Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone


I would be very grateful if anyone has had any experience in this area.


We know from the Department of Education that it is possible to split the Early Years Education Grant between two providers.


We are both working parents (I work part-time because I have to financially). We send our children (twins) to a private nursery for 2 days per week and then took up pre-school places at a Southwark school for 3 mornings per week. We were completely open with both providers of this childcare about what we were doing and neither brought up the funding situation as an issue.


We have now been told, in May, after starting this provision in January 2011, that the grant will only be paid to 1 of the 2 providers and that the school will always come first. Therefore our nursery tell us that our monthly fees will go up by ?300 per month.


I believe that Southwark should fall in line with the DofE and enable split funding as this current system is not fair and does not suit anyone who works. We, as working parents, who are just trying to get by and make a living, are being penalized very heavily and are going to find it difficult to find an alternative solution because of our particular circumstances; we cannot come up with extra money just like that with no warning.


We feel that this is our grant for our children. Southwark tell us that because we were offered 5 mornings at pre-school, it is irrelevant that we only can use 3 mornings - the full grant still goes to the school.


Any help would be very welcome


Thanks

Did the school actually agree they would provide just 3x 3h sessions? Or did they offer you 5 and you used just 3? Few schools if any offer flexible provision you see


If you can prove that was the agreement with the school then the school should only be entitled to grant for the 3 sessions


How about contacting your councillor?

Did the school actually agree they would provide just 3x 3h sessions? Or did they offer you 5 and you used just 3? Few schools if any offer flexible provision you see


If you can prove that was the agreement with the school then the school should only be entitled to grant for the 3 sessions


How about contacting your councillor?

Thanks Fuschia

Yes, I did actually write to the school (well, to the head of early years) and tell them why we would not be able to use the 5 days, because of working requirements). the actually form i then received, just had the offer of 5 days and I then returned it completed, only accepting 3. I would have assumed that this was enough paperwork - especially as no one had indicated there was any kind of issue.


We intend to contact the councillor about this. I do appreciate your response. I now understand that that a blind eye is generally turned to this double funding because of the administrative issues but I would suggest that they either play it one way or the other - either they turn a blind eye or they do it properly and allow funding to go to the providers of the care, as the D of E suggests should be possible.


thanks again

I guess they interpreted it (wrongly, it turns out) as a 5 day place not used every day.

The funding arrangements for the grant were different fos schools last financial year and this.


In the LA where i work (and I guess others) in 2010/11 schools received a lump sum from a govt grant to fund the 15h. 2011/12 is the first year the funding forms part of the core budget and is based on a proper headcount. I don't know what flexibility there is but in my LA parents will now sign a funding agreement to confirm they are using their 15 in full at one provider (or not) and double funding should be eliminated.


I have looked around but can't see Southwark's procedure anywhere. You could put in a FOI request or your cllr could pursue it.


I think the school has jumped to a certain conclusion, but if you stated on the acceptance you were only accepting 3 sessions, you are in the right. (Though I suspect the school would then have withdrawn the offer as they can't afford to have the place empty and unfunded on 2 days)

Something for you


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/faqs/200016/childcare/answer/301/can_i_use_more_than_one_early_education_provider#a301


"W


Q: Can I use more than one early education provider?


Answer:

It is possible to split your place between two providers as long as the total number of free hours does not exceed your entitlement. However, this provision is only available if the early education provider is able to accomodate you in this way."

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

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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