Here is another article...much better written

[Mouse]

Well, in my opionion anyway!

Penelope Leach | Guest Blog | Bloggers Network | Mumsnet (http://www.mumsnet.com/bloggers/guest-blogs/penelope-leach)

The main body makes good reading, but I still don't get the bit about childmnder's numbers. All the "experts" are talking about childminders having 4 toddlers AND 2 babies under 1. The whole of the childminder section in this article is based on that interpretation, which if it's incorrect negates the arguments being put forward.

I am all for an increase to 4 toddlers, OF WHICH 2 could be under 1, but totally against the idea of 6 children - 4 toddlers AND 2 babies. How is everyone else interpreting it?

[crazyXstitcher]

I think she means 4 under 5 OF WHICH 2 can be under 1. That's how i read it anyway.

I think she just hasn't worded it very clearly. It is a bit open to interpretation depending on what you already know about ratios.

[caz3007]

I think she means 4 under 5 OF WHICH 2 can be under 1. That's how i read it anyway.

I think she just hasn't worded it very clearly. It is a bit open to interpretation depending on what you already know about ratios.

I agree, but its not very clear. I definately read that the new ratios are 4 under 5's but two can be under 1. It just saves applying for variations

[miffy]

I think she means 4 under 5 OF WHICH 2 can be under 1. That's how i read it anyway.

I think she just hasn't worded it very clearly. It is a bit open to interpretation depending on what you already know about ratios.

I read it the same as Mouse - look at this bit

What about twin babies, a two year old, a three year old and a four year old? That's still one under- five fewer than will be allowed.

Miffy xx

[Mouse]

I agree, but its not very clear. I definately read that the new ratios are 4 under 5's but two can be under 1. It just saves applying for variations

That's how I understand it, but so many articles I've read seem to be interpreting the Truss report as saying we can have 6 young children - 4 toddlers and 2 babies. This article clearly asks how we will manage 6 young children. It even says we are currently allowed 3 under 5s and 1 baby, with 2 school children at times. Again, that's not the case unless a variation is in place.
I think I've yet to see an article that's got it right (as I see it) ie. 4 young children of which 2 can be babies, so I did start to wonder if I've got it wrong.

[bunyip]

Certainly better written but, as you say, still problems with interpretation of numbers and the use of the word "and".

On a positive note, as we're all meant to be teaching English and maths to the 2yo's there's at least the hope that some future generation will be able to understand Dept of Ed documents by the time they're signing on. :rolleyes:

Leach has an interesting point that I'd completely failed to see before. Rather than increase their numbers, nurseries may well decide to reduce their staff and thereby reduce their costs, instead. This would be particularly attractive to a nursery owner who felt his/her premises were already pretty much full to capacity (the scrapping of space considerations notwithstanding) and wished to avoid expenditure on more resources and the roll-out of workplace pensions.

Maybe Truss has foreseen this and figured the sacked nursery staff can stay home with their own children. She's such a visionary. :rolleyes:

Hmmm. Nice one.

[LauraS]

Certainly better written but, as you say, still problems with interpretation of numbers and the use of the word "and".

On a positive note, as we're all meant to be teaching English and maths to the 2yo's there's at least the hope that some future generation will be able to understand Dept of Ed documents by the time they're signing on. :rolleyes:

Leach has an interesting point that I'd completely failed to see before. Rather than increase their numbers, nurseries may well decide to reduce their staff and thereby reduce their costs, instead. This would be particularly attractive to a nursery owner who felt his/her premises were already pretty much full to capacity (the scrapping of space considerations notwithstanding) and wished to avoid expenditure on more resources and the roll-out of workplace pensions.

Maybe Truss has foreseen this and figured the sacked nursery staff can stay home with their own children. She's such a visionary. :rolleyes:

Hmmm. Nice one.

It is an interesting point re sacking staff. As has been said repeatedly, there are only so many children to go round. Should a nursery expand their business, buy more resources, extend premises, incur more expenses and advertise the spaces in order to fill to capacity... or just sack a few staff for a similar result.

Interesting times...

[Mouse]

Certainly better written but, as you say, still problems with interpretation of numbers and the use of the word "and".

.

Who'd have thought such a little word would cause so much confusion :rolleyes: