Another article on the 'reducing childcare costs issue'

[Penny1959]

This one is from the telegraph - let me know what you think

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100158947/how-can-we-get-childcare-to-be-cheaper-and-better/



Penny :)

[Mouse]

This one is from the telegraph - let me know what you think

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100158947/how-can-we-get-childcare-to-be-cheaper-and-better/



Penny :)

I read that yesterday Penny & found it quite a thought provoking article.

One of my first thoughts was on the subject of parental choice. By regulating childminders, are the governmant taking away the choice of parents to decide where they send their children? In a very simplistic example, is it so very wrong for a mum to want to pay her next door neighbour £10 a day to look after her child? This is someone she has known for years, trusts with her children etc, but who regulations say can't be paid to care for the child because they haven't gone through the registration process. Can parents not be given responsibility for deciding who they think is suitable to look after their own child? Parents have to trust a childminder who was CRB'd once, who has an Ofsted inspection every 3 years or so, and who has met their child a handful of times, if that.

Then you get onto EYFS. Is it really proven that the majority of children in childcare benefit from being tracked, observed and planned for from birth? Are children, as a whole, really an better off for having a formal approach in their early years? What about children who don't go into childcare? I don't believe they are disadvantaged purely because they are not in a 'setting' which follows the EYFS. Obviously there are certain children who would benefit hugely from help in the early years, but as a whole, is it really necessary?

Then if you believe EYFS isn't vital to a child's development, why the need for children to be in childcare that follows it? Why not be with a daytime baby sitter who cares for the children, lets them play & makes sure they are well fed?

I do wonder if this could lead to a two tier system and whether this could work. Daytime babysitters who charge £10 a day, care for the children, but don't worry about observations, planning, development charts etc. And registered childminders who do follow eyfs, who are inspected and graded, but who charge more to take this into account. Parents could claim tax credits for registered childcare, but not for babysitters.
Parents would have choice - go to a cheap childcarer who may have lots of children there, who may have the TV on all day, who might not do activities, or go to a childminder where there are smaller numbers, activities are planned, EYFS followed etc. It might cost more, but you get what you pay for.

Choice for parents and choice for childcarers (be a babysitter or be a professional childminder). I know parents who would like the choice and I know childminders who would as well.

[AliceK]

Penny I read this and agree it is thought provoking. On the one hand chldminders have never really been thought of as "professionals", more like someone "to watch my child", on the other hand delivering the EYFS has begun to make us appear to others as more professional and on a par with nurseries even though this is and would continue to be a long hard slog for us to have the majority think of us in that way. BUT, i can also agree with Mouse and think that perhaps if there were both "professionals" and baby-sitters then that would give parents a choice although I do think it might take away the perception of us as professionals as we would all be tarred with the same brush so to speak.

xxxx

[Smiley]

Thank you for pointing out the article Penny, I had also considered many of the points raised by Mouse and indeed thought provoking and no easy answers. I have been a childminder for 22 years and goodness what changes we have had in the last 10 years. Despite the introduction of EYFS I don't believe that in itself has improved my practice and made me a more professional childminder. Like others have said previously I will always be passionate about this career but I do worry about our profession.

I am sure we will find out more over the coming months

[The Juggler]

I read that yesterday Penny & found it quite a thought provoking article.

One of my first thoughts was on the subject of parental choice. By regulating childminders, are the governmant taking away the choice of parents to decide where they send their children? In a very simplistic example, is it so very wrong for a mum to want to pay her next door neighbour £10 a day to look after her child? This is someone she has known for years, trusts with her children etc, but who regulations say can't be paid to care for the child because they haven't gone through the registration process. Can parents not be given responsibility for deciding who they think is suitable to look after their own child? Parents have to trust a childminder who was CRB'd once, who has an Ofsted inspection every 3 years or so, and who has met their child a handful of times, if that. I agree to some extent, as I know minders with outstanding/good grades who just talk the talk on the ofsted inspection day and might be no better than the lady next door, but just because you know someone doesnt' mean that they don't know the disadvantages of putting a child in front of the TV all day or not speaking to them

Then you get onto EYFS. Is it really proven that the majority of children in childcare benefit from being tracked, observed and planned for from birth? Are children, as a whole, really an better off for having a formal approach in their early years? What about children who don't go into childcare? I don't believe they are disadvantaged purely because they are not in a 'setting' which follows the EYFS. Obviously there are certain children who would benefit hugely from help in the early years, but as a whole, is it really necessary?

there IS evidence hon, that quality care does make a difference to children later with their schooling (the EPPE and REPEY studies). i agree though that doesn't mean rafts of written paperwork is necessary however, observing and tracking and planning is what good mums and minders do regardless of paperwork. A mum who hears something her child says and extends that knowledge or gets him a new toy or book or gives them an activity to support his knowledge and interest IS doing what we are doing. However, we are being paid so we need to ensure we do that - not all mums do this or have to but I think that the EYFS ensures that minders understand this process and plan around a child and interact with a child where pre-EYFS they would not have had to nor known how beneficial this was.

Then if you believe EYFS isn't vital to a child's development, why the need for children to be in childcare that follows it? Why not be with a daytime baby sitter who cares for the children, lets them play & makes sure they are well fed?

I do wonder if this could lead to a two tier system and whether this could work. Daytime babysitters who charge £10 a day, care for the children, but don't worry about observations, planning, development charts etc. And registered childminders who do follow eyfs, who are inspected and graded, but who charge more to take this into account. Parents could claim tax credits for registered childcare, but not for babysitters.
[COLOR="Red"]Parents would have choice - go to a cheap childcarer who may have lots of children there, who may have the TV on all day, who might not do activities, or go to a childminder where there are smaller numbers, activities are planned, EYFS followed etc. It might cost more, but you get what you pay for.

Choice for parents and choice for childcarers (be a babysitter or be a professional childminder). I know parents who would like the choice and I know childminders who would as well.
[/1
COLOR]

I'd see that parents perhaps should have the choice but it would lose us a lot of business and what protection would there be for those children :panic:

[WibbleWobble]

what never seems to be mentioned is the childcarer themselves need to earn a wage....

This is my profession....i need to earn money to pay for my bills....if i get less money for doing the same work then it will be goodnight vienna and i will start working on the bins (i wanted to be a bin man when i was little) as that would not be a 55 hour week for peanuts.....

in my day (yes roll your eyes lol) there was no such thing as tax credits.....i went to work just to pay my childminder! i got on with it knowing it would get better when the kids started school....

sorry...gets me a bit cross

mandy x

[green puppy]

what never seems to be mentioned is the childcarer themselves need to earn a wage....

I was just thinking this as I read the title....

[SYLVIA]

Also if a parent is relying on the neighbour how good will that be, when the neighbour decides to a take days off without prior notice. with no contracts in place they have no comeback. This has the knock on effect of parents becoming unreliable to their employer. A few of the children I have minded have grandparents having them one day a week, If they have things to do the parents ask if `i can help but usually I can't which results in days off work. These are points that parents need to think about before settling for cheaper child care

[Penny1959]

Thank you for all your replies

I have to say I had to read the article twice because my head got stuck on the 'maybe cm;s could have same ratio's as nurseries' (especially in light of the bit in EYFS which does seem to suggest that cm can have more under 5's if keep within the 6 under 8's rule)And maybe that would bring child care fees down if we could have more children - but in realality I don't think so - in my own case I have to work very long hours to earn enough after expenses to live on - if I was allowed more children I would just work less hours to earn the same money

On second reading I reflected a bit more deeply - and can see both sides - but struggle with the idea of the lady next door changing £10 - but maybe no tax credits or me charging £28 a day and parents accessing tax credits/ childcare vouchres (all my parents access some sort of financial help) - those on max tax credits would pay less than £10 out of their own pocket - which made me think - Is another part of the bigger picture a plan to cut or stop tax credits - in which case that would impact on parents.

I wonder if those commenting on the telegraph article have quote how much their fees are or how much they pay out of their own pocket?

As the article pointed out some children are already using unregulated care - nanny in their home / grandparents / friends - so should parents have choice?

But I do believe that regulated care leads to better outcomes for children (hasten to add not through paperwork - but through training, professionalism, and through regulation including CRB checks) - so should money be the deciding factor between regulated care and non regulated care? After all the children have no choice - and sometimes the parents have little choice- and would have even less if tax credits were removed or reduced.

On a personal note my daughter has twins - they attend nursery (could not get a childminder when went back to work) and she gets no help via tax credits- BUT she says she would not consider unregulated care for the twins - they are too precious to her to take any risks and she says it was her choice to have children - so it is her responsibilty to pay for everything connected to the twins - childcare, clothes, food etc. And in her case she did not choose to have 2 children - it just happened.

And from my point of view - would I want say 9 children in my care at £10 a day or 3 children at £28 a day to earn enough to live on - now let me see - yes it would be the 3 children :D

But I can see know how we are slowly getting the bigger picture and that more is bound to come out over the coming months - and I am quite depressed as it is looking like we will be facing big changes in the future and that I there is a possibility that I won't like the changes.

Penny :)

[mum2two]

It does sound like decisions are already in the process of being made.

I worry, as me and hubby work together. Should regulations change, whether that be the agency idea, or having more children for less money etc etc, the. I'm not sure we could afford to carry on together.

I feel it would be a real shame, as we work hard, and are currently half way through our degree, so a job we are serious & passionate about, but may be forced out of... :(

It makes me made that the last few years have all been about raising the profile of childcare, and putting us all on the same professional playing level, and now it seems we are 'worthless'.

xx

[Mouse]

I do think it's a case of one size definitely does not fit all. What's right for one parent might not be right for another, and what's right for one childcare provider might not be right for another. The problem with Ofsted regulation is that it is one solution for all.

Personally I would not go down the route of filling my house with lots of low paying families. I would prefer to offer a professional service, charging more & limiting my numbers. Of the families I have now, only 2 of whom claim tax credits, I can only imagine one family chosing the cheaper option. The other families, I am sure, would want the professional option for their children. They want their children to be stimulated & stretched and for their development to be encouraged. The one family would be happy for their child just to be somewhere where they were fed & watered! Has regulation taken away the option for parents to chose between 'care' for their children and 'care & education'?

And of the childminders I know there are several who would happily charge a low fee, but have more children. No paperwork, no planning, no inspections - their idea of the perfect job. There are ones who would do nothing but plonk the children in front of the TV all day, but that's what they do now, despite EYFS & Ofsted regulation. But there are others who just enjoy looking after children. They enjoy baking with them, playing with them, taking them on outings. They just hate the paperwork and regulation side of things. There's no reason to think a lack of their regulation would have any detremental effect on the children they look after, just as the regulation of some (the telly plonkers) has no benefit at all for the children.
Should government regulate who can look after children, or should parents have more of a say & take more responsibility in ensuring they have found a suitable person to look after their children?

I would say, I am just throwing ideas out here for discussing the flip side of regulation, not saying that I am for de-regulation! I always try to look at things from the other side :thumbsup:

[Bluebell]

I'd love to know how a ratio of 6.1 or 8.1 would work for EY group. Trips to the park, walk to the library, transportation, pushchairs etc - any outing in fact. As well as the practicalities it would be a safeguarding nightmare! How do the Europeans manage it? - I would really love to know.
It is certainly a thought provoking article and certainly delves deeper than the others which very superficially say regulation costs so answer must be deregulate!
Childminders are expected to run like a nursery or pre-school but we are also offering the benefits of home based childcare and it is a fine balance and I think some parents forget what it is exactly that they want!

[JCrakers]

An interesting read. I would like to know how a 1:8 ratio would work I just about manage with 4..

I would never be able to manage more than 4 young children on a walk out to the park and if I took more on this would mean staying in the house 5 days a week...the thought of it makes me shudder :panic:

No one has thought about the people who have to look after the children, the childminders who will be overworked and the children who will have less 1-1.
Whatever the changes are, I really hope they think it through otherwise there will be a lot of childminders giving up :( me included which in turn will mean less childcare for parents to chose from

[uf353432]

Parents who are attracted to childminders in the first place value their flexibility, the fact that the children are active in the community and offer a home from home experience. Increasing Ratio's drastically surely contradicts this type of childcare. Increasing child ratios will mean childminders will stay home based most of the time - no school runs because either walking or going by car is impossible, no day trips or days out because safeguarding risks will become higher or it will simply be too stressful - not to mention all the stuff we would need to carry per child. The list goes on, so this means we will end up being less flexible, less active in the community and by creating mini preschools we will be less home from home. Bah! the whole thing is very unsettling.

[guest3]

I read that yesterday Penny & found it quite a thought provoking article.
Are children, as a whole, really any better off for having a formal approach in their early years? What about children who don't go into childcare? I don't believe they are disadvantaged purely because they are not in a 'setting' which follows the EYFS

I was a "stay at home Mum" for all 3 of my children and they're all confident, happy and intelligent and have all had good speech and development by the time they went to school. I didn't set about teaching them.....I just chatted to them constantly and did my best to be a really good Mum to them.

I now treat my mindees in the same way and really struggle to put down on paper and get my head round the obs, assessments and planning.....I'm sure I do it all subconciously though!

[wendywu]

It seems to me that the powers that be are trying to ease CMs out.

That they would be happy if all children were in nursery. They have been making things harder and harder for us for a few years now :mad:

[The Juggler]

Thank you for all your replies

I have to say I had to read the article twice because my head got stuck on the 'maybe cm;s could have same ratio's as nurseries' (especially in light of the bit in EYFS which does seem to suggest that cm can have more under 5's if keep within the 6 under 8's rule)And maybe that would bring child care fees down if we could have more children - but in realality I don't think so - in my own case I have to work very long hours to earn enough after expenses to live on - if I was allowed more children I would just work less hours to earn the same money

On second reading I reflected a bit more deeply - and can see both sides - but struggle with the idea of the lady next door changing £10 - but maybe no tax credits or me charging £28 a day and parents accessing tax credits/ childcare vouchres (all my parents access some sort of financial help) - those on max tax credits would pay less than £10 out of their own pocket - which made me think - Is another part of the bigger picture a plan to cut or stop tax credits - in which case that would impact on parents.

I wonder if those commenting on the telegraph article have quote how much their fees are or how much they pay out of their own pocket?

As the article pointed out some children are already using unregulated care - nanny in their home / grandparents / friends - so should parents have choice?

But I do believe that regulated care leads to better outcomes for children (hasten to add not through paperwork - but through training, professionalism, and through regulation including CRB checks) - so should money be the deciding factor between regulated care and non regulated care? After all the children have no choice - and sometimes the parents have little choice- and would have even less if tax credits were removed or reduced.

On a personal note my daughter has twins - they attend nursery (could not get a childminder when went back to work) and she gets no help via tax credits- BUT she says she would not consider unregulated care for the twins - they are too precious to her to take any risks and she says it was her choice to have children - so it is her responsibilty to pay for everything connected to the twins - childcare, clothes, food etc. And in her case she did not choose to have 2 children - it just happened.

And from my point of view - would I want say 9 children in my care at £10 a day or 3 children at £28 a day to earn enough to live on - now let me see - yes it would be the 3 children :D

But I can see know how we are slowly getting the bigger picture and that more is bound to come out over the coming months - and I am quite depressed as it is looking like we will be facing big changes in the future and that I there is a possibility that I won't like the changes.

Penny :)

i do agree with this. I also strongly believe that at the moment parents are dissuaded from using unregulated care (other than family) as they know it's 'illegal' and feel its wrong.

If they no longer have that guilt that they are putting their child in an illegal setting the choice then becomes one between quality care versus saving loads of money - which will they choose? I feel that as soon as the illegality is taken away no-one and certainly NOT the government will be highlighting the dangers of using unregulated care any more :panic::( so much for every child matters and achieving those outcomes eh?:rolleyes:

[uf353432]

and the equality gap just keeps getting wider and wider as a result.