p.a.c.e.y

[nipper]

Hmmm, just did a search for pacey and got a character out of Dawson's Creek. Their childminding contracts are now £10.00 and I see all the NCMA branding has been removed from the front covers. I wonder what they are doing with all the old ones? It would be nice to think they would sell them off for a discount but somehow I think not. I can see me joining MM when my subscription is up for renewal in July.

Business (http://www.shop.**************/shop/Business.html) Just so expensive:(

[miffy]

I'm sure NCMA contracts etc were on sale at a reduced price just before the rebranding. I read somewhere that the "old" paperwork will be valid for 12 months from when they became PACEY.

Miffy xx

[lisbet]

Yes, I bought some discounted paperwork last month, and somewhere on the site it says that it is fine to use old paperwork whilst you have it, so that's what I'm going to do. If I remember rightly the contracts were £9/£18 before, so not too big a hike, but still more than I'd really like to pay! It did make me laugh when I searched for the p word and got the dawson's creek character! :rolleyes:

[bunyip]

It would have been nice if the new stationery had been back from the printers before the old stock ran out, but I guess that demands a basic level of competence. I'm still waiting for contracts and could well lose a particularly nervous potential client as a result. Thanks. :mad:

Hello PACEY, can I spell it out to you guys:

PLANNING IS WHAT YOU DO BEFORE THE EVENT !!!!!! :doh:

[blue bear]

Had a Quick look at the site, I'm confused as to why a nursery worker would join them over other bodies? Also when they describe different types of childcare nannies and childminders care for the children year nurseries and pre school educate the children!!! What are they trying to say?

Not very appealing .

[FussyElmo]

It would have been nice if the new stationery had been back from the printers before the old stock ran out, but I guess that demands a basic level of competence. I'm still waiting for contracts and could well lose a particularly nervous potential client as a result. Thanks. :mad:

Hello PACEY, can I spell it out to you guys:

PLANNING IS WHAT YOU DO BEFORE THE EVENT !!!!!! :doh:

I should have an old ncma contract if you need one

[supermumy]

I Had to buy all new contacts books and hold forms and register weeks before they changed name at full price tol! would of been nice to be given pacey ones knowing the change!

[bunyip]

First, my declaration of interest: I'm a PACEY member and I have absolutely no problem with them widening the membership to other childcare industry workers. What I object to is the bare-faced dishonesty they are displaying with regard to the reasons for doing so.

This is best demonstrated in the feature article by the PACEY top brass in the re-launched (all-new, all-singing, all-dancing, "let's get the word 'professional' into this publication far more times than is even plausible" the childcare professional magazine. In it, Joint Chief Executives Liz Bayram and Catherine Farrell bang on tediously about that meaningless word "professional" (again) whilst promoting the benefits of widening membership to nursery staff, etc.

The spin being put on this is in stark contrast to the reality of the so-called "consultation" process carried out. The truth is that CMs are not prepared to pay what it costs to keep NCMA going at the current level of service standards. Now we can debate fees and what actual service standards are until the cows come home, but the balance sheet doesn't lie, and no way would CMs stump up what it costs to run a professional association for a genuine 'profession' (eg. The Law Society). In fact, CMs have been leaving NCMA for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being cost of membership.

The Bayram & Farrell article pushes the positive aspects of wider membership (which I'm fine with), but without ever mentioning the grave concern expressed by many CMs about possible 'dilution' of the specifically CM-oriented service, which is frankly quite disengenuous of them. This is a big worry for CMs I know locally, and was reflected by the vast majority of those at the regional forum where this was discussed. To ignore and gloss over the issue is nothing more than a massive insult to CMs, and an indication that the chief execs are happy to railroad a PR message right through the legitimate concerns of their membership.

I say this, even though I'm not personally bothered by the wider membership. But I am aware that many/most CM members are, and their concerns need to be acknowledged and addressed, even if I don't personally share their views. :mad:

[jashol]

Sorry am writing a running does this mean the old ncma contracts are no longer valid !? Am thinking of mm too when mine runs out

[bunyip]

I should have an old ncma contract if you need one

Ooooh, there's a cunning way of getting my address for your next planned abduction attempt! :laughing:

Seriously, thanks for the offer. Actually I have one copy and need another, but suspect I may be obliged to resort to a photocopy for now, then replace it when the new contracts arrive.

What I really ought to do is call PACEY's legal department to check they'll give me legal protection againt an IPR suit that PACEY legal might conceivable action against me for photocopying one of their forms due to PACEY shop's failure to get its backside in gear. :confused:

[bunyip]

Sorry am writing a running does this mean the old ncma contracts are no longer valid !? Am thinking of mm too when mine runs out

PACEY told me the NCMA contracts remain legal and will be supported by PACEY if completed correctly.

An NCMA DO told me they expect all contracts to be renewed and re-signed at least every 12 months.

That said, this particular DO has IMHO lime jelly for brains so I'm very circumspect about trusting anything she tells me. :p

[christine e]

your ncma contracts are still valid - it is my understanding that there will be stickers available to put over the old logo - please bear with me and I will get back to you on this

Christine

[bunyip]

Do I have to be good before I get a sticker? :jump for joy:

[FussyElmo]

Ooooh, there's a cunning way of getting my address for your next planned abduction attempt! :laughing:

Seriously, thanks for the offer. Actually I have one copy and need another, but suspect I may be obliged to resort to a photocopy for now, then replace it when the new contracts arrive.

What I really ought to do is call PACEY's legal department to check they'll give me legal protection againt an IPR suit that PACEY legal might conceivable action against me for photocopying one of their forms due to PACEY shop's failure to get its backside in gear. :confused:

Damm and blast you saw through my ruse :-D

[christine e]

Do I have to be good before I get a sticker? :jump for joy:

:laughing:maybe

[Allie]

Well I'm going to give them a year to see how it all works out, I've just renewed with PACEY after much soul searching, as I've been with them since I started in 1990.

With the money restrictions PACEY is facing I really hope there is a way forward that means we still get a level of support


Allie

[Maria Pia]

Well I'm going to give them a year to see how it all works out, I've just renewed with PACEY after much soul searching, as I've been with them since I started in 1990.

With the money restrictions PACEY is facing I really hope there is a way forward that means we still get a level of support


Allie

I feel that with the threat of agencies being introduced to provide the training and support for CMs, PACEY is fearing redundancy and therefore they have to widen their audience to keep going. If the Truss 'what-a-load-of-b...ks' reform gets approved, LAs will no longer have funding for training CMs - here in Kent, Kent CC subsides support for CMs to the local PACEY office. If funds are stopped, quite a few people will lose their jobs as a result. :-(

However I do share concerns re losing the CM specific focus and therefore diluting the support we get. Which is very worrying... who would lobby on our behalf? Feeling like a Dodo at the turning of the 17th century... (and looking like one right now!:laughing:)

Maria xx

[jackie 7]

as my insurance is with mm and i am a member of pacy, not do i have to reprint my buisness cards? i use contracts from other places. the worst thing about pacy insurance is that you HAVE to use their contracts. I rejoined so that they would use the money to fight ET and her alien reforms.

[Chatterbox Childcare]

First, my declaration of interest: I'm a PACEY member and I have absolutely no problem with them widening the membership to other childcare industry workers. What I object to is the bare-faced dishonesty they are displaying with regard to the reasons for doing so.

This is best demonstrated in the feature article by the PACEY top brass in the re-launched (all-new, all-singing, all-dancing, "let's get the word 'professional' into this publication far more times than is even plausible" the childcare professional magazine. In it, Joint Chief Executives Liz Bayram and Catherine Farrell bang on tediously about that meaningless word "professional" (again) whilst promoting the benefits of widening membership to nursery staff, etc.

The spin being put on this is in stark contrast to the reality of the so-called "consultation" process carried out. The truth is that CMs are not prepared to pay what it costs to keep NCMA going at the current level of service standards. Now we can debate fees and what actual service standards are until the cows come home, but the balance sheet doesn't lie, and no way would CMs stump up what it costs to run a professional association for a genuine 'profession' (eg. The Law Society). In fact, CMs have been leaving NCMA for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being cost of membership.

The Bayram & Farrell article pushes the positive aspects of wider membership (which I'm fine with), but without ever mentioning the grave concern expressed by many CMs about possible 'dilution' of the specifically CM-oriented service, which is frankly quite disengenuous of them. This is a big worry for CMs I know locally, and was reflected by the vast majority of those at the regional forum where this was discussed. To ignore and gloss over the issue is nothing more than a massive insult to CMs, and an indication that the chief execs are happy to railroad a PR message right through the legitimate concerns of their membership.

I say this, even though I'm not personally bothered by the wider membership. But I am aware that many/most CM members are, and their concerns need to be acknowledged and addressed, even if I don't personally share their views. :mad:

As an NPF (National Policy Forum Member) I had to vote on the name and changes and ratify any board decisions. Data was used from forums, online forums and other means of communication. It is very apparant from childminders at my meeting that people do not always communicate their feelings to the best people. i.e. our members were a bit unsure of the new look magazine but not one of them contacted the editor and expressed their dissatisfaction, so how could it be changed?

I appreciate that there are childminders out there unsure of the changes but are they saying that to PACEY or just those in their local circle?

[Chatterbox Childcare]

as my insurance is with mm and i am a member of pacy, not do i have to reprint my buisness cards? i use contracts from other places. the worst thing about pacy insurance is that you HAVE to use their contracts. I rejoined so that they would use the money to fight ET and her alien reforms.

NO you don't and whoever is saying this is very outdated. I checked with the insurers themselves. PACEY insurance is the same as MM

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I feel that with the threat of agencies being introduced to provide the training and support for CMs, PACEY is fearing redundancy and therefore they have to widen their audience to keep going. If the Truss 'what-a-load-of-b...ks' reform gets approved, LAs will no longer have funding for training CMs - here in Kent, Kent CC subsides support for CMs to the local PACEY office. If funds are stopped, quite a few people will lose their jobs as a result. :-(

However I do share concerns re losing the CM specific focus and therefore diluting the support we get. Which is very worrying... who would lobby on our behalf? Feeling like a Dodo at the turning of the 17th century... (and looking like one right now!:laughing:)

Maria xx

Widening membership was started prior to Ms Truss being on the scene in any capacity. Membership runs PACEY not funding the any LA, any funding my the LA is paid out in DO and if the funding stops so does the DO support.

[Chatterbox Childcare]

Sorry am writing a running does this mean the old ncma contracts are no longer valid !? Am thinking of mm too when mine runs out

All paperwork/contracts etc are still current until renewal - including old ones that might be needed in the future for proof

[loocyloo]

i was told that i didn't need to get my contract signed each year ( although a contract review is good practice ) but unless anything is changing, the contract stands until the contract ends. i shall not be buying new contracts and re-doing them, just because ncma is now pacey!

[sarah707]

NO you don't and whoever is saying this is very outdated. I checked with the insurers themselves. PACEY insurance is the same as MM

Debbie members are telling me that they have been told on the helpline that they must use 'official' contracts and that this hasn't changed when they have rung and asked advice about it recently.

I have had 3 pms about your post in the last few minutes - but I am not a member so I can't comment..

Do you have it confirmed in writing please?

We wouldn't want to give advice and then members find they can't access support in the future if they have a problem with a non payer or serious accident etc.

Thank you xx

[Chatterbox Childcare]

Debbie members are telling me that they have been told on the helpline that they must use 'official' contracts and that this hasn't changed when they have rung and asked advice about it recently.

I have had 3 pms about your post in the last few minutes - but I am not a member so I can't comment..

Do you have it confirmed in writing please?

We wouldn't want to give advice and then members find they can't access support in the future if they have a problem with a non payer or serious accident etc.

Thank you xx

No problems - leave it with me and I will get it in writing tomorrow and post.

I find it funny that the same insurance company (those with MM and PACEY) can be given conflicting information :)

Secret Squirrel is on the hunt :)

[christine e]

No problems - leave it with me and I will get it in writing tomorrow and post.

I find it funny that the same insurance company (those with MM and PACEY) can be given conflicting information :)

Secret Squirrel is on the hunt :)

I think the confusion lies with people calling the 'legal help' insurance - it is my understanding that you need to use PACEY contracts if in the event of a contract dispute you wanted them to represent you it is not a requirement of the public liability insurance that you use PACEY contracts but I am sure Debbie will follow this through and get back to us

[bunyip]

As an NPF (National Policy Forum Member) I had to vote on the name and changes and ratify any board decisions. Data was used from forums, online forums and other means of communication. It is very apparant from childminders at my meeting that people do not always communicate their feelings to the best people. i.e. our members were a bit unsure of the new look magazine but not one of them contacted the editor and expressed their dissatisfaction, so how could it be changed?

I appreciate that there are childminders out there unsure of the changes but are they saying that to PACEY or just those in their local circle?

With all due respect, I wonder to what degree the "data from forums" reflected all the views expressed in those forums - or was it taken selectively?

At my regional forum (early 2012) the rebranding was pretty much a done deal before we were invited to express our views. By the time the online poll was taken, the only decision left to be made was what to call the organisation.

Similarly, the regional forum discussion over widening the membership began at a point where many critical choices had already been made. We were told "the membership has been consulted already" but I don't think one person in that room believed they had been consulted at all." (In retrospect, was this "consultation" as the Truss woman understands the word?)

IIRC, we were presented with 3 choices which resulted from a rise in the cost of running NCMA:
1. Continue to limit membership to CMs and nannies, whilst also maintaining the current fees. This would require a reduction in the services provided by NCMA.
2. Continue to limit membership to CMs and nannies, whilst raising the fees in order to continue the current level of services provided by NCMA. But the likely outcome would be a decline in membership, leading to another funding crisis. (The 'vicious circle' model.)
3. Expand membership to all EY workers, whilst holding down fees. This is what we got.

I'm not arguing about whether the best decision was taken. But, there were a lot of members there who expressed grave concerns about the 'dilution' of NCMA and its ability to specifically represent CMs in future. I'm not even saying that PACEY can't do that - we have to wait and see. But what I do object to is the Bayram & Farrell article quite clearly ignores the legitimate concerns of a large number of members, as it those concerns did not exist. Ironically, this process of spinning a party line whilst simply ignoring valid concerns could almost be in the tradition of Truss & Gove.

Do you think I should make my views known to PACEY? It seems hard to believe they'd take me seriously when they are clearly already ignoring the views of so many of my colleagues. Bear in mind that my recent experience of NCMA/PACEY is a DO who tells me that agencies are a foregone conclusion, and we'd all better get ready to join one. And when I queried Bromley HQ about that, my enquiry was not well handled. :(

[Chatterbox Childcare]

With all due respect, I wonder to what degree the "data from forums" reflected all the views expressed in those forums - or was it taken selectively?

At my regional forum (early 2012) the rebranding was pretty much a done deal before we were invited to express our views. By the time the online poll was taken, the only decision left to be made was what to call the organisation.

Similarly, the regional forum discussion over widening the membership began at a point where many critical choices had already been made. We were told "the membership has been consulted already" but I don't think one person in that room believed they had been consulted at all." (In retrospect, was this "consultation" as the Truss woman understands the word?)

IIRC, we were presented with 3 choices which resulted from a rise in the cost of running NCMA:
1. Continue to limit membership to CMs and nannies, whilst also maintaining the current fees. This would require a reduction in the services provided by NCMA.
2. Continue to limit membership to CMs and nannies, whilst raising the fees in order to continue the current level of services provided by NCMA. But the likely outcome would be a decline in membership, leading to another funding crisis. (The 'vicious circle' model.)
3. Expand membership to all EY workers, whilst holding down fees. This is what we got.

I'm not arguing about whether the best decision was taken. But, there were a lot of members there who expressed grave concerns about the 'dilution' of NCMA and its ability to specifically represent CMs in future. I'm not even saying that PACEY can't do that - we have to wait and see. But what I do object to is the Bayram & Farrell article quite clearly ignores the legitimate concerns of a large number of members, as it those concerns did not exist. Ironically, this process of spinning a party line whilst simply ignoring valid concerns could almost be in the tradition of Truss & Gove.

Do you think I should make my views known to PACEY? It seems hard to believe they'd take me seriously when they are clearly already ignoring the views of so many of my colleagues. Bear in mind that my recent experience of NCMA/PACEY is a DO who tells me that agencies are a foregone conclusion, and we'd all better get ready to join one. And when I queried Bromley HQ about that, my enquiry was not well handled. :(

I believe that the whole matter was handled professional and not selected answers. When we looked at the data it was different online to those at forums. Members just don't bother filling in the questionnaires and surveys. I am not saying that you do but I am told that if PACEY get 10% of membership to respond then it is classed as good. The details of widening membership which I believe started in 2011 was advertised and consulted on numerous times, through forums, and online and details were given out in Who Minds. What else could PACEY do?

As to whether I think you should make your feelings know, then the answer is yes. They do listen, especially if a lot of people are stating the same thing.

Also, contact your local NPF member (details should be on PACEY Local or pm me and I will get it for you if you could tell me your area) and ask them to convey your feelings also.

This matter has caused quite a rift I feel and with the Government making changes we all need to stick together.

[christine e]

your ncma contracts are still valid - it is my understanding that there will be stickers available to put over the old logo - please bear with me and I will get back to you on this

Christine

If you go to

Members' Area (http://www.**************/mypacey/name_and_brand/products_qas.aspx) (log in required)

you will see that contracts are still valid but PACEY recommends that contracts are updated annually

Cx

[bunyip]

I believe that the whole matter was handled professional and not selected answers. When we looked at the data it was different online to those at forums. Members just don't bother filling in the questionnaires and surveys. I am not saying that you do but I am told that if PACEY get 10% of membership to respond then it is classed as good. The details of widening membership which I believe started in 2011 was advertised and consulted on numerous times, through forums, and online and details were given out in Who Minds. What else could PACEY do?

As to whether I think you should make your feelings know, then the answer is yes. They do listen, especially if a lot of people are stating the same thing.

Also, contact your local NPF member (details should be on PACEY Local or pm me and I will get it for you if you could tell me your area) and ask them to convey your feelings also.

This matter has caused quite a rift I feel and with the Government making changes we all need to stick together.

Thanks for your reply. I remain unconvinced and deeply concerned.

I have yet to hear anyone tell me why our Joint Chief Execs are completely avoiding the legitimate concerns and questions raised by a significant number of our members.

I would like someone to tell me what they actually mean by "professional". At the form I attended, nobody was capable of defining it. All they could do is repeat the hang-up that so many CMs suffer from: viz, no-ones respects us and everyone sees us as "glorified babysitters". Apart from being highly snobbish and insulting towards babysitters (many of whom are extremely capable) I find this says more about some CMs than it does about parents. These are views I hear from CMs, but not from the general public.

Alongside this, I have to note a comment made by one of my parent/clients on seeing the cover of the new PACEY magazine, the professional childcarer. As the mum noted, "well, they're not professional enough to set an example in the use of capital letters." :(

I agree that 10% is generally a good response rate to any survey.

I will contact PACEY HQ for answers, but I'm in no rush to do so, as I have reason to believe I'll be wasting my time. The last time I did so was when I recently wanted to know why my NCMA DO had told my CM group there was no point campaigning against More Great Childcare cos the government will get its own way no matter what we think. She also said our local NCMA office was discussing the practicalities of functioning as an agency. After 3 frustrating weeks of phone calls, voice-mail messages, and emails, I got to speak to one person at NCMA HQ and got an email reply. The only substantive comment in the email was that, "all staff members have been briefed on the campaign."

So, tell me, in what way is that meant to fill members with confidence about us all sticking together? :confused:

[3 little ducks]

It would have been nice if the new stationery had been back from the printers before the old stock ran out, but I guess that demands a basic level of competence. I'm still waiting for contracts and could well lose a particularly nervous potential client as a result. Thanks. :mad:

Hello PACEY, can I spell it out to you guys:

PLANNING IS WHAT YOU DO BEFORE THE EVENT !!!!!! :doh:

i got an order delivered yest, contracts have pacey, accounts have ncma and child record seem to be unbranded!!! lol

[nipper]

Alongside this, I have to note a comment made by one of my parent/clients on seeing the cover of the new PACEY magazine, the professional childcarer. As the mum noted, "well, they're not professional enough to set an example in the use of capital letters." :(
:

I noticed this too, not a good look I'm afraid.

[bunyip]

i got an order delivered yest, contracts have pacey, accounts have ncma and child record seem to be unbranded!!! lol

My PACEY contracts finally arrived. I can't see any substantial difference in the content, except for the tacky new name and logo.

My impatient client has already jumped ship and signed with a local nursery. I hope PACEY's new look was worth the £1000's of new business it just cost me. :angry:

[rickysmiths]

My PACEY contracts finally arrived. I can't see any substantial difference in the content, except for the tacky new name and logo.

My impatient client has already jumped ship and signed with a local nursery. I hope PACEY's new look was worth the £1000's of new business it just cost me. :angry:

Bunyip I often agree with what you say on here.

However I with your contacts I am sure you could have acquired one NCMA Contract in an emergency. To be honest it sounds to me as if this parent had chosen a Nursery from the onset and would probably have 'jumped ship' anyway or they would have been a pain in the neck.

I am sorry you lost them, I had a parent recently who even came and signed a contract, told me I was the only one they wanted to look after their child, they then said they didn't realise they had to pay a deposit so they left and were supposed to pay it into my account in the following few days. This was for full time care and was the first full time one I had had in 18mths. They then contacted me to say I hadn't bonded with their child, I only met him for 1/2hr! and they didn't like the contract and if I wanted feedback they would be happy to give it to me. I asked for feedback and never heard a word!! I am so glad because they would have I'm sure been pain in the butt parents. I am gutted because like your parent they represented thousands of income which I desperately need. Within two weeks another couple walked through the door, don't need care until Sept but couldn't sign a Contract quick enough and they paid the 4 weeks fees Deposit and are paying a retainer and its for full time care. Bit of a bummer its not until Sept but worth waiting for as they are a lovely family, only live round the corner and are in the area long term, already talking about which school he will go to and he's only 4 months old!!

Someone far better will walk though the door believe me, and you will be thanking Pacey for not sending the Contracts quicker.

[Simona]

It's such a shame we have 2 threads running about PACEY (yes I agree it should be in capitals because it is an acronym)

As a committee member for my regional area I was present at the original discussion about a new name with the consultant in charge of feeding back...overwhelmingly we wanted NCMA kept but like NCMA Nanny use that logo for NCMA preschool, NCMA nursery etc etc we even drew an umbrella with all the different sectors under NCMA!! somewhere I still have it on file

I remember there was a survey suggesting names following that meeting...most wanted cm kept in it, one of the reasons we gave was that PLA welcomed cms but was not rebranding and dropping pre-school?

The following survey told us there were 2 choices...PACEY being one, we had to tick the one we liked best
The next regional forum was again a debate on the two names ...many at my table wrote in bold letters NEITHER!!
I heard a cm ask the Vice Chair 'we do not want this' and the reply 'like it or not it is going to happen'.

The original survey on widening did not, in my view give NCMA authority to widen it due to poor response...we did tell our NPF members, how could they not hear the overwhelming majority saying NO?

Many did not want Early Years as it does not cover the older children we care for...I would have accepted Prof Assoc for Childcare and Education (PACE) which reflects most degree studies and certificates but what does Early Years stand for except it makes the abbreviation catchy!!

and many wanted us to be referred to as the 'professional' not the Association such as 'Association for Professionals in Education and Childcare'!

So what is a professional Association? (I posted it somewhere else): a body of persons engaged in the same profession, formed usually to control entry into the profession, maintain standards and represent the profession in discussion with other bodies'

Once again the issue of reviewing contracts every year pops up here...we can carry a review of requirements if necessary at any time but if the contracted hours/holiday agreement/fees have not changed why redo the contract??? it is up to us to decide when a contract is to be renewed not PACEY...my view of course!

[bunyip]

However I with your contacts I am sure you could have acquired one NCMA Contract in an emergency.

...................................

Someone far better will walk though the door believe me, and you will be thanking Pacey for not sending the Contracts quicker.

To be fair, PACEY did post me a couple of the older contracts to 'tide me over' but they arrived late too (probably down to the mail delivery rather than the dispatch time.) The real nuisance was that NCMA shop had taken an order from me several weeks ago which never arrived (and they denied the existence of the order, even though my card charge had been processed.) So, to be fair, the re-branded stationery was not the original problem: it was this earlier failure in the ordering system.

I think you're right that someone better will come along. There does seem to be some sort of 'childminding karma' at work in these situations, even if it's not always apparent at first. :thumbsup:

[bunyip]

So what is a professional Association? (I posted it somewhere else): a body of persons engaged in the same profession, formed usually to control entry into the profession, maintain standards and represent the profession in discussion with other bodies'



Hi Simona, that's an excellent definition of a professional association. This probably deserves its own thread but, out of my own curiosity and no small degree of confusion, how would you define a "profession" ? :confused:

[Simona]

Can't take credit for the definition as it is out of my much used English dictionary...I started looking at it when PACEY decided to call themselves the 'professional' association rather than refer to us as the professionals

I also feel that a profession is:
1. an occupation requiring special training in the liberal arts or sciences
2. the body of people in such an occupation

there you have it ...cms are the professionals not the representing association as for special training it is a lottery where cms get it according to
LA law!!
So APEC would have fitted like a glove Association for Professionals in Education and Childcare...lost opportunity in my view to elevate us to the status so much banded about and which remains unrecognised!!

[bunyip]

Can't take credit for the definition as it is out of my much used English dictionary...I started looking at it when PACEY decided to call themselves the 'professional' association rather than refer to us as the professionals

I also feel that a profession is:
1. an occupation requiring special training in the liberal arts or sciences
2. the body of people in such an occupation

there you have it ...cms are the professionals not the representing association as for special training it is a lottery where cms get it according to
LA law!!
So APEC would have fitted like a glove Association for Professionals in Education and Childcare...lost opportunity in my view to elevate us to the status so much banded about and which remains unrecognised!!

Thanks Simona. No offence meant, but at the risk of upsetting people, I don't know that the descriptive 'profession' can be meaningfully applied to CMing. (Pause whilst bunyip ducks and runs for cover..............)

The training we receive isn't all that 'special'. There are currently no academic entry requirements, except that some training organisations may demand GSCE/equivalent maths and English as evidence of sufficient 'functional skills' for a 'learner' to take up a funded place to do the CYPOP5. The training requirements to become registered are an LA-approved first aid course (a wholly practical course which quite purposefully requires neither basic literacy nor numeracy) and to complete the CYPOP5. Now CYPOP5 is a single module from the level 3 diploma. The full diploma, being a 'level 3' qualification, is recognised as equivalent to one A-level. For a learner to be awarded the full diploma, they must attain 65 credits; CYPOP5 is worth 4 credits.

Now, to be fair, I didn't do CYPOP5 - I did our LA's in-house introductory course because that was the requirement at the time. I can honestly say that I learnt nothing on that course that I could not have learnt if I'd been left alone for a day with the EYFS regulations and a few chapters from Working Together to Safeguard Children.

So, to summarise, the specialist learning required to become a CM amounts to a 12-hour practical first aid course, plus 6% of an A-level. If anyone tells me this is particularly demanding or mind-taxing then I really will begin to worry. This is a very long way from what it takes to join what were once recognised as "professions" (i.e. when the word meant anything.) ie. Several years of intensive study and practice as a junior doctor or articled clerk to a solicitor. In fact I had to be more highly qualified to become a shop assistant at a booksellers, and underwent far more rigorous training for entry level on the railways than I had to do to become a CM. It's significant that we were always having it drummed into us by railway managers and trainers that we were 'professionals', no matter how incongruous that may seem.

Now, no way am I suggesting that CMing is anything but a highly demanding, worthwhile, responsible, and respectable job, and that most CMs do the job very well (but then you can do any job very well with the right attitude and abilities.) I just don't see it as a 'profession'. Call it a "vocation" or even a "calling", but to call it a "profession" strikes me as pretty meaningless. Trouble is, everyone in every job seems to think they're in a "profession" these days, such that the word is almost entirely meaningless. And I think it's a shame that PACEY had to get bogged down in perpetuating this conceit. I also take Simona's essential point that PACEY's branding seems to concentrate on the identity of the organisation before the individuality of its members.

[Simona]

Well bunyip...how can a forum do justice to this kind of discussion which will take hours to complete if at all?
The art of discussion gets lost in forums but will answer just a couple of your points

Specialist training, in my view, is not just the start up we require to register but what follows after registration
After years of practice what is on offer by LAs is repetitive and hardly stimulating

Some cms may seek more challenging opportunities, at their own cost of course, if they want to deepen their knowledge of childcare and child development in particular...
Apart from the statutory First Aid and child Protection there is so much more that could be made available...understanding 'emotional intelligence' for one, child psychology and much much more

As we are in the field of pedagogy 'the principles, practices and profession of teaching' then we are professionals (teachers would not say they are doing something vocational?) but anyone seems to be able to enter childminding ...see Truss' ideology, or in the words of Prof Nutbrown 'hair or care' those who have no GCSE find those 2 choices ...that has to change

I totally agree with GCSE required for childcare...now I run for cover as many will disagree and say 'but it does not give me any more arms or eyes'...that is not the point
We must look at models like Reggio Emilia where you cannot work in the schools unless you have a degree in art!!

Shall we stop here otherwise this could go on forever...not that I would mind but it needs verbal interaction as things are not the same in the written format???