's these faces that have to say,
Speaker:well actually I'm really sorry but it's not quite
Speaker:as free as it's been made out to sound. I Think
Speaker:so. I think the, the actual, the actual
Speaker:legislation itself hasn't changed, but the wording
Speaker:and the guidance is tightened from can expect to
Speaker:pay for these items to can, you know, we can.
Speaker:Providers can charge, but these charges have to be
Speaker:voluntary for parents. So on the one hand, the DfE
Speaker:are saying to us, yeah, give the hours for free,
Speaker:but you, but it's okay to charge for the extra
Speaker:things. But then they're saying to the parents,
Speaker:oh, but they have to be voluntary charges. And
Speaker:there's this real, there's this real kind of
Speaker:mishmash of actually what does the funding cover?
Speaker:We have asked the DFE repeatedly over the last
Speaker:nine years to give us a definitive list of what it
Speaker:does cover. They have not done that. Local
Speaker:authorities, again, we've asked them give us a
Speaker:definitive list of what this funding covers and
Speaker:then therefore what sits outside of that scope.
Speaker:And then therefore we can apply additional
Speaker:services charges on the basis now of parents being
Speaker:willing to pay. Most local authorities again have
Speaker:stopped short of doing that. And what we're
Speaker:finding is that in their provider agreements it
Speaker:will say that charges can be applied as long as
Speaker:they're voluntary for parents. And then when
Speaker:settings are actually being audited, local
Speaker:authorities are saying, oh, no, but hang on, we
Speaker:don't like that charge and we don't like that
Speaker:charge and we don't like that charge. So there is
Speaker:not and has not ever been a definitive list of
Speaker:actually what does funding cover? And we kind of
Speaker:left to sort of flail around and try to make our
Speaker:own models. And I think that up until, up until I
Speaker:think quite recently, you know, parents are, this
Speaker:funding. First of all, I would certainly say I'm
Speaker:not opposed to the government helping parents with
Speaker:the cost of childcare. We know it's expensive, we
Speaker:pay the bills. We know childcare is expensive. We
Speaker:have one of the highest ratios in Europe, quite
Speaker:rightly, I believe. I don't think we should be
Speaker:messing around with ratios. But childcare is
Speaker:expensive. It would be really, really helpful if
Speaker:the DFE would come out and say these items are on
Speaker:the list that have to be include as part of the
Speaker:free hours and these are the items that can be
Speaker:charged for. That I think is what we are now being
Speaker:asked to do and expected to do and to publish this
Speaker:information on our websites, on our invoices by
Speaker:January without actually any clear guidance on
Speaker:what actually it is that we are allowed to charge
Speaker:for. And I think that's been the, that's been the
Speaker:root of quite a lot of, of of conflict and
Speaker:challenge and, you know, between parents and their
Speaker:settings. And as you quite rightly say, Jen, this
Speaker:is, is, this is childminders as well as it is
Speaker:nurseries, it's the whole sector, you know, so, so
Speaker:as I say, I, I always kind of give the example
Speaker:that as a, you know, as a nursery owner, if
Speaker:someone said to me, right, okay, you can go to
Speaker:that restaurant and have a free meal, I'd think,
Speaker:oh lovely, that's great, thank you. And I'd go to
Speaker:the restaurant, they'd say, yeah, well the food's
Speaker:free but the plate's not free and the glass isn't
Speaker:free and you've got, you've got to hire the fork
Speaker:and you know, and I know it's a sort of slightly
Speaker:sort of tongue in cheek comparison, but when, when
Speaker:parents are told something is free, that's what
Speaker:they expect it to cost them. And then they come
Speaker:along to us and we say, oh, well, this part of
Speaker:it's free, but this part of it's, it's not free.
Speaker:But, but we can charge for it, but you can choose
Speaker:not to pay for it. But if you don't pay for it,
Speaker:you've got to bring your own, but you can't. These
Speaker:are the rules around that. I mean, it's, it's,
Speaker:again, this is all part of that admin that
Speaker:settings are spending hours and hours and hours
Speaker:going through this with, with families to try to
Speaker:help them to understand. And when we do explain,
Speaker:on the whole, I would say families do understand
Speaker:and the reaction for most families is, is, oh,
Speaker:shock. You know, the government has promised it
Speaker:for free and it's not quite as good as it sounds.
Speaker:Shock, you know, so on the whole, I think once
Speaker:it's explained, families do understand it, but
Speaker:there are a cohort of families that are saying,
Speaker:no, I want it all for free. That's what I've been
Speaker:told I can have, you know, so I think, I think
Speaker:what we are crying out for and always have been is
Speaker:some really clear guidance from the DfE on what
Speaker:actually is free.
Speaker:>> Clare: So I think you echo every setting across the UK at
Speaker:the moment because, you know, we as providers
Speaker:within Bath and Wiltshire together, so Rose and
Speaker:Jen, and I provide within two local authorities.
Speaker:So, you know, before all of this came through, we
Speaker:were sharing our provider agreements, we were
Speaker:going through our fee literature, we were trying
Speaker:to find a way to make it work for families because
Speaker:like you said, you know, we want families to be
Speaker:able to access high quality early years education,
Speaker:we want them to have the funding support, but what
Speaker:we don't want to do is dilute the quality. And
Speaker:when all of a sudden we're being told, you can
Speaker:charge, but you can't charge, but you can charge
Speaker:for this, but we have to offer an alternative.
Speaker:What does that really look like when you've got,
Speaker:you know, we're quite small compared to some of
Speaker:your settings, in Bath and Wiltshire, but, you
Speaker:know, we've got 70 children a day. But you can't
Speaker:set up a fee structure for each of those
Speaker:individual children based on what they want to opt
Speaker:in or opt out of. And I think it's really hard.
Speaker:And we had exactly that same conversation with a
Speaker:really, really lovely parent. She'd had. You know,
Speaker:she's got two children with us. Her eldest has
Speaker:just gone to school in September and she just kind
Speaker:of came in and she just said this. This fee
Speaker:literature feels so alien to atelier. What's it
Speaker:all about? This is. It's so detached from
Speaker:everything that we feel and everything that we see
Speaker:every single day. Why are you doing this? Why are
Speaker:you saying, actually, you know, you have to charge
Speaker:separately to hire your plate, which is, in being
Speaker:really honest, we've done an absolute black and
Speaker:white table of what's included over and above the
Speaker:early years entitlement funding as we interpret
Speaker:it. And it was exactly that. You know, we order,
Speaker:all of our food from our local butchers, all of
Speaker:our fruit and vegetables come from our local
Speaker:greengracers. We know the provenance of all of our
Speaker:food. We employ an amazing chef. Beth went to
Speaker:River Cottage to do her staff, development
Speaker:training to think about how we could have the best
Speaker:of menus. You know, I know Rose and Jen, you work
Speaker:with the Soil association to make sure that
Speaker:everything, that you're providing for children is
Speaker:at the highest level of quality. And then all of a
Speaker:sudden we're having to justify with parents that
Speaker:actually it's not just the cost of that food, but
Speaker:actually it's the cost of the preparation, it's
Speaker:the cost of the use of the dishwasher, it's the
Speaker:cost of the detergents to wipe the surfaces down
Speaker:after your children have eaten. It's the flannel
Speaker:that they have to wash their face when they
Speaker:finished. And it feels, it feels, I think, you
Speaker:know, that as providers, we've always been made to
Speaker:feel that we're penny pinching and we're penny
Speaker:pinching back from the most vulnerable children
Speaker:and how actually we can overcome that feel because
Speaker:the conversation we had with our parent was very
Speaker:much. Yeah, we hate it too. It's not about what we
Speaker:want to do, it's not how we want to deliver. We
Speaker:don't want to see parental choice wiped out. You
Speaker:know, what we offer atelier with our, our artists
Speaker:or with our creative curriculum or with the
Speaker:gallery. Schools will always be different to what
Speaker:the nurseries right next door to us offer. And
Speaker:that's brilliant because that's actually how
Speaker:choice should be and parents should be able to
Speaker:choose for that. But none of our funding models
Speaker:match the cost of our deliveries because we were
Speaker:all going to have completely different overheads
Speaker:to match that. And so as such, for years we've
Speaker:been able to operate under an additional service
Speaker:charge that has met the difference between our
Speaker:funding and actually our cost of delivery. And all
Speaker:of a sudden that's becoming further and further
Speaker:reduced because not only are, the more and more of
Speaker:our children coming in on a funded basis, so
Speaker:you've lost your ability to recoup that loss
Speaker:within your, your private fees, but you're now
Speaker:actually capped within what you can charge for and
Speaker:what you can't charge for. So where is this going
Speaker:to take our children and families in terms of
Speaker:their choices and in terms of their rights? And
Speaker:actually then we'll look at where that's going to
Speaker:take our providers because I think we've got a
Speaker:really challenging landscape ahead of us, would
Speaker:you agree?
Speaker:>> Jen: I think we have. I think it's really difficult.
Speaker:And we've got. Obviously we work across four local
Speaker:authorities and they've all taken quite a
Speaker:different approach to this as well in respect to
Speaker:kind of our. We operate the same policy across all
Speaker:of our nurseries. Like you, we had to send out
Speaker:something earlier in the year that felt quite
Speaker:alien to us, felt quite restrictive in terms of
Speaker:trying to meet these kind of new guidelines and
Speaker:ensuring that parents were given full transparency
Speaker:on kind of what was and wasn't included. Vast
Speaker:majority of our parents, like it's been said
Speaker:before, were absolutely on board, didn't mind
Speaker:because it didn't change anything for any of them.
Speaker:They still wanted to kind of opt into that service
Speaker:where we provide what we call an all inclusive and
Speaker:premium sort of childcare for them. But then you
Speaker:do get the cohort who are questioning it. They
Speaker:have been told it's free. So quite rightly they're
Speaker:questioning why it's not free. And you know,
Speaker:you've touched on it as well. You're getting
Speaker:parents say, well, I can do my supermarket shop
Speaker:for this amount. So how can you charge this for
Speaker:food? But there is so much more that goes into it.
Speaker:We're not just sort of whacking out chicken
Speaker:nuggets or a, ham sandwich. We are really trying
Speaker:to make sure that these children have nutritious
Speaker:food, have enough of the nutritious food. And
Speaker:there's a huge amount of time and cost that goes
Speaker:into not just the physical groceries that end up
Speaker:on their plate, but the planning, the preparation,
Speaker:the waste disposal, you know, even things as
Speaker:trying to move away from just simply plastic
Speaker:plates and plastic cups and buying nice quality
Speaker:crockery for the children to use and metal sort of
Speaker:knives and forks so that they're getting used to
Speaker:using those. And it's really then frustrating to
Speaker:be feeling. You've got to, you're almost
Speaker:villainized in this case where you're having to
Speaker:display things and parents just can't understand
Speaker:it.
Speaker:>> Jo: And of course now we have the new DfE guidance on
Speaker:nutrition in earlier settings, don't we? That also
Speaker:now says, you know, take out everything that's got
Speaker:sugar in it. Everything that's, that's minimise
Speaker:salt. So you know, so it's, it's not, it's not as
Speaker:simple like you say, you know, as, you know, kind
Speaker:of popping a few chicken nuggets in the oven.
Speaker:It's. And I think one of the things that when I
Speaker:talk to families and talk to other settings about
Speaker:how they talk to their families is the example I
Speaker:always give, you know, is for example, a Happy
Speaker:meal. Not knocking McDonald's. Everyone loves a
Speaker:strawberry milkshake. but you know, a Happy meal
Speaker:is nearly £4. For some chicken nuggets and chips
Speaker:and a drink, it is £4. And that's not knocking
Speaker:McDonald's at all. When you look at the cost of a
Speaker:home cooked, as you say, in most cases, two course
Speaker:home cooked, nutritionally balanced, you know,
Speaker:organic, where we can. And you know, minimising
Speaker:our impact on the environment. We're now paying
Speaker:for our food waste as well to be taken away. So
Speaker:all of those costs have gone up significantly. And
Speaker:I think again, you know, something else, I always
Speaker:sort of talk to providers when they're talking to
Speaker:their families to give them sort of some
Speaker:confidence is to say, you know, families don't go
Speaker:into restaurants and question the price of food.
Speaker:The difference is, the huge difference is families
Speaker:haven't been told that food that is free. And this
Speaker:is our biggest issue, the government like to crow
Speaker:about free childcare. Free childcare, Free
Speaker:childcare. What there is not. And has never been.
Speaker:Is, as I said that really clear. This is what you
Speaker:can have for free. And these are the things that
Speaker:we are not paying your setting to provide. These
Speaker:are the things that we're not paying for. And I
Speaker:think in terms, Clare, of your question around
Speaker:where we're going with this, this, my concern is
Speaker:particularly around those families who maybe are,
Speaker:with living within deprivation. I think as a
Speaker:provider, just purely on a numbers basis, if you
Speaker:have the option of having two children who are
Speaker:eligible for 15 hours funding or one child is
Speaker:eligible for 30 hours funding, that one child, it
Speaker:becomes a more, sustainable business operation to
Speaker:have one child rather than two, because that's two
Speaker:sets of learning journeys, two sets of paperwork,
Speaker:two sets of administration. So my fear is that the
Speaker:children who need to be in nursery, perhaps for
Speaker:whom the outcomes are the most kind of dependent,
Speaker:I think all children have got absolutely equal
Speaker:right to be in nursery if families want that for
Speaker:them. But I think that we will start to see over,
Speaker:the next couple of years these 2 year olds and
Speaker:perhaps the universal 3 year olds, 15 hour 3 year
Speaker:olds being squeezed out of nursery provision
Speaker:because it just becomes a numbers game where you
Speaker:can have X amount M of children on roll or X
Speaker:amount M of children on roll. And so I think in
Speaker:terms of my m. Concern for the children is that my
Speaker:concern for the families is that there will be
Speaker:settings are having to really significantly
Speaker:reduce, cap maybe the hours they're offering or
Speaker:reduce the amount of hours that they are prepared
Speaker:to deliver. really having to think, as you know,
Speaker:as you say, Jen, around, what actually are we
Speaker:charging for? So I don't believe that the quality
Speaker:necessarily will suffer because I believe that
Speaker:even within, I think the eyfs, the statutory
Speaker:guidance calls it EYFS provision. So for the
Speaker:families who opt out, a child has to remain within
Speaker:EYFS provision. And we are currently, you know,
Speaker:97% good and outstanding in this country from
Speaker:Ofsted. And I think we should be extremely proud
Speaker:of that. I think the provision that's offered
Speaker:within the eifs, I think is very good, but those
Speaker:extras and those things. Now, again, I know that
Speaker:your settings go over and above. you know, we have
Speaker:a forest wall in one of our settings that's not
Speaker:cheap. I think that, you know, it's. It's going to
Speaker:come to a point where we are looking and saying,
Speaker:well, actually, what of these extras and these
Speaker:lovely phenomenal additions, can we continue to
Speaker:deliver? if more and more families are saying no,
Speaker:I just want the free stuff. so I think that the
Speaker:landscape for us in terms of children, my concern
Speaker:is for those children only eligible for 15 hours.
Speaker:and for settings it's around. Are we going to be
Speaker:able to sustain these really, really high quality
Speaker:extra curricular activities and, and offerings
Speaker:that really you know, I know for you guys and for
Speaker:us part our forest school doesn't feel like an
Speaker:extra for us. It's part of who we are. You know
Speaker:it's, it's part of play steps. and, and I love
Speaker:that but, but actually it comes at a cost and my
Speaker:concern is if we have. I think we're going through
Speaker:a honeymoon period now. I think again I've heard
Speaker:this lots of times where families are saying oh my
Speaker:goodness, you know, I've got a five year old just
Speaker:gone to school. We had to wait till he was, till
Speaker:they were three to get any funding. You're now
Speaker:getting at nine months. We're so fortunate. And
Speaker:this new cohort of parents are thinking, thinking
Speaker:this is love, this is great. Something that you
Speaker:know, wasn't around last year, wasn't around the
Speaker:year before. I think fast forward that to three or
Speaker:four years time when all families know it's here,
Speaker:all families know it's coming. All families then
Speaker:have a I don't use this word word lightly. The
Speaker:government call this an entitlement. Now
Speaker:entitlement is a very, very strong word. I prefer
Speaker:eligibility eligible for. But a family coming
Speaker:families knowing that they're having children and
Speaker:they are entitled to free child care. Whether we
Speaker:will see a shift away from oh my goodness, this is
Speaker:phenomenal, this is great. I'm very grateful and
Speaker:yes I'm happy to pay us, you know what is in most
Speaker:cases a relatively small amount of money for this
Speaker:phenomenal service I'm getting and the shift's
Speaker:more towards now just give me whatever's free. and
Speaker:I think the other thing that we've, we've seen
Speaker:again in terms of operational differences for us
Speaker:is around for example we used to have a three day
Speaker:minimum. Now obviously we can't impose a three day
Speaker:minimum because it's takes the, it takes it the
Speaker:over the amount of funded hours available. So
Speaker:we've now had to go back to offering some two day
Speaker:places and our children are taking much longer to
Speaker:settle. We've really seen that this September.
Speaker:Children coming twice a week are taking a lot
Speaker:longer to settle. So there are all sorts of
Speaker:operational reasons why we had things in place.
Speaker:And this guidance come in and gone. Nope. Sweep
Speaker:that out you know, start again. you know, and, and
Speaker:you can't charge this and you can't charge that.
Speaker:And I think the other thing with the local
Speaker:authorities that really worries, worries me and
Speaker:you've got more experience with this than I have
Speaker:because we only have settings in one la. But I've
Speaker:worked with other providers across the country is
Speaker:that what they put in their agreements isn't
Speaker:necessarily what they then tell their providers at
Speaker:audit. So, you know, and the interpretations. I
Speaker:think I can give you one example of around, a part
Speaker:of the guidance that surrounds all children having
Speaker:equal access to a place. some local authorities
Speaker:will interpret that as being, you can't have any
Speaker:conditions on your places. So every child world
Speaker:has got the equal access to come. Others will say,
Speaker:well, that has to mean equal access to this, to
Speaker:this, the, the same sessions. So you can't have a
Speaker:session in, in the afternoon. That's just for, if
Speaker:you just want to use your free hours. Because
Speaker:that's not equal access for a family who are, who
Speaker:are, you know, paying for more hours. So the same,
Speaker:the same line, the same thing that we're all
Speaker:reading is being interpreted in ways that makes a
Speaker:massive difference to actually what settings in
Speaker:each LA can and can't deliver. So there has never
Speaker:been a level playing field in early years, but I
Speaker:believe that factor alone makes this such an
Speaker:uneven playing field for us. And for settings like
Speaker:yourselves, you've got, you know, you've got kind
Speaker:of, two or dual or multi las, that you're working
Speaker:with. You know, you may well find that something
Speaker:one LA says, yeah, that's absolutely fine,
Speaker:perfectly acceptable. The other one says, no,
Speaker:sorry, no, you can't do that. And that again, you
Speaker:know, is a massive struggle for providers and
Speaker:just, just, just takes that playing field and just
Speaker:rips up the surface.
Speaker:>> Clare: So Jen, is that something that, you know, between
Speaker:you and Rose, you're finding across your local
Speaker:authorities that discrepancy? I know, Jo, you've
Speaker:got an absolute ear to the ground across the whole
Speaker:of the country and are supporting huge amounts of
Speaker:providers, in negotiating with their local
Speaker:authorities what is allowed, what isn't allowed.
Speaker:But where are you at? Because I think you've
Speaker:recently had a funding audit, haven't you, Jack?
Speaker:>> Jen: Yeah, we've. So like I said, we work across
Speaker:different local authorities who are hugely
Speaker:different in their approaches to funding. We've
Speaker:got two that we don't really hear a huge amount
Speaker:for and just sort of let us get on with it. we've
Speaker:got One that is. And, has always been really,
Speaker:really supportive. We've had audits in the past,
Speaker:find no issues whatsoever. And then we've had one
Speaker:local authority where we've had brilliant
Speaker:relationship with them. We've been audited pretty
Speaker:April, no issues, no issues. And then suddenly
Speaker:we're finding ourselves locked in a bit of a
Speaker:battle with them because they're asking us to do
Speaker:things that we're finding really restrictive,
Speaker:which is then being passed on to parents. And
Speaker:we've actually just recently had an audit where
Speaker:they've had issues around kind of, parents who
Speaker:have flexible working and then sometimes want to
Speaker:pick children up earlier than, say, their planned
Speaker:session time. So we've essentially had to write to
Speaker:all parents in this local authority and say to you
Speaker:can't pick up until the end of the session. Which
Speaker:obviously feels a lot more school based and
Speaker:doesn't match those parents who are working
Speaker:flexibly, wanting to work from home. If you finish
Speaker:at 4 one day and want to pick up your child so
Speaker:they're not in Nursery until 6, why shouldn't you
Speaker:be allowed to do that? And I've been very clear
Speaker:with the parents that this directive hasn't come
Speaker:from us, it's come from the local authority. And
Speaker:we're really fortunate. We've had an amazing
Speaker:response from our parents who are quite rightly
Speaker:livid. Luckily not towards us, I think most of
Speaker:them towards the local authority. But it does feel
Speaker:now we're somewhat locked in a battle with a local
Speaker:authority that we'd had a really, really good
Speaker:relationship with before, had no complaints and in
Speaker:fact, I would frequently say in many groups that
Speaker:it had been our most supportive local authority.
Speaker:And now that's changed things for us, which also
Speaker:feels really difficult. We don't want to have a
Speaker:difficult relationship with the local authority.
Speaker:We want to feel supported. We've been chasing
Speaker:confirmation as we've had from our other local
Speaker:authorities. Right. This is our policy. Are, you
Speaker:thinking it's compliant? And they won't answer us.
Speaker:They say it's not our place, we don't know
Speaker:contractual law. And I said, but it's your
Speaker:contract, it's your provider agreement. You should
Speaker:be able to tell me now whether I'm compliant
Speaker:rather than waiting for an audit or rather than
Speaker:waiting for a parent complaint. as nurseries, we
Speaker:deserve to have that security. You've set the
Speaker:provider agreement, you tell me whether I'm
Speaker:compliant with it before I go out to with one
Speaker:policy to warn my parents and then have to change
Speaker:it a few weeks into term. And that's really
Speaker:frustrating, I can tell.
Speaker:>> Jo: You Jen, that is replicated across the country. We
Speaker:have had that so many times. Where in LA has said
Speaker:we're not here to advise you. Well actually what
Speaker:are you there for then? What are you retaining a
Speaker:percentage of this funding for? Why are you
Speaker:putting out a legally binding document? Those,
Speaker:those provider agreements are legally binding
Speaker:documents that you don't understand yourself. And
Speaker:I find local authorities, it's like a windscreen.
Speaker:They're either, they're either this side because
Speaker:they're very supportive and they want, and let's,
Speaker:let's face it, local authorities have a statutory
Speaker:duty to find childcare for every family that wants
Speaker:it. They need us more than they have ever needed
Speaker:us before. So some of them will say, look, you
Speaker:know what? Actually, you know, yes, that's fine.
Speaker:We think that's within the scope. Others will then
Speaker:don't understand it well enough to give advice and
Speaker:support. And I think what's also really
Speaker:frustrating and I think you've just touched on it
Speaker:there Jen, is to say that actually what a lot of
Speaker:LAs are saying is that, you know what, what? Yeah,
Speaker:it looks, it looks broadly. Okay, keep going. But
Speaker:the minute there's a parent complaint they will
Speaker:come down, they will take a sledgehammer to a nut.
Speaker:And it is because the local authorities after this
Speaker:case with in, in Bournemouth, ah, are terrified of
Speaker:the DfE and terrified of the ombudsman.
Speaker:>> Jen: Ombudsman.
Speaker:>> Jo: And that is the crux of this. Las are I do feel
Speaker:for las because I think they're in a difficult
Speaker:position. They've got providers saying what does
Speaker:this mean? They've got the DfE saying well, why
Speaker:have you let your providers do that? That I do
Speaker:feel that LAs are in a difficult position. But I
Speaker:100% agree. Jen, when you are putting out a
Speaker:statutory document that you are asking people to
Speaker:follow then you should understand that well enough
Speaker:to know what that means in, in your la. And I have
Speaker:heard that over and over again and I think again
Speaker:this, this thing about, you know, parental
Speaker:complaints. They, the, the, the parent who
Speaker:complained in the case of that went to the High
Speaker:Court, they referred to him as Mr. X. You only
Speaker:need to have one Mr. X in your local authority for
Speaker:your local authority authority to panic and knee
Speaker:jerk reaction and change everything and clamp
Speaker:down. And I've seen it time and time again and I
Speaker:think, yeah, and that's what they're doing.
Speaker:Absolutely.
Speaker:>> Jen: And I think the difficulty is the conversation I
Speaker:was Having with the local authority around this,
Speaker:this sort of compliance, I said. And he mentioned
Speaker:the, the Ombudsman. And I said, I am happy to talk
Speaker:to an ombudsman. I, I, I feel I can defend what
Speaker:we're doing and that I think we're compliant
Speaker:according to your provider agreement. So it's not
Speaker:me. I don't think that needs to argue with the
Speaker:Ombudsman. You need to tell me me if that's the
Speaker:case, because if we're having these conversations
Speaker:and you won't confirm whether I'm compliant or
Speaker:not, I'm going to assume I am. And I am very happy
Speaker:to tell an ombudsman that and that I have sought
Speaker:advice over and over and over again from
Speaker:yourselves. I'm not scared of talking to those
Speaker:people. But what we do deserve is some clarity on
Speaker:where the local authority would stand if there was
Speaker:a case that went that far.
Speaker:>> Jo: Yeah, absolutely, I said.
Speaker:>> Jen: And I said, if you can tell me why I'm not
Speaker:compliant, I'll happily look at this. But I do
Speaker:need to explicitly know why I'm, not compliant.
Speaker:And then they can't answer that because I don't
Speaker:think I am not compliant. So. But they just don't
Speaker:want to say it because they are terrified of being
Speaker:held accountable. But we are held accountable for
Speaker:so much, not just all the funding and the admin
Speaker:that goes alongside with that, but we are
Speaker:accountable to Ofsted, we're accountable to
Speaker:Riddle, we're accounted to so many different
Speaker:outside entities. Working in the early years is an
Speaker:absolute hazard, because at any moment something
Speaker:could trip you up completely out of your control.
Speaker:We're accountable all the time. And I don't think
Speaker:it's unreasonable that local authorities should be
Speaker:accountable for telling us whether or not we're
Speaker:compliant before it comes to an audit or a
Speaker:complaint. And we have got some that will do that.
Speaker:So it's frustrating that not all will.
Speaker:>> Clare: Jo, is that something that Early Years Voice are
Speaker:kind of picking up and trying to run, with in
Speaker:terms of that discrepancy across the local
Speaker:authorities? You talked right at the beginning
Speaker:about that kind of real challenge back to the DFE
Speaker:and the legal challenge. Can you give us a bit
Speaker:more detail about what's kind of going on behind
Speaker:the scenes or what we can kind of look for?
Speaker:>> Jo: Yeah, absolutely. So we have got, within
Speaker:earlier's, voice, we've got two solicitors who sit
Speaker:on the board with us. We've also got a, barrister
Speaker:that we have been, been, consulting, and the The.
Speaker:The answer, which I'm sure is not going to come as
Speaker:a surprise to anyone, is that it's def. It's tough
Speaker:to get legislation changed. It's very difficult.
Speaker:And the, the kind of. The kind of getting out of
Speaker:jail, if you like, for the government is that this
Speaker:funding doesn't. We don't have to offer it so they
Speaker:can put whatever rules they like into it and if we
Speaker:don't like it or we can't make it work, they say,
Speaker:well, then, just don't offer it. Now, we know that
Speaker:that at the moment that's business suicide,
Speaker:because if we're not offering it then, then
Speaker:parents will go and find, you know, a nursery that
Speaker:is understandably, they need that, you know, they
Speaker:want to utilise their funding. So I don't believe
Speaker:that. It's just an issue of, you know, and I think
Speaker:we, We've tried across the sector to sort of look
Speaker:at, you know, whether we do all pull out on the
Speaker:whole. And it just, just. It's not going to
Speaker:happen. Nurseries don't want to penalise their
Speaker:families, they don't want to risk their
Speaker:businesses. We're not going to see a national, a
Speaker:national pullout. we've also been campaigning with
Speaker:CNLF for over nine years now to remove the word
Speaker:free. I don't think free is going anywhere. It was
Speaker:introduced by Labour, it's been extended by the
Speaker:Conservatives and that extension has been
Speaker:supported by Labour. So I don't think the word
Speaker:free is going anywhere. So what we're actually
Speaker:looking at is more around the, the nuances of this
Speaker:legislation, this guidance. Because within the
Speaker:legislation, the Child care Act of 2006 and 16
Speaker:says that the child care, the hours must be free.
Speaker:There is an act of law that sits behind that
Speaker:guidance when it talks about charging for things
Speaker:like meals and, and things. There is no act of
Speaker:Parliament that sits behind that guidance. It's,
Speaker:it's, it's a. It's, an interpretation from the DFE
Speaker:and from the local authority that, that, you know,
Speaker:that child care must be free. But, but it doesn't
Speaker:cover. Again, we're back to this. What does it
Speaker:cover and what doesn't it. So what we're looking
Speaker:at is we are looking at individual local
Speaker:authorities and we are looking at challenging some
Speaker:of those that are being overly restrictive. So,
Speaker:for example, one of one local authority. I'm not
Speaker:sure if you're happy for me to mention them or
Speaker:not. So Kent put out an addendum. They didn't
Speaker:release A new provider agreement. In February,
Speaker:when this new guidance came out, they released an
Speaker:addendum that says, effectively, you as a provider
Speaker:in Kent, agree to. To, unilaterally accept any
Speaker:changes that we impose on you. Now, you know, that
Speaker:is. And our solicitor, our barrister, said, you
Speaker:know, that that isn't a contract that would stand
Speaker:up in any, in any other sector. Who on earth, as a
Speaker:business is going to accept a contract that says,
Speaker:right, if we decide tomorrow that you've got to
Speaker:wear a green hat to work, you know, and stand on
Speaker:your head and do your day on your. You know, it's.
Speaker:Again, it's almost laughable. and it's basically
Speaker:because. Because, Kent are a very, very strict
Speaker:local authority. They are very difficult. Maybe
Speaker:that's unkind. They are very rigid in their
Speaker:thinking. and they are very, very strict. And
Speaker:there are a couple of examples of local
Speaker:authorities that are like that. There are also
Speaker:examples of local authorities who really don't
Speaker:understand this well enough at all to issue
Speaker:anything at all. So they just go, well, we're not
Speaker:really sure. so what we are looking to do is to
Speaker:see if we can work towards getting the more rigid
Speaker:practise tax las. To. To change their agreements
Speaker:or to clarify, we're asking for clarification.
Speaker:Jen, you said this a few times and you're right.
Speaker:Just tell us what you want us to do, you know, and
Speaker:then we will work out within our. Within our own
Speaker:settings and our own groups whether we can
Speaker:actually do that or not. so we're looking at kind
Speaker:of targeting one or two settings, one or two local
Speaker:authorities that are being perhaps a bit
Speaker:overzealous and seeing if we can make some changes
Speaker:there. Because the local authorities do talk to
Speaker:each other, they do look at what they're doing.
Speaker:The DFE does have. Is supposed to have that kind
Speaker:of overarching control over local authority. So
Speaker:again, we've gone to the DFE and said, actually,
Speaker:can you tell us if the local authorities aren't
Speaker:willing to tell us, can you tell us, does this
Speaker:part of the legislation or guidance mean this? The
Speaker:DFE don't come back with that either. They just
Speaker:come back and tell us to read the guidance. So in
Speaker:terms of a legal challenge around the whole, you
Speaker:know, remove the word free, we know that that's a
Speaker:massive ask. And actually, if they change the.
Speaker:Some of the. Some of the. The, guidance around
Speaker:charging, we wouldn't necessarily need to have the
Speaker:word free removed. You know, I think. I think that
Speaker:the Two things that do the most damage for us as
Speaker:settings are the, the 15 and 30 hours. Because
Speaker:it's only 15 or 30 hours if it's term time only.
Speaker:The vast majority of Pvis in this country are not
Speaker:term time, only with 51 weeks or 48 weeks. So, so
Speaker:automatically it's not 30 hours or 15 hours a
Speaker:week. That's, that's a huge, a huge issue for us
Speaker:in this repeated explaining. and I think. So maybe
Speaker:the challenges are more so around better
Speaker:clarification, clearer guidance and clearer
Speaker:wording. Not for us as settings necessarily, but
Speaker:for parents as well. You know, a bit more
Speaker:openness, a bit more honesty about what actually
Speaker:are you providing. Because 30 hours free childcare
Speaker:sounds incredible. The reality is not that, that's
Speaker:not what it is. and then the other sort of thing
Speaker:to that is to look around. There is a piece of
Speaker:legislation within, within the, from the DFE that
Speaker:says that, that local authorities should be,
Speaker:should be treating their, their providers
Speaker:equitably so fairly and, you know, as much as
Speaker:possible in the same way. And we've seen over and
Speaker:over and Jen, you've seen it, we've talked about
Speaker:it today that local authorities are not treating
Speaker:their providers equitably. We've also got, we've
Speaker:also got within some las where child might minders
Speaker:are being given slightly different rules to, to
Speaker:PVIs or there's a bit more flexibility for
Speaker:settings. So for example, one of the biggest
Speaker:things there is that from the DFE is that if
Speaker:you're a childminder or a setting with less than
Speaker:10 children, you don't have to publish your your
Speaker:fees, your additional service charge, you don't
Speaker:have to itemise your invoices. If you have more
Speaker:than 10 children, you do. That's not fair, that's
Speaker:not equitable. So there is, there are pieces of,
Speaker:there are smaller pieces that the big overall
Speaker:legislation around free child care. I don't think
Speaker:we're going to see that budged. But the smaller
Speaker:things around, you know, around you know, charging
Speaker:and, and if we could just, if we could make these
Speaker:charges, for the additional services, make them,
Speaker:make them mandatory. So we're saying to families,
Speaker:look, you know, these are the costs of coming to
Speaker:have a place with us here. We're very clear about
Speaker:what they are. Are you willing to pay them? Yes.
Speaker:If you're not willing to pay them, this is maybe
Speaker:isn't a setting for you. Now what that will do is
Speaker:that will mean that market, market forces Keep
Speaker:those additional services fees competitive. We're
Speaker:not going to start Suddenly start charging 55
Speaker:pounds for lunch just because we can. We're going
Speaker:to be going right, okay. We are, we are in the PVI
Speaker:sectors particularly. We are businesses that are
Speaker:in competition with our local, our local settings.
Speaker:We might be very friendly with them and in lots of
Speaker:cases we are. And one thing I will say is that
Speaker:this, this funding, and this especially this
Speaker:newest funding from, from the February 21st
Speaker:guidance has bought providers, providers together.
Speaker:We are now seeing local groups being established.
Speaker:We are seeing providers talking to each other and
Speaker:saying, well actually I'm struggling with this.
Speaker:Are you struggling with this? And I think what
Speaker:CNLF has done over, the last few years is it's
Speaker:brought the country's providers together. I think,
Speaker:you know, we may have had a provider in Liverpool
Speaker:who was struggling and one in Nottingham and one
Speaker:in, you know, one in Swindon and one in London,
Speaker:but we were all kind of struggling on our own. And
Speaker:then suddenly CNL says, actually, you know, we're
Speaker:all having these struggles. So I do think that as
Speaker:a sector, we have, we are more united now than I
Speaker:think we have been. But there are still big
Speaker:variances within the sector. and, and you know,
Speaker:there are sets, there are some settings that, that
Speaker:can and do offer these hours and everything that's
Speaker:included with no charges. There are other settings
Speaker:that say I wouldn't be here. I can't survive doing
Speaker:that, you know, because we're private businesses
Speaker:with massively different cost basis. So I think
Speaker:that, I think that overall, yeah, it's, it's
Speaker:challenging. And I don't know what the, I don't
Speaker:know what the absolute definitive answer would be.
Speaker:I think it's a combination of a few smaller bits
Speaker:of legislation or guidance being, being adapted.
Speaker:But certainly what ah, what Earlier's voice is
Speaker:calling for is we've actually just put, we've put
Speaker:in place now a petition and I know that people
Speaker:say, oh, another petition. unfortunately the way
Speaker:that the the, the democracy works in this country
Speaker:is that in order to get anything actually debated
Speaker:within Parliament, you either have to have a very
Speaker:sympathetic MP who will raise it for you, or you
Speaker:have to have a petition that means that they have
Speaker:to, they have to respond and discuss it. So our
Speaker:petition is calling for an independent review into
Speaker:the costs of child care and and the, the funding
Speaker:levels and some kind of commitment that that
Speaker:funding will raise year on year, within some
Speaker:scale, I don't know. And I'm not An economics
Speaker:expert. I don't know what the best scale of
Speaker:comparison that that would be. I would say a good
Speaker:starting point would be whatever percentage
Speaker:minimum wage goes up by the funding should be
Speaker:going up by at least that if not a little bit
Speaker:more. We know that funding doesn't keep pace. In
Speaker:Swindon we didn't have an increase in funding for
Speaker:seven years until, until very, very recently. So
Speaker:you know that's a real term decrease in funding
Speaker:year on year. At the moment what earlier's voices
Speaker:are ah calling for is that we were promised within
Speaker:the 2015 when this new, when the 30 hours was
Speaker:being introduced within the draught memorandum was
Speaker:a requirement for the Secretary of State to order
Speaker:an independent review and that was then taken out
Speaker:in the actual legislation never happened. And we
Speaker:are calling to have that review. We've got
Speaker:Frontier Economics who are publishing documents
Speaker:saying this funding doesn't cover the cost. I
Speaker:don't know how much else we can do to show that
Speaker:the funding, particularly the three and four year
Speaker:old funding feeling, you know it's at the moment
Speaker:the baby rates are workable for most settings, not
Speaker:all but most settings the two year old rates are,
Speaker:are manageable. They're workable. The three and
Speaker:four year old rates fall off of a cliff. And my
Speaker:concern is that if we don't do something now
Speaker:around I don't know what the, what the correct
Speaker:amount of funding is. I don't think there is one
Speaker:figure because all of our cost bases are so
Speaker:different. We have two settings in the same town
Speaker:and our costs for RA rent and utilities are vastly
Speaker:different in and they're five minutes away. So I
Speaker:don't think you can say funding should be X amount
Speaker:per hour. I don't think that's the way it needs to
Speaker:work. What it needs to be is saying we are the
Speaker:government are going to put this into the setting
Speaker:for the hours. The setting can then make the
Speaker:charges that they need to make for the extra
Speaker:things that they're providing. So that's probably
Speaker:the kind of the biggest win I think that we can
Speaker:kind of hope for because as I said before, you
Speaker:know challenging legislation is very, very
Speaker:difficult. We also however saw with COVID that a
Speaker:stroke of a pen legislation can be changed so it's
Speaker:doable. But there has to be the drive, the
Speaker:motivation, the need, the want from a lot of
Speaker:people within government to do that. And at the
Speaker:moment that's just not there.
Speaker:>> Clare: Jay, we know that you're working tirelessly and
Speaker:have been for so many years. So thank you for kind
Speaker:of summarising up everything that you're currently
Speaker:working on. and I think, you know, a bit like you,
Speaker:we, we've spent so many years, haven't we, trying
Speaker:to find ways around the legislation because like
Speaker:you, we don't believe that it's going to change.
Speaker:But actually, how do we hold on to what we know
Speaker:we're delivering is best quality? What we know
Speaker:we're delivering is right for the children and
Speaker:families within our areas. But actually, you know,
Speaker:within Bath and North East Somerset, we have a
Speaker:funding rate of £5 and 60, £5.63 and our actual
Speaker:cost of delivery is £8 and 95 pence. The two don't
Speaker:add up. If we want to continue to work in the way
Speaker:in which we believe is right for children with,
Speaker:you know, whether that's enhanced ratios, whether
Speaker:that's, we know our creative practises, whether
Speaker:it's your forest school, whether it's, you know,
Speaker:anything and everything that sits above that early
Speaker:years foundation stage, provision. And how do we
Speaker:continue to fight that? Because actually the
Speaker:sustainability is not just there from financial
Speaker:perspective, is it? But it's really, really,
Speaker:really exhausting to continually fight and battle
Speaker:what actually should be seen as an investment for
Speaker:our children and for our families to be able to
Speaker:return to work safely in the knowledge that their
Speaker:children are cared for in a way that they're
Speaker:choosing.
Speaker:>> Jen: And I think it's a battle none of us really want
Speaker:to be having. I don't think anybody here got into
Speaker:child care to try and battle with local
Speaker:authorities over funding and money. All of this is
Speaker:detracting from what we actually want to be
Speaker:focused on, which is just making things better for
Speaker:children, providing a lovely experience for
Speaker:children. And we're having to do that whilst we're
Speaker:fighting these battles. And it is absolutely
Speaker:exhausting, particularly if you're kind of a
Speaker:standalone provider. I think that is so difficult.
Speaker:You're trying to be everything for everyone all at
Speaker:once. And then this added burden, not just of the
Speaker:admin but also of trying to fight the battle is so
Speaker:much. And that's why it is sometimes hard. It's
Speaker:brilliant that people are coming together, but it
Speaker:is sometimes hard to get the earliest sector to
Speaker:unite because it's just, just too much for some
Speaker:people, trying to be everything to everybody.
Speaker:>> Alison: I think also you don't know what's around the
Speaker:corner in terms of keeping your business
Speaker:sustainable. So, okay, there's 15 and 30 hours at
Speaker:the moment, but there are rumblings that it's Such
Speaker:a huge bill for the government that are they going
Speaker:to be able to continue with it? So they could
Speaker:possibly start looking at the threshold at which
Speaker:parents are eligible for 30 hours. So at the
Speaker:moment it's 100,000 per person. We don't know that
Speaker:that will actually continue because it's such a
Speaker:lot of money for the government. So if they did
Speaker:reduce that threshold and made it, for example,
Speaker:100,000 for total income, that could then
Speaker:seriously impact on settings as to how many people
Speaker:were taking up, up the full entitlement. So once
Speaker:again, you don't really know with early years
Speaker:what's around the corner, especially now that so
Speaker:much of your income, possibly, I don't know, 70,
Speaker:80% of it is driven by funding. And that's quite a
Speaker:big concern as well, that if they, if the
Speaker:government doesn't get this right, whether it's
Speaker:additional charges or whatever, then every, every
Speaker:year at least brings another challenge of right,
Speaker:how are we going to get around this? How do we
Speaker:maintain our staffing levels? How do we maintain
Speaker:an income level? Because why shouldn't you
Speaker:maintain an income level? It's a business, you
Speaker:know, you should be able. They've sort of imposed
Speaker:this on us and I do understand we don't have to
Speaker:take the funding, but we also, we're not stupid.
Speaker:If we don't take the funding, there's not enough
Speaker:rich parents around who will just say, oh, I'll
Speaker:come to you anyway, that's very niche. So, you
Speaker:know, it's, I feel really sorry for the people I
Speaker:know who are standalone providers who have to do
Speaker:it all themselves. And you read the chat,
Speaker:especially like on local NDNA groups and so on,
Speaker:and it's really quite sad. They've had their
Speaker:businesses 25, 30 years and they're not enjoying
Speaker:it at the moment because every day is like, I'm
Speaker:stressed out and I've had too much that.
Speaker:>> Jo: So I think you're absolutely right and I think, of
Speaker:course we've now got this, we've now got the
Speaker:Labour government drive to get children of. And
Speaker:it's not, this isn't political because the
Speaker:Conservatives wouldn't be any different but you
Speaker:know, trying to get children of three into schools
Speaker:and saying that school is the best possible start
Speaker:for children, in fact two year olds in schools.
Speaker:So, you know, we're now in this, in this battle
Speaker:of, now trying to kind of keep hold of our three
Speaker:year olds, but actually what we're doing is trying
Speaker:to keep hold of our three year olds on A rate that
Speaker:is ridiculous. So I think it's just that there is
Speaker:so much. And I think again, what I believe is that
Speaker:we'll start seeing is that as the government
Speaker:realises there's not enough provision in schools
Speaker:because there isn't enough provision in schools.
Speaker:And, they could not build enough porter cabins
Speaker:quickly enough to house all of the three year olds
Speaker:in the country. So what we're going to start to
Speaker:see now is we'll start seeing the media. The tide
Speaker:will turn. We'll start to get these articles about
Speaker:how good the PVI sector is and how great we are
Speaker:and, you know, and then you'll start to see some,
Speaker:some m. Things coming out about, you know, a
Speaker:dangerous occurrence has happened in a school and
Speaker:it's all this, it's all this media kind of spin
Speaker:that basically starts to sort of turn the tide
Speaker:because the government go, actually, we're going
Speaker:to get you all into schools. Oh, no, we can't do
Speaker:that. So we need to put you in PVIs. But we told
Speaker:parents that PVIs aren't that great and that they
Speaker:should be in school. So now we need to make sure
Speaker:that school doesn't look that great. So pvrs and
Speaker:it's a political early age is a political
Speaker:football. And I think we've, we've had our remit,
Speaker:sort of manipulated, over the years. Anything at
Speaker:all that seems. Anything about outcomes for
Speaker:children. We are early education. Anything about
Speaker:getting parents back into work, we are childcare.
Speaker:And that in itself brings problems. Problems.
Speaker:Because actually we know, we do both, you know,
Speaker:but actually what you. Child care does bring more
Speaker:of that kind of, oh, you need just sit and play
Speaker:all day now. Absolutely. We know that we don't do
Speaker:that. We do sit and play, but it's not play. Play
Speaker:is. I, I don't need to tell you guys that, you
Speaker:know, early education is, is. Is and childcare
Speaker:sound like they're, they're different things. Now.
Speaker:We know they're not. They sit very comfortably
Speaker:together. But that in itself, it's been so
Speaker:frustrating having had that really, really. The
Speaker:concerted drive around, driving up standards in
Speaker:the sector and becoming early education now. Oh,
Speaker:yeah, now your child care again now. Because
Speaker:that's what suits at the moment. Wait until we
Speaker:find out now that our children are, are, you know,
Speaker:having a. Having, you know, having low income.
Speaker:Love outcomes. Sorry. In things like maths and
Speaker:English. Oh, suddenly we'll be early education
Speaker:again. And that's, that's. We've got to fix that
Speaker:as well. You Know, so it really is in the early
Speaker:years we are, we are a political football and,
Speaker:and, and the people that, that suffer as a result
Speaker:of that are the providers and the children that
Speaker:are within that you know, mess. Kind of like what
Speaker:are we doing? You know, what are we this month,
Speaker:what are we now? And I think that's been, that's
Speaker:been really disheartening for me that actually,
Speaker:you know, the government could have changed that
Speaker:so easily by, by, by packaging this up as, as 30
Speaker:hours of early education. But they've gone with
Speaker:childcare because from a parent point of view
Speaker:that's a bit more emotive, it's a bit more, you
Speaker:know, I want my baby cared for, not educated.
Speaker:Well, we know we can do better both and we do do
Speaker:both. you know, but I think that this, this
Speaker:constant manipulation of our remit and, and of you
Speaker:know, pitting PVI against, against schools, it's
Speaker:all designed to basically fit a political
Speaker:narrative that when that changes then that the
Speaker:narrative will change and the media will change
Speaker:and the, the whole feeling around it will change
Speaker:and, and we'll be again, as you say Jen, we'll be
Speaker:expected to go with, go with that change and keep
Speaker:up with that change again.
Speaker:>> Clare: I think it's incredibly difficult it, because we
Speaker:know that we have so many families that are
Speaker:struggling and so many families actually really do
Speaker:want to and need to and have a right to access
Speaker:their funding. But we also have then another,
Speaker:another sector, don't we? We've got our funders
Speaker:who are accessing universal credit. And where are
Speaker:they going to go now? Where we've heard the
Speaker:Department for Work and Pensions are not going to
Speaker:reimburse parents for those optional actions
Speaker:extras. So it's a further, further challenge in
Speaker:terms of what that political narrative is really
Speaker:going to look like for our most vulnerable
Speaker:children. Because actually these 30 hours that
Speaker:we're talking about are for working families.
Speaker:They're for families that are already earning
Speaker:anything under a hundred thousand pounds per
Speaker:person, if it's within a two family or two
Speaker:parental household or up to a hundred thousand
Speaker:pounds in a single parent household. But we also
Speaker:don't have that same level for the funding for our
Speaker:disadvantaged, children. And now any of those
Speaker:working families who are also using universal
Speaker:credit are going to be further penalised and
Speaker:disadvantaged. Have you found that in your setting
Speaker:so far, Jo? I don't know how you're kind of
Speaker:looking in terms of your demographic, Jen. I know
Speaker:you and Raise have several families, within Many
Speaker:demographics that are probably facing that
Speaker:challenge.
Speaker:>> Jo: We haven't seen that so much at the moment. We do
Speaker:have some families that access funding and
Speaker:universal credit. It, and at the moment we haven't
Speaker:had that issue. But I know that lots of settings
Speaker:have and what some settings are now doing is
Speaker:producing two invoices. One that is compliant for
Speaker:the local authority and one that is just a lump
Speaker:sum invoice that is going off to Universe Credit
Speaker:Payments. again, if I was being cynical, which I
Speaker:am, I would say that actually by squeezing and by,
Speaker:by, by a government department saying we're not
Speaker:paying for these additional services, if parents
Speaker:offer to have them, they are trying again to, to
Speaker:put another barrier in settings where even
Speaker:charging additional services, you know. So I think
Speaker:it's. Again, I think it is political. It's the DWP
Speaker:supporting the, the the DFE in terms of, well,
Speaker:actually if we won't pay for it then settings
Speaker:can't charge it. So I think we haven't seen that
Speaker:yet. But, but we know it's coming and we have, we
Speaker:have on one occasion had a parent who actually
Speaker:just said to me, I'm not, I don't want to claim
Speaker:any funding for me. I just wanted you to give me a
Speaker:receipt that is the full value of what my child
Speaker:costs and I will then claim, claim my 85 from
Speaker:Universal Credit. So whether or not that will
Speaker:become more of a trend and again whether or not
Speaker:that will then change, that actually says if a
Speaker:family is eligible for funding that they must
Speaker:claim it. The DWP through, through universal
Speaker:credit won't pay a full bill anymore because the
Speaker:family is eligible for funding. Who knows? As you
Speaker:say, Rosemary, the only consistency in early years
Speaker:is, is, is inconsistency and change. so who knows?
Speaker:But I think, yeah, when, when, when you, when you
Speaker:have a family who are saying, actually I don't
Speaker:want to claim this funding because, because I'm
Speaker:better off claiming universal credit, something
Speaker:has gone very wrong in the system that actually
Speaker:something that is designed to really help support
Speaker:working families, isn't it is a.
Speaker:>> Alison: Really big concern that you're producing two
Speaker:invoices. It's because at the end of the day.
Speaker:Right, does that mean you're compliant? I can see
Speaker:the point of doing that, but I don't like the idea
Speaker:of producing two. It's a bit like having two
Speaker:registers or anything else. It's confusing and
Speaker:could trip you up. I'd rather just do something.
Speaker:>> Jen: It feels like you're trying to cover something up.
Speaker:I think you don't want to feel like you're
Speaker:covering anything up. And again, Jo's echoed it.
Speaker:It's completely different. So we have seen only
Speaker:one area, where universal credit has become an
Speaker:issue. In most of our nurseries and for most of
Speaker:our universal credit families, it hasn't. Nothing
Speaker:changed. And that's great. It might, obviously, in
Speaker:the future, but in one area it has changed and
Speaker:they won't pay it. And we've gone sort of back and
Speaker:forth on what we can do. We have had one family
Speaker:that have decided to opt out of the funding and
Speaker:see how that goes. But we have sort of forewarned
Speaker:that to the families by saying we're not sure that
Speaker:they. Just like you said, Jo, that they won't say,
Speaker:why aren't you taking your funding when you
Speaker:should? we haven't quite entirely figured out what
Speaker:we're going to do with that yet because we, we
Speaker:haven't been producing second invoices because,
Speaker:again, I don't want anything that's going to sort
Speaker:of come back on us and be like, why are you doing
Speaker:this? This isn't compliant. If you. It all just
Speaker:feels a little like, you're trying to help the
Speaker:families, but you don't want to get yourself in a
Speaker:sticky situation where someone could come in and
Speaker:question you over what you're doing. You do want
Speaker:to be completely compliant. You want to make sure
Speaker:that you're doing everything by the book. You
Speaker:know, we're not trying to trick anyone, we're not
Speaker:trying to do anyone dirty. We're just trying to
Speaker:run in the way that we've always run.
Speaker:>> Clare: I think it's really, really fair to say, though,
Speaker:isn't it? You know, that's the same for the
Speaker:majority of our settings. We want to be compliant,
Speaker:we want to be transparent with families. but it's
Speaker:just a really, really tricky situation when you've
Speaker:got families who are making, you know, their claim
Speaker:for their funding. We're processing that claim on
Speaker:their behalf. All of a sudden you're finding
Speaker:yourself for audit with families that might be
Speaker:picking up at 5 to 5, and then all of a sudden
Speaker:you're having a claim back for that last hour of
Speaker:the day when actually your staffing costs have
Speaker:remained the same. You know, your electricity and
Speaker:heating costs have remained the same. Everything
Speaker:else, in terms of your overheads have remained the
Speaker:same. So where does that line sit and fit? And, I
Speaker:think it's not just now for providers to be really
Speaker:asking for that clarity, is it it's also for the
Speaker:parents because there's going to be so much ahead
Speaker:of us. And I think, Jo, you know, you really
Speaker:talked about that earlier when you were looking
Speaker:about that clarification from earlier's voice and
Speaker:what we really need. Is there a way that we can
Speaker:get parents and providers working together to make
Speaker:that ah, happen for government more, do you think?
Speaker:>> Jo: I think putting out things onto your local, you
Speaker:know, your nursery, social media, if you have it,
Speaker:or sending them out, you know, via your kind of,
Speaker:your communication systems to really explain
Speaker:what's happening is key. I think most parents,
Speaker:when we actually sit down and have those
Speaker:conversations, they do understand. And I think
Speaker:your point about, about the clawback, which is
Speaker:the, where like las can reclaim funding, the
Speaker:biggest, I mean if it wasn't so serious, it would
Speaker:be funny. What the government are crying out for
Speaker:and offering is flexible, flexible child care. And
Speaker:then when you try and be flexible by saying if you
Speaker:can come and pick him up an hour early, they go,
Speaker:no, well if you do that, we're going to take that,
Speaker:that hour back. But we don't know you're going to
Speaker:pick up early every day so we're gonna have to
Speaker:claim it and then we're gonna give you ability. I
Speaker:mean it's just it, as I say, if it wasn't so
Speaker:serious, it would be laughable. you know, and I
Speaker:think that in terms of what we can do to try to
Speaker:bring parents together, I think is to explain
Speaker:things like that. And I think your letter, Jen,
Speaker:where you said, actually I'm really sorry but you
Speaker:can't pick up your child earlier. If you're using
Speaker:funding and you're, and you're funded until 6 o',
Speaker:clock, you can't pick them up earlier. I have one
Speaker:sitting in Leicestershire that was actually
Speaker:charging an early collection fee.
Speaker:>> Jen: Oh, we thought about it.
Speaker:>> Jo: I mean it's just, it's just, it's absurd. Not the
Speaker:setting, the situation, you know, to actually say
Speaker:to a family if you want to come and pick up your
Speaker:child and have a couple of hours with them because
Speaker:you finished work early, it's going to cost you
Speaker:£15. I mean it's absurd. But that's where we are
Speaker:because we have to protect ourselves from this
Speaker:clawback, you know. So I think in terms of when
Speaker:you, when I think using something like that as an
Speaker:example to say to parents, this is why we would
Speaker:ask you, urge you to contact your, your, your mp,
Speaker:to follow the earliest groups online and look at
Speaker:what's going on, on to sign these petitions into,
Speaker:into independent, you know, reviews of funding.
Speaker:This isn't just to benefit providers, this is to
Speaker:benefit parents because providers wouldn't have to
Speaker:tie themselves in knots and jump through these
Speaker:hoops and put these knots and hoops onto parents
Speaker:if the, if the government was clearer, if the
Speaker:thing, if the some of this guidance was relaxed.
Speaker:So I think, I think trying but, but I also
Speaker:understand when you've got a busy parent and it's
Speaker:pick up and it's five o' clock and they just want
Speaker:to get home and you're going, oh, could you write
Speaker:to your MP for me please? You know, they're kind
Speaker:of going, I really sympathise and it must be
Speaker:really difficult for you, but I've got bath time
Speaker:and bedtime, you know, so I think maybe, maybe
Speaker:it's about. Some settings are producing, you know,
Speaker:like I said, a pro forma that parents could then
Speaker:forward to their MP sort of on their behalf to
Speaker:show that sort of parent voice. Because ultimately
Speaker:this is about a better deal for everyone in this
Speaker:sector and that absolutely includes parents.
Speaker:Parents. So I think the more that we can kind of
Speaker:tell our parents, you know, drip feed these
Speaker:messages, it also helps them to understand why
Speaker:we're putting these charges in. Why it's not all
Speaker:as, as, you know, as glamorous as it sounds. I
Speaker:think it's, it's a very. Getting change is a very,
Speaker:very slow process and it's frustrating and it's
Speaker:painful and it's, it's very easy to think, oh,
Speaker:it's just easier not to, not to bother. But I
Speaker:think if we, if we all stop bothering then, then
Speaker:the DfE does then just have a complete car blanche
Speaker:to do as it feels. So, you know, provider and
Speaker:parent power. Parent power is probably stronger
Speaker:than provider power only in that there are more
Speaker:parents than providers. What that means there are,
Speaker:there are more electorate within the parents, you
Speaker:know, parent power than there are within provider
Speaker:power. So parents I think have got a vital role to
Speaker:play in this and on the, on, on the whole, I
Speaker:believe do want to support their settings. So the
Speaker:more that we can do to kind of get them on board
Speaker:and make it as easy as possible, possible for them
Speaker:to have things maybe to present to their mp also.
Speaker:>> Alison: Where does the money go that they claw back?
Speaker:That's what I want to know.
Speaker:>> Jo: It goes back into a, in most local authorities it
Speaker:would all be dealt with via schools forum, but in
Speaker:most local authorities it comes back into a sort
Speaker:of almost like a slush pot and then that pot is
Speaker:then divvied out at schools forum. And I can tell
Speaker:you in 99.9% of cases that that goes towards the
Speaker:high needs block.
Speaker:>> Alison: Exactly.
Speaker:>> Jo: Which is always overspent.
Speaker:>> Alison: Exactly.
Speaker:>> Jo: So early years funding has not ringed. So it's, it
Speaker:goes back into this and, and again some local
Speaker:authorities don't have an early years rep on their
Speaker:schools forum. So there is, there might be some
Speaker:head teachers that have got school based nurseries
Speaker:but there aren't, there is not on every school's
Speaker:forum an early years representative fighting for
Speaker:that money to stay within, within the early years
Speaker:block. And as I say it generally ends up in the
Speaker:high needs block.
Speaker:>> Clare: We first met really when we were campaigning for
Speaker:two whole pence at schools forum and it felt
Speaker:absolutely ridiculous list at ah, that really kind
Speaker:of championing the early years sector and what we
Speaker:were talking about was 2 pence and I think it's
Speaker:just, it's just so hard that all of these years
Speaker:later we're still fighting the same battles to
Speaker:have a fairer funding and to have parents not Ms.
Speaker:Sold and to actually have the information. I loved
Speaker:that you created what was it, a 19 million pound
Speaker:PR campaign campaign, you know that would have
Speaker:been so much better spent actually really, truly
Speaker:informing parents this is what we can really
Speaker:afford and then this is what you could really have
Speaker:for it. And maybe rather than going for 30 hours
Speaker:funded, you know, let's look at 20, let's look at
Speaker:actually what it really could have cost to deliver
Speaker:and what we should have actually been able to
Speaker:offer. It feels a really tough place to be. So for
Speaker:providers. Jo, you've shared your thoughts about
Speaker:what our parents should be doing in terms of being
Speaker:able to support their providers. But where do we
Speaker:stand with our providers and our provider
Speaker:agreements? Are there any top tips that we can put
Speaker:out to our listeners?
Speaker:>> Jo: Honestly the most. The top tip is read it. You'd
Speaker:be surprised at the amount of people that don't
Speaker:necessarily read their agreement. What I would
Speaker:suggest is that everyone gets a copy of the
Speaker:statutory guidance and a copy of their provider
Speaker:agreement and go through it line by line and look
Speaker:at anything in your language, local authority
Speaker:guidance that isn't, isn't in the statute
Speaker:guidance. Because if your local authority has put
Speaker:something into its guidance then there's a reason
Speaker:it's done that. So LA's can put whatever they like
Speaker:in their guidance. So for example, one example I
Speaker:used to give was an example of a local authority
Speaker:that had a very high rate of teenage pregnancy,
Speaker:they put into their provider agreement that
Speaker:children, that families that were under the nurse
Speaker:partnership, practise, which is a service for
Speaker:young, young families, would have priority
Speaker:placements and could be funded out of a, now non
Speaker:existent plot when they might not otherwise be
Speaker:eligible. So there are things that, in local
Speaker:authorities agreements that do make sense that are
Speaker:specific to that la. And if you're, and you can
Speaker:understand the reasons for it, other local
Speaker:authorities will just put things in there because
Speaker:they don't understand it enough, we've said this
Speaker:before, or because they feel they've had one case,
Speaker:one concern, one complaint raised from a parent.
Speaker:So in it goes to the next agreement. So top, top
Speaker:tip is to know where your local authority guidance
Speaker:differs from the statutory guidance. Ask the
Speaker:questions about why. Why does it vary? I think
Speaker:there, there was a drive to sign it under, under
Speaker:duress. some local authorities refused to accept
Speaker:contracts, agreements that were signed under,
Speaker:under duress. ultimately if you sign your provider
Speaker:agreement you are, you are agreeing, agreeing to
Speaker:adhere to its rules. So understand what you are
Speaker:signing. I think is, is absolutely critical and
Speaker:don't be afraid to go to your la and if necessary
Speaker:to the DfE to say, actually I want to know why
Speaker:this is in this agreement. And as you quite
Speaker:rightly said, Jen, if local authorities cannot,
Speaker:cannot explain and understand and interpret their
Speaker:own document, then then that is something that
Speaker:needs to be seriously looked at. Again, that
Speaker:should be going to the DfE.
Speaker:>> Clare: Brilliant advice. Thank you, Jo. And I think, you
Speaker:know, so, so many points for discussion points for
Speaker:debate points in terms of seeking clarity. So I
Speaker:just need to say a huge thank you to everybody for
Speaker:joining us. I think Jo, you've opened up and
Speaker:shared so many of the points that as providers
Speaker:we're looking for clarity, we're looking for
Speaker:discussion. it was really, really useful to have
Speaker:you share all of the information from earlier's
Speaker:voice. so thank you so much on behalf of all of
Speaker:the providers for what you and the team are doing
Speaker:in terms of continuing to campaign. To Jen and to
Speaker:Rose, thank you for everything that you do to
Speaker:continue to champion the local authorities and
Speaker:make sure that everything that's happening is fair
Speaker:and transparent, for everybody, on everybody's
Speaker:behalf. But just a huge thank you from us at
Speaker:Atelier Talks for your time and for joining us
Speaker:today.
Speaker:>> Jo: Thanks for hosting. Clare.
Speaker:>> Clare: Thank you for joining us for Atelier Talks. If you
Speaker:enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe
Speaker:share and leave us a review. It really helps us to
Speaker:reach more educators, parents and early years
Speaker:professionals just like you. For more insights
Speaker:into our unique research led approach or to find
Speaker:out more about our services at both the nursery or
Speaker:the collection consultancy and how we can help you
Speaker:in your early years practise, visit our website or
Speaker:follow us on social media. All the details you
Speaker:need to find us are in the show notes. In the
Speaker:meantime, it's goodbye from us. Thank you for
Speaker:joining us. We look forward to seeing you next
Speaker:time for another episode of Atelier Talks. Thanks
Speaker:for listening.
Speaker:>> Jen: SA.
