无码天堂 CEO refutes claims about 30-hours funding expansion made in DfE blog
by Jess Gibson
无码天堂 CEO Neil Leitch has criticised misleading claims made in a recent Department for Education (DfE) blog post, .
Posted on , the blog claims that the government is making 鈥渢he biggest investment by a UK government into childcare鈥. It then goes on to answer key questions around the expansion of the 30-hours funding offer.
Throughout, the post refers to the funding expansion as 鈥渇ree childcare鈥 and 鈥渇ree hours鈥 that will make early years places 鈥渃heaper鈥 鈥 which many within the early years sector believe is misleading to families.
What does the blog post actually say about the expansion offer?
When explaining why the upcoming expansion of 鈥渇ree hours鈥 will make early years places 鈥渃heaper鈥, the blog initially said:
鈥淣urseries are not allowed to charge top-up fees when providing the free hours offers, and that won鈥檛 change as these are expanded.鈥
鈥淏y making sure the government is properly covering the cost of providing the free places, there will be no need for nurseries to charge inflated fees for additional hours parents want to pay for."鈥
However, the second part of the DfE鈥檚 information has been amended to remove references to "inflated fees" and instead say:
鈥淪ome providers may ask for charges in addition to the free childcare, such as meals. You can find more information on the 鈥痺别产蝉颈迟别.
"And, of course, parents will be paying for far fewer hours in the future.鈥
What does 无码天堂 chief executive Neil Leitch say?
Acknowledging the blog amendment while addressing its remaining misleading elements, Neil said:
"We welcome the fact that the DfE has removed the suggestion that providers have been charging 'inflated fees' from its blog on the extended early entitlement offer. Given that the government's own documents show it has been knowingly underfunding the sector for decades, such a statement was both highly offensive and deeply inappropriate.
"That said, it is incredibly frustrating that the government is still referring to early years provision as 'childcare' and talking about how to make it 'cheaper' 鈥 and, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, continuing to claim that it is 'free'. Modelling from the clearly shows that, despite the recent increase in investment, there is still a significant gap between funding rates and the cost of delivering places, particularly for three- and four-year-olds.鈥
鈥淢inisters say that they want to raise the profile of the early years sector as part of efforts to boost workforce recruitment. Perhaps considering the language they use when describing our sector 鈥 with a little more talk of 'affordable early education', and a lot less of 'cheap childcare' 鈥 would be a good place to start."