Ratios

[MrAnchovy]

I understand the apprehensive feelings many people have had regarding changes to the number of children childminders are allowed to look after during a period of much uncertainty and rumour over the last nine months. The strength and depth of feeling is illustrated by the level of response to recent petitions launched before the publication of the report "More great childcare" by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (education and childcare), Liz Truss.

However many childminders already care for 2 children under one, or 4 children under 5, under the "continuity of care" arrangements of EYFS 2012 (previously under a "variation" from Ofsted). I think it is wrong to assume that the proposed changes to the regulatory regime, which may well be made by laws in the same way as the overall 1:6 limit rather than through the EYFS, will continue to allow optional variations - laws don't tend to work that way. It appears to me that a change in the law would potentially provide a clear and firm statement of limits that are no higher than those which already apply in practice to replace the current system which most people agree is confusing and open to abuse.

So if you believe that childminders should continue be able to look after twin babies, or take on two families with a full time toddler and a wrap-around pre-schooler, I think that you should consider the specifc proposals which are published in the report very carefully before reaching a conclusion on whether you are "for" or "against" them.

[Mouse]

Well said Mr A.

It's evident just from the questions on this forum asking for advice on numbers that the current system is confusing & too easy to bend. The new ratios seem to tighten up & clarify what our numbers will be. No longer will a childminder be able to have 6 children under 5, whereas they could do now. Surely that's got to be better?

[wendywu]

Well said Mr A.

It's evident just from the questions on this forum asking for advice on numbers that the current system is confusing & too easy to bend. The new ratios seem to tighten up & clarify what our numbers will be. No longer will a childminder be able to have 6 children under 5, whereas they could do now. Surely that's got to be better?

My thoughts exactly, i am for the new ratios but dont like the agency idea. Also i can now pull down the funding , where at the moment i cannot as i do not a la level 3, i have O levels and A levels and City and Guilds but at 56 and working 55 hours per week am too old and too busy to start training again and for a job i have been doing for 17 years :panic:

[Carol M]

Well said Mr A.

It's evident just from the questions on this forum asking for advice on numbers that the current system is confusing & too easy to bend. The new ratios seem to tighten up & clarify what our numbers will be. No longer will a childminder be able to have 6 children under 5, whereas they could do now. Surely that's got to be better?
I read it that under the new proposals the standard ratios will be increased to 4 ( 3 now) under 5's and within these 4 it will be standard that childminders CAN have two under 1 . We will still be able to grant exceptions to this rule for continuity of care , siblings etc as long as we do not exceed 6 under 8's. As many of us already have exceptions in place for 4+ children The only difference I can see is new childminders will be able to go straight in to having 4 under 5's- madness in my view- I think higher ratios should only be allowable to those that have been in the job for a minimum of a couple of years and/or have relevant qualifications( Childminders ratios)
I'm reading it that I could still have 6 under 5's as I don't care for over 5's..... but I would have to carefully consider the compliment of children and assess risks etc.
See, still bloomin confusing!
Carol x

[lisbet]

It is the part of the proposal concerned with changing ratios in nurseries that particularly worries me. I used to work in a nursery that strove to give responsive care to each baby and child, and it was challenging enough under current ratios, regardless of our level of education and expertise. I think more children per adult will damage the quality of relationships and early years experiences, and have an especially negative impact on the most vulnerable children.

Also, there are only a finite number of jobs for parents/ children needing care, and if large nurseries are able to get more children into the same space by meeting relatively low qualification requirements, then perhaps they will be able to attract parents away from childminders?

And I also thought it would mean that a child minder could technically have 6 early years children too? :confused:

(I'm also concerned about child minder agencies and the 'schoolification' of the early years. :()

[christine e]

I think it was the idea that if we took on extra children under 5 years Ms Truss felt that we would then lower our fees - this was ludicrous especially as we would then have to reduce the number of children we cared for in the 5- 8 years band because the overall number of 6 under 8 years remains the same.

[dette]

i have to say the new ratios will make it much easier for me to be flexible with my families.i currently have 7 part time children who all need a little extra here and there and swap days and its a ballancing act .i have recently been on here asking for advice as to how i can look after a newborn full time baby with a ten and half month old part timer,luckily for me im now getting a student placement that solves the problem but i was gutted to think i couldnt help this 18yr old pregnant girl who desperatly doesnt want her baby in a nursery.current rules say only for continuity but now that these experts have said that its safe to do this then i would quite happily write myself a variation stating that it is the best interest of the baby to be with me,let OFSTED strike me down.
I have no intentions of getting new business as im pretty sure my present bunch will just fill out to use the space anyway but as mother to 7 with 13ys experience as a childminder i know that im safe to do this i only hope that less experienced people dont just think about the money as we can all tell them its not easy

[MrAnchovy]

We will still be able to grant exceptions to this rule for continuity of care , siblings etc as long as we do not exceed 6 under 8's.

That's not how I read it: it does need to be clarified as a matter of urgency.

[Wheelybug]

It is the part of the proposal concerned with changing ratios in nurseries that particularly worries me. I used to work in a nursery that strove to give responsive care to each baby and child, and it was challenging enough under current ratios, regardless of our level of education and expertise. I think more children per adult will damage the quality of relationships and early years experiences, and have an especially negative impact on the most vulnerable children.

Also, there are only a finite number of jobs for parents/ children needing care, and if large nurseries are able to get more children into the same space by meeting relatively low qualification requirements, then perhaps they will be able to attract parents away from childminders?

And I also thought it would mean that a child minder could technically have 6 early years children too? :confused:

(I'm also concerned about child minder agencies and the 'schoolification' of the early years. :()

Schoolification is bad enough but the document even mentions readiness for employment :panic:

Cathy
www-pre-schoolplay.blogspot.com

[bunyip]

Schoolification is bad enough but the document even mentions readiness for employment :panic:



A lot of Tory mansions still have open fires. Those chimneys don't sweep themselves, do they? :rolleyes:

[bunyip]

I think it was the idea that if we took on extra children under 5 years Ms Truss felt that we would then lower our fees - this was ludicrous especially as we would then have to reduce the number of children we cared for in the 5- 8 years band because the overall number of 6 under 8 years remains the same.

I see the Truss woman failed to mention how we could reduce fees when the inevitable consequence of her decisions would be increased costs and hours for CMs.

Costs: each extra child requires additional resources, and does she really believe that the insurance companies won't leap at the opportunity to increase our premiums? Given that she's a leading member of the rampant Capitalist vanguard who clearly believe everything can be reduced to £££, I'm quite sure this has occured to her, so it's extremely disengenuous not to mention it. In fact I don't even think nurseries wil do that well out of it (and I'm not usually known as an apologist for nurseries.) Once their landlords see the extra pairs of shoes at the nursery door, they'll be demanding a rent review and landlords always believe that, as the song goes, "The only way is up."

Hours: each extra child requires additional time spent on LJ's, planning, communicating and consulting with parents. I take it we just do that as a hobby in our spare time?
:angry:

[justgoodfriends]

Even if we feel we can cope well with 4 everyday & I agree it would be good to have the flexibility, public perception is that 4:1 is too many children to not affect quality and safety, so this may also affect parents decisions when choosing childcare. Yes given the chance we can explain to prospective parents that we choose to work at a lower ratio, but we may not be given that opportunity. I saw first hand the reaction from parents at a toddler group recently to a minder who had 4 (v well behaved) mindies.. I could hear the mutterings that they thought it shouldn't be allowed!

[bunyip]

I think it was the idea that if we took on extra children under 5 years Ms Truss felt that we would then lower our fees - this was ludicrous especially as we would then have to reduce the number of children we cared for in the 5- 8 years band because the overall number of 6 under 8 years remains the same.

Perhaps the plan is for us CMs to run 'baby farms' for the under-5's, whilst schools revisit the moribund notion of 'extended services' (aka "detention with rations thrown in") to handle the schoolies which are due to become surplus to requirements. Unfortunately, all but 2 of our local schools did their research and found this to be financially unviable. One tried to provide decent care, 'good' food and interesting activities, but couldn't afford to continue (probably made the mistake of trying to provide good care and a decent staff wage - does this ring any bells?) The other school now rents its premises out to a privately-run before/after school organisation who cruise round the area providing a public nuisance with their branded mini-buses (referred to by many parents as "the child-catchers' carts") to be left with some stickle bricks* and a bowl of Value Spaghetti Hoops.

The money-minded moghuls at the Dept of Ed have probably done the equation:


if it takes 1 CM caring for 3 schoolies and 3 EY children 5 days to make a less than the minimum wage, is an increased number of EY children and fewer/no schoolies sufficient for a CM to offer a reduced fee and still make exactly the same pittance?
The maths is too complicated for me, but the early evidence suggests that 95% of parents and all but a few CMs think the proposal is complete bunkum. :(

*Please note: I have nothing against stickle bricks......... in moderation. :thumbsup:

[christine e]

Perhaps the plan is for us CMs to run 'baby farms' for the under-5's, whilst schools revisit the moribund notion of 'extended services' (aka "detention with rations thrown in") to handle the schoolies which are due to become surplus to requirements. Unfortunately, all but 2 of our local schools did their research and found this to be financially unviable. One tried to provide decent care, 'good' food and interesting activities, but couldn't afford to continue (probably made the mistake of trying to provide good care and a decent staff wage - does this ring any bells?) The other school now rents its premises out to a privately-run before/after school organisation who cruise round the area providing a public nuisance with their branded mini-buses (referred to by many parents as "the child-catchers' carts") to be left with some stickle bricks* and a bowl of Value Spaghetti Hoops.

I have to admit that when I read about nurseries possibly becoming the 'agencies' my first thoughts were that childminders would be looking after the under 2's and then the nurseries would be enticing them over to themselves! I really could see this happening.

The money-minded moghuls at the Dept of Ed have probably done the equation:


The maths is too complicated for me, but the early evidence suggests that 95% of parents and all but a few CMs think the proposal is complete bunkum. :(

*Please note: I have nothing against stickle bricks......... in moderation. :thumbsup:

**************************************************

[christine e]

oops tried to reply with a quote in red on the above thread but it doesn't seem to have worked - this is what I wanted to say after bunyip's first paragraph

I have to admit that when I read about nurseries possibly becoming the 'agencies' my first thoughts were that childminders would be looking after the under 2's and then the nurseries would be enticing them over to themselves! I really could see this happening.

[sarah707]

I read it that under the new proposals the standard ratios will be increased to 4 ( 3 now) under 5's and within these 4 it will be standard that childminders CAN have two under 1 . We will still be able to grant exceptions to this rule for continuity of care , siblings etc as long as we do not exceed 6 under 8's. As many of us already have exceptions in place for 4+ children The only difference I can see is new childminders will be able to go straight in to having 4 under 5's- madness in my view- I think higher ratios should only be allowable to those that have been in the job for a minimum of a couple of years and/or have relevant qualifications( Childminders ratios)
I'm reading it that I could still have 6 under 5's as I don't care for over 5's..... but I would have to carefully consider the compliment of children and assess risks etc.
See, still bloomin confusing!
Carol x

Yes Carol that's how I read it too.

Of course the problem is not just with childminder ratios... it is ratios throughout the whole early years sector and the implications of changes on every one of us.

The petition shows the level of feeling and concern. We now have something very strong in place to work from :D

[lisbet]

oops tried to reply with a quote in red on the above thread but it doesn't seem to have worked - this is what I wanted to say after bunyip's first paragraph

I have to admit that when I read about nurseries possibly becoming the 'agencies' my first thoughts were that childminders would be looking after the under 2's and then the nurseries would be enticing them over to themselves! I really could see this happening.

My local authority place eligible under 2's with child minders and then transfers them to nurseries at 2. They say they think some would benefit from staying with CM's longer, but then they have less spaces for the under 2's. I had been hoping they'd consider placing some of the 2yr olds newly eligible from September with CM's, but now I'm guessing they'll be going to newly available nursery places...

[lisbet]

Perhaps the plan is for us CMs to run 'baby farms' for the under-5's, whilst schools revisit the moribund notion of 'extended services' (aka "detention with rations thrown in") to handle the schoolies which are due to become surplus to requirements.

I can hear just hear it now: "If parents have the audacity to have children when they can't afford a Norland nanny, then they really should be grateful for baby farms instead of the workhouse" :rolleyes:

[bunyip]

My local authority place eligible under 2's with child minders and then transfers them to nurseries at 2. They say they think some would benefit from staying with CM's longer, but then they have less spaces for the under 2's. I had been hoping they'd consider placing some of the 2yr olds newly eligible from September with CM's, but now I'm guessing they'll be going to newly available nursery places...

I can see the phrase "continuity of care" becoming consigned to history as the financial imperative takes top priority. Sad. :(

[mum24]

It is the part of the proposal concerned with changing ratios in nurseries that particularly worries me. I used to work in a nursery that strove to give responsive care to each baby and child, and it was challenging enough under current ratios, regardless of our level of education and expertise. I think more children per adult will damage the quality of relationships and early years experiences, and have an especially negative impact on the most vulnerable children.

Also, there are only a finite number of jobs for parents/ children needing care, and if large nurseries are able to get more children into the same space by meeting relatively low qualification requirements, then perhaps they will be able to attract parents away from childminders?

And I also thought it would mean that a child minder could technically have 6 early years children too? :confused:

(I'm also concerned about child minder agencies and the 'schoolification' of the early years. :()

these are my concerns also, lisbet, The major concern is nurseries and some larger pre schools, and the agency role for childminders.
I agree with Mr Anchovy, that for childminders there is not a great deal of difference. It is not too long ago that people had very large families, I know they didn't have the eyfs:laughing:, but really saying what about one needing changing while one is eating etc etc is not going to happen at every meal time is it? And families do cope with twins and toddlers up and down the country day in day out. My friend had three sets of twins under 6, and they are all still sane (just!!).
I would not encourage any kind of two tier childminder system, even to us saying a childminder must be experienced before she can use the new system. We all know our limits, strengths and weaknesses, and I think any new childminder who thinks, 'yay, four under 3, loads of dosh'...is going to get a very rude awakening if she/he is not prepared.

[mum24]

My thoughts exactly, i am for the new ratios but dont like the agency idea. Also i can now pull down the funding , where at the moment i cannot as i do not a la level 3, i have O levels and A levels and City and Guilds but at 56 and working 55 hours per week am too old and too busy to start training again and for a job i have been doing for 17 years :panic:


This is rubbish too, why should you not have funding - we are all doing the same job, meeting the same standards. I have childminder friends who have degrees, but cannot have funding because their degrees are not in childcare. Despite too have their own children (first hand experience) and doing a great job, really good references from their parents etc. I haven't got a degree, do have gcses, but did a level 3 when I first started and so I get funding, not fair is it.

[bunyip]

these are my concerns also, lisbet, The major concern is nurseries and some larger pre schools, and the agency role for childminders.
I agree with Mr Anchovy, that for childminders there is not a great deal of difference. It is not too long ago that people had very large families, I know they didn't have the eyfs:laughing:, but really saying what about one needing changing while one is eating etc etc is not going to happen at every meal time is it? And families do cope with twins and toddlers up and down the country day in day out. My friend had three sets of twins under 6, and they are all still sane (just!!).
I would not encourage any kind of two tier childminder system, even to us saying a childminder must be experienced before she can use the new system. We all know our limits, strengths and weaknesses, and I think any new childminder who thinks, 'yay, four under 3, loads of dosh'...is going to get a very rude awakening if she/he is not prepared.

This (in red) is what worries me. Are they going to get the awakening before or after a child get hurt?

I agree with your post about the unfairness of funding. Already much of funding/training/resourcing is a lottery depending on where you live. :(

[leopardlady]

Sorry, I missed the bit about funding. Having just spent nearly a year doing my level 3 diploma whilst working 50 hours a week at 57 years old, so that I can become accredited and accept the vouchers for my mindee who turns 3 in august, are you saying that I now dont need to have this qualification?

[FussyElmo]

Sorry, I missed the bit about funding. Having just spent nearly a year doing my level 3 diploma whilst working 50 hours a week at 57 years old, so that I can become accredited and accept the vouchers for my mindee who turns 3 in august, are you saying that I now dont need to have this qualification?

No one actually knows yet but reading the report it will no longer be LA's who determine the funding but ofsted :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[justgoodfriends]

It implies that the only criteria for drawing the funding will be your Ofsted grade, not whether you have nvq.

[leopardlady]

Thats great, so I could have spent the time doing my paperwork and improving my setting. The longer I childmind (and I am a newish minder) the more I understand why so many local childminders have 'retired' !!!

[bunyip]

It implies that the only criteria for drawing the funding will be your Ofsted grade, not whether you have nvq.

So every time our inspection comes round, any funded clients are left chewing their nails to see if they need to find a new CM. I thought the aim was to make things better for families, CMs and lo's?

[bunyip]

Sorry, I missed the bit about funding. Having just spent nearly a year doing my level 3 diploma whilst working 50 hours a week at 57 years old, so that I can become accredited and accept the vouchers for my mindee who turns 3 in august, are you saying that I now dont need to have this qualification?

I'm also doing the diploma. Complete waste of time and effort to learn nothing of any practical value. Did anyone here not know that children have to be fed? safeguarded? given learning opportunities? One of the class said in my last workshop said, "if anyone is in childcare and doesn't know this stuff already, why are they being allowed near children?"

Never mind - these things tend to have a short academic shelf-life until the next miracle of education comes along. NVQs used to be all the rage, now GCSEs appear to be lined up for the scrapheap. Degrees are becoming so ubiquitous that they'll soon be a pre-requisite for a job on a checkout. Likewise, employers flip schizophrnically between demanding more 'vocational' courses, then blame schools and colleges for not teaching 'proper' subjects.

Don't worry - I'm not in my 50s yet, but I struggle to keep up. It's not so much a matter of 'keeping up with the game' as keeping up with whether the goalposts last moved to. :panic:

[sarah707]

So every time our inspection comes round, any funded clients are left chewing their nails to see if they need to find a new CM. I thought the aim was to make things better for families, CMs and lo's?

Oh I hadn't thought about it from that angle ...

I had considered the lack of ability to organise a party in a brewery and all the problems that are likely to ensue if they are given so much very important responsibility - sorry to those really nice, helpful people I have spoken to at Ofsted - but you are in the minority if what we read on here is anything to go by guys!!

My thoughts as well are that your local authority comes to see you regularly - with an education person - and gives you help and support. How often will O be able to get out to see everyone? What happens if someone is struggling - who do they contact if LA is no longer in control?

Hmmmm lots to consider...

:D

[FussyElmo]

Oh I hadn't thought about it from that angle ...

I had considered the lack of ability to organise a party in a brewery and all the problems that are likely to ensue if they are given so much very important responsibility - sorry to those really nice, helpful people I have spoken to at Ofsted - but you are in the minority if what we read on here is anything to go by guys!!

My thoughts as well are that your local authority comes to see you regularly - with an education person - and gives you help and support. How often will O be able to get out to see everyone? What happens if someone is struggling - who do they contact if LA is no longer in control?

Hmmmm lots to consider...

:D

Thats the proble we are lucky where we are acrredited cms do get the support. At the min I allowed 18 hours from my do and 18 hours from my early years consultant. I cant see most of these having jobs as it stands now. Are we seriously thinking ofsted will have the manpower to deal with queries/help/support for the funding when at the min they just refer you to the EYFS.

Good point Bunyip about being downgraded or will they say if you improve you can pay for a reinspection - something I doubt will be cheap so out of reach of mosr childminders :panic:

[loocyloo]

i'm an accrediated childminder ... my DO comes to visit each term and i usually see her at a childminder group at least once a term, and then we have termly training/meet up days for all 'leading childminders' and even if my DO isn't there, others i know are! our DOs have all moved around and my new DO is now based at the childrens centre by school so i seem to see her lots!

they are there at the end of the phone or email and usually have a sensible answer, unlike ofsted who always say 'refer to EYFS'

[justgoodfriends]

So every time our inspection comes round, any funded clients are left chewing their nails to see if they need to find a new CM. I thought the aim was to make things better for families, CMs and lo's?

This question was bought up at the NCMA Forum today. The answer was that it would be up to the local authorities whether they continue to fund the place, but they thought that if you were graded Satisfactory (after previously being graded Good and therefore eligible to draw the funding), that you would be allowed to keep your existing funded children but not take anymore. You would then need to make the desired improvements and pay yourself to be reinspected to achieve a Good if you wanted to take on any 'new' funded children.

[bunyip]

Oh I hadn't thought about it from that angle ...

I had considered the lack of ability to organise a party in a brewery and all the problems that are likely to ensue if they are given so much very important responsibility - sorry to those really nice, helpful people I have spoken to at Ofsted - but you are in the minority if what we read on here is anything to go by guys!!

My thoughts as well are that your local authority comes to see you regularly - with an education person - and gives you help and support. How often will O be able to get out to see everyone? What happens if someone is struggling - who do they contact if LA is no longer in control?

Hmmmm lots to consider...

:D

As I've said before, I don't brag about my grade cos I'm fully aware that a different inspector or a different day might well have given me a different grade. At least it grants me the priviledge of being able to criticise the system without it being seen as sour grapes.

There are large and multiple practical problems to basing any of this sort of entitlement on the 'snapshot' system of inspection. Even if all the grades ever given are fair and accurate, who's to say that a good/outstanding setting won't get complaicent and go downhill well before the next inspection, actually being surpassed somewhere along the line by a satisfactory CM who had pulled out all the stops to improve.

And if satisfactory CMs are denied access to funding and other opportunities, there'll be a clamour for interim inspections to gain the chance to be re-graded. Hardly in line with the stated aim for Ofsted to save money, now is it?

I think this is another of the areas where it should be enough to be a registered CM who is following the regulations, and that be an end to it. Why is "good enough" not good enough? A driver's license is good enough to drive any car on any road, within the law. Isn't it?:huh:

[moggy]

So every time our inspection comes round, any funded clients are left chewing their nails to see if they need to find a new CM. I thought the aim was to make things better for families, CMs and lo's?

...individual inspection? No, we will all be in agencies so that problem's solved!:panic:

[justgoodfriends]

[I think this is another of the areas where it should be enough to be a registered CM who is following the regulations, and that be an end to it. Why is "good enough" not good enough? A driver's license is good enough to drive any car on any road, within the law. Isn't it?:huh:[/QUOTE]

There's people who have a driving license who unfortunately aren't fit to drive and shouldn't be on the road, in the same way there are some childminders with Satisfactory whose practice is very poor, close to being inadequate even, and its those ones that the government is trying to prevent from drawing the funding.

Those that believe they deserve a Good will be able to pay to be re-inspected, if the proposals are approved.

[FussyElmo]

This question was bought up at the NCMA Forum today. The answer was that it would be up to the local authorities whether they continue to fund the place, but they thought that if you were graded Satisfactory (after previously being graded Good and therefore eligible to draw the funding), that you would be allowed to keep your existing funded children but not take anymore. You would then need to make the desired improvements and pay yourself to be reinspected to achieve a Good if you wanted to take on any 'new' funded children.

Mmm I thought the government wanted to take away the funding from the local authoritys due to the fact they are keeping so much of the funding back - which all LAs should be held accountable for. So how will it be a la decision if you get your funding or not ?

[FussyElmo]

[I think this is another of the areas where it should be enough to be a registered CM who is following the regulations, and that be an end to it. Why is "good enough" not good enough? A driver's license is good enough to drive any car on any road, within the law. Isn't it?:huh:

There's people who have a driving license who unfortunately aren't fit to drive and shouldn't be on the road, in the same way there are some childminders with Satisfactory whose practice is very poor, close to being inadequate even, and its those ones that the government is trying to prevent from drawing the funding.

Those that believe they deserve a Good will be able to pay to be re-inspected, if the proposals are approved.[/QUOTE]

pay to be reinspected - ok in full on cynical mode but does that lead to more setting being given satistfactory so they pay to be reinspected. Not like the government didnt start to see speed cameras as not a deterent or safety device but a money pit. Like I said the cynical side is out in force today :D

[justgoodfriends]

Mmm I thought the government wanted to take away the funding from the local authoritys due to the fact they are keeping so much of the funding back - which all LAs should be held accountable for. So how will it be a la decision if you get your funding or not ?

I don't think so (but could be wrong), the report is saying that the control over who is able to draw the funding will be taken from LA's - the will no longer be able to say 'you must have a level 3' and compete loads of LA devised self evaluation forms, be inspected by a LA pedagogue etc. duplicating what we already do for Ofsted. Each LA will still be allocated the funding I think.

[jillplum]

I would welcome a more universal criteria for becoming accredited. I have a level 3 , graded Good and am part of a network but unable to draw funding due to my LA requiring masses of paperwork and visits etc etc etc. The current minders wanting to offer funded places ahve been at it for at least a year and still not able??? I know in other LA I would be eligible. Seems a bit mad.

[bunyip]

I would welcome a more universal criteria for becoming accredited. I have a level 3 , graded Good and am part of a network but unable to draw funding due to my LA requiring masses of paperwork and visits etc etc etc. The current minders wanting to offer funded places ahve been at it for at least a year and still not able??? I know in other LA I would be eligible. Seems a bit mad.

My LA still hasn't decided what criteria are required for accreditation. I've been enquiring since last May and it's still "under consultation." :mad:

[bunyip]

There's people who have a driving license who unfortunately aren't fit to drive and shouldn't be on the road, in the same way there are some childminders with Satisfactory whose practice is very poor, close to being inadequate even, and its those ones that the government is trying to prevent from drawing the funding.

Those that believe they deserve a Good will be able to pay to be re-inspected, if the proposals are approved.

pay to be reinspected - ok in full on cynical mode but does that lead to more setting being given satistfactory so they pay to be reinspected. Not like the government didnt start to see speed cameras as not a deterent or safety device but a money pit. Like I said the cynical side is out in force today :D[/QUOTE]

I agree (and I don't even drive!)

Of course, we've still not mentioned the fact that there are huge inconsistencies in inspectors making arbitrary judgements based on vague elements of a bad-draughted regulatory framework. The nearest CM to me was given 'satisfactory' last October and told she didn't have enough experience cos it was her first inspection. She immediately challenged this as she had re-registered after previously allowing her registration to lapse and actually had 12+ years of experience. The inspector's reply was, "well we can't give you a higher grade anyway cos you've not been working under the new EYFS for long enough." So anyone visited close to September 2012 by at least 1 inspector had already been graded before she crossed the threshold - she was only there looking for possible 'actions'.

Moggy has a good point, though I think the agency model makes it even worse, rather than solving the problem. Posit: I am in an agency when they (not I) get inspected. What if we all get 'satisfactory' cos the office is behind on its records and Ofsted happened to inspect a sample of numpties in the same agency? Now I'm stuffed for accessing funding/resources/opportunities no matter how good my service is. :panic:

[FussyElmo]

I don't think so (but could be wrong), the report is saying that the control over who is able to draw the funding will be taken from LA's - the will no longer be able to say 'you must have a level 3' and compete loads of LA devised self evaluation forms, be inspected by a LA pedagogue etc. duplicating what we already do for Ofsted. Each LA will still be allocated the funding I think.

"Local authorities currently retain 160 million a year of the funding meant to deliver early education for 3/4 years, some of which is dulpicating wrok ofsted is already doing"

As I said i have cynical head on but does anyone else think the la's have shot themselves in the foot and the government is after the money back :thumbsup:

Also wonder how much the agencies will cost to set up :D

[justgoodfriends]

pay to be reinspected - ok in full on cynical mode but does that lead to more setting being given satistfactory so they pay to be reinspected. Not like the government didnt start to see speed cameras as not a deterent or safety device but a money pit. Like I said the cynical side is out in force today :D

I agree (and I don't even drive!)

Of course, we've still not mentioned the fact that there are huge inconsistencies in inspectors making arbitrary judgements based on vague elements of a bad-draughted regulatory framework. The nearest CM to me was given 'satisfactory' last October and told she didn't have enough experience cos it was her first inspection. She immediately challenged this as she had re-registered after previously allowing her registration to lapse and actually had 12+ years of experience. The inspector's reply was, "well we can't give you a higher grade anyway cos you've not been working under the new EYFS for long enough." So anyone visited close to September 2012 by at least 1 inspector had already been graded before she crossed the threshold - she was only there looking for possible 'actions'.

Moggy has a good point, though I think the agency model makes it even worse, rather than solving the problem. Posit: I am in an agency when they (not I) get inspected. What if we all get 'satisfactory' cos the office is behind on its records and Ofsted happened to inspect a sample of numpties in the same agency? Now I'm stuffed for accessing funding/resources/opportunities no matter how good my service is. :panic:[/QUOTE]

That's a thought.. would the agencies have a say in who they accept on to their books - maybe they will reject numpties so they get a higher Ofsted grade!! Just looked at the MGC report again.. there's actually no mention of the agencies being graded by Ofsted, only that they will be inspected.

[blue bear]

I personally don't think much will change, the lea will no longer be funded from government, so they will set up as an agency, they will continue to make childminders jump through alsorts of ridiculous hoops, attend unnecessary training, go through fccers assessments etc to be able to access funding, only thing will change will be we have to pay for the privilege.

This is a money saving exercise from the top, they don't want to pay the lea anymore that's a massive saving, they don't want to do individual inspections because it's expensive so by forcing us into agencies to be able to access training and funding that gets rid of that expense.

It's not about the children it's about cut backs but no one wants to use that term in relation to children as there would be uproar.

[Wheelybug]

This is a money saving exercise from the top, they don't want to pay the lea anymore that's a massive saving, they don't want to do individual inspections because it's expensive so by forcing us into agencies to be able to access training and funding that gets rid of that expense.


I hadn't thought of that. If responsiblity for training is taken away from LA and given to agencies, if we don't join an agency we won't be able to access training :panic:

Cathy x.

[mum24]

Just wondering....could a group of childminders not start their own agency?
Just food for thought really.

[Mouse]

Just wondering....could a group of childminders not start their own agency?
Just food for thought really.

Supposedly yes, but no one knows anything about them yet to be able to look into it properly.

[dette]

Just wondering....could a group of childminders not start their own agency?
Just food for thought really.

how about the CHILDMINDING FORUM agency ...i thought of it first ..pay me :)

[SammyL]

I understand the apprehensive feelings many people have had regarding changes to the number of children childminders are allowed to look after during a period of much uncertainty and rumour over the last nine months. The strength and depth of feeling is illustrated by the level of response to recent petitions launched before the publication of the report "More great childcare" by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (education and childcare), Liz Truss.

However many childminders already care for 2 children under one, or 4 children under 5, under the "continuity of care" arrangements of EYFS 2012 (previously under a "variation" from Ofsted). I think it is wrong to assume that the proposed changes to the regulatory regime, which may well be made by laws in the same way as the overall 1:6 limit rather than through the EYFS, will continue to allow optional variations - laws don't tend to work that way. It appears to me that a change in the law would potentially provide a clear and firm statement of limits that are no higher than those which already apply in practice to replace the current system which most people agree is confusing and open to abuse.

So if you believe that childminders should continue be able to look after twin babies, or take on two families with a full time toddler and a wrap-around pre-schooler, I think that you should consider the specifc proposals which are published in the report very carefully before reaching a conclusion on whether you are "for" or "against" them.

Agreed - also people need to remember that we are limited by space so regardless of how many children we can look after under the new proposed ratios we will only be allowed te same number of children depending on space!

Ie nurseries who have 50 places will continue to have 50 places - some people think that we will be able to cram as many children into homes & settings as possible.

[FussyElmo]

Agreed - also people need to remember that we are limited by space so regardless of how many children we can look after under the new proposed ratios we will only be allowed te same number of children depending on space!

Ie nurseries who have 50 places will continue to have 50 places - some people think that we will be able to cram as many children into homes & settings as possible.

But the report has stated the floor space is a "trival issue" and it could be ignored.

[lisbet]

Ie nurseries who have 50 places will continue to have 50 places - some people think that we will be able to cram as many children into homes & settings as possible.

If I've remembered what it said in the report correctly, they are relaxing the rules on floorspace and requirements to have staff rooms/ rooms for private meetings with parents so nurseries WILL be able to take more children on. I guess it's the only way they could make it workable - nursery owners won't be prepared to build expensive extensions.

Now wondering if they have already done similar to CM's: Do the new style CM registrations (automatically registering the whole property with no mention of individual numbers allowed) mean that someone could have 6 mindees in a tiny home that might previously have been restricted to say, 4? :confused:

[loocyloo]

how about the CHILDMINDING FORUM agency ...i thought of it first ..pay me :)

i've mentioned it somewhere too ... lets share! :D

[dette]

i've mentioned it somewhere too ... lets share! :D

OK ...ITS A DEAL :)