Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,


Can anyone help? I understand that when my son reaches 2 and a half he will be entitled to around 12hours of nursery care a week...is that right? Is it only specific nurseries that you can go to for this? Do you have to put your name down on waiting lists etc?


Hope someone can enlighten me!?


Thanks

Helen

Hi,

I think the free allocation is applied the term after the child turns 3 rather than at 2 1/2. I may be wrong, perhaps other forumites could confirm? The free entitlement applies to all nurseries which are ofsted registered I think - again, happy for confirmation from others....

Yes term after 3 (exact dates can be given by nurseries) and 5 sessions of 2 1/2 hours. You don't have to put your name down to get the funding - I think the nursery does this, but you would obviously need to find a nursery. I think they all accept it and do the admin for you.

The only catch/thing to know, is that usually nurseries do sessions of at least 3 hours, so you do pay for the remaining half hour - you can't just group your hours as you wish. And the funding only applies to school term time, whereas many nurseries go through the holidays, so you are then expected to pay full price for the holidays. Worth knowing, so you don't get caught out. Obviously the increase in fees is dramatic.

  • 3 weeks later...
Our daughter goes to a phantatstic Montessori pre-school and they have now opted out of the grant. All us parents had meetings with the provider. She explained that the grant doesn't cover their costs and so they make a loss I think about ?2 per hour per child. That's why they decided to opt out and go private and we all decided to stay. I know from friends two nurseries which closed because of the grant. They told us about this website: http://www.saveournurseries.org/
parkview, any reason why they didn't keep claiming the grant? Our son's nursery (also montessori) claims the grant so fees are slightly lower for children who qualify. But because they only accept full time places, and because the grant doesn't cover the full costs, you still have to pay fees.
That's what they did the last years, deducting the costs so it was cheaper once the child turned three. What they say is that the law now requires them to offer 12.5 hours for free if someone wants it like this, so they can't ask them to do more hours and pay the difference. The provider has been campaigning about this for a while and says most nursery providers are not aware that they are breaking the law if they don't offer completely free places. So if you go to your nursery and say that you only want to do 12.5 hours (or 15 hours soon) per week and the nursery says they don't offer that, they are breaking the law and you can tell the council and they loose the right to receive grants.

tallgirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> St Mary's Rd Pre School (St Mary's Rd) in Nunhead

> is open for 15 hours a week, from aged 2.5 you pay

> 6 pounds a day, but for 3 year olds the fees are 3

> pounds per day (a pound an hour!)



I didn't think that was legal.. topup fees can't be charged for a child who is 3+

parkview Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's what they did the last years, deducting the

> costs so it was cheaper once the child turned

> three. What they say is that the law now requires

> them to offer 12.5 hours for free if someone wants

> it like this, so they can't ask them to do more

> hours and pay the difference. The provider has

> been campaigning about this for a while and says

> most nursery providers are not aware that they are

> breaking the law if they don't offer completely

> free places. So if you go to your nursery and say

> that you only want to do 12.5 hours (or 15 hours

> soon) per week and the nursery says they don't

> offer that, they are breaking the law and you can

> tell the council and they loose the right to

> receive grants.


Indeed

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...