PDA

View Full Version : EYFS 2012: ratios and self variations



Simona
10-03-2014, 09:34 AM
Self variations and ratios are 2 of the most asked questions in this forum...they do appear very regularly in all sections of the forum

Cms are now allowed to increase their numbers for under 5s from 3 to more in 'exceptional circumstances'...we do not need to tell Oftsted...although at inspection the inspector will want to see how we made that decision by:
1. discuss with parents whose children are already in our care
2. do a Risk Assessment
3. ensure we have enough and appropriate resources and space for all children
4. keep the paperwork related to the decision to increase numbers in our file

Ofsted will not offer any advice or support if we ring them but will refer us to the EYFS

This is what the EYFS 2012 p21 states:

Childminders
3.39 At any one time, childminders may care for a maximum of six children under the age of eight. Of these six children, a maximum of three may be young children, and there should only be one child under the age of one. Any care provided for older children must not adversely affect the care of children receiving early years provision.

3.40 If a childminder can demonstrate to parents and/or carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then exceptions to the usual ratios can be made when childminders are caring for sibling babies, or when caring for their own baby.
If children aged four and five only attend the childminding setting before and/or after a normal school day, and/or during school holidays, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children. But in all circumstances, the total number of children under the age of eight being cared for must not exceed six.

3.41 If a childminder employs an assistant or works with another childminder, each childminder (or assistant) may care for the number of children permitted by the ratios specified above22. Children may be left in the sole care of childminders’ assistants for 2 hours at most in a single day23. Childminders must obtain parents and/or carers’ permission to leave children with an assistant, including for very short periods of time. For childminders providing overnight care, the ratios continue to apply and the childminder must always be able to hear the children (this may be via a monitor).

What is very clear in the guidance and what is unclear?
Hopefully we can discuss this in this thread without worry about taking over anyone else's post....it will be interesting to see what we think about the guidance.

hectors house
10-03-2014, 10:29 AM
Self variations and ratios are 2 of the most asked questions in this forum...they do appear very regularly in all sections of the forum

Cms are now allowed to increase their numbers for under 5s from 3 to more in 'exceptional circumstances'...we do not need to tell Oftsted...although at inspection the inspector will want to see how we made that decision by:
1. discuss with parents whose children are already in our care
2. do a Risk Assessment
3. ensure we have enough and appropriate resources and space for all children
4. keep the paperwork related to the decision to increase numbers in our file

Ofsted will not offer any advice or support if we ring them but will refer us to the EYFS

This is what the EYFS 2012 p21 states:

Childminders
3.39 At any one time, childminders may care for a maximum of six children under the age of eight. Of these six children, a maximum of three may be young children, and there should only be one child under the age of one. Any care provided for older children must not adversely affect the care of children receiving early years provision.

3.40 If a childminder can demonstrate to parents and/or carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then exceptions to the usual ratios can be made when childminders are caring for sibling babies, or when caring for their own baby.
If children aged four and five only attend the childminding setting before and/or after a normal school day, and/or during school holidays, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children. But in all circumstances, the total number of children under the age of eight being cared for must not exceed six.

3.41 If a childminder employs an assistant or works with another childminder, each childminder (or assistant) may care for the number of children permitted by the ratios specified above22. Children may be left in the sole care of childminders’ assistants for 2 hours at most in a single day23. Childminders must obtain parents and/or carers’ permission to leave children with an assistant, including for very short periods of time. For childminders providing overnight care, the ratios continue to apply and the childminder must always be able to hear the children (this may be via a monitor).

What is very clear in the guidance and what is unclear?
Hopefully we can discuss this in this thread without worry about taking over anyone else's post....it will be interesting to see what we think about the guidance.

I only do variations if they are the type of ones I used to ask Ofsted about and if I was 99% sure that they would grant - eg: existing children coming extra or different days, sibling babies

gef918
10-03-2014, 10:47 AM
I stick to 3 under 5 - no exceptions. At least then I know I'm definitely not over numbers.

FussyElmo
10-03-2014, 11:28 AM
To be it reads as you are allowed 3 under 5 unless an exception for a sibling baby or a cm has their own baby :thumbsup:

*daisychain*
10-03-2014, 12:25 PM
3.40 If a childminder can demonstrate to parents and/or carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then exceptions to the usual ratios can be made when childminders are caring for sibling babies, or when caring for their own baby.
If children aged four and five only attend the childminding setting before and/or after a normal school day, and/or during school holidays, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children. But in all circumstances, the total number of children under the age of eight being cared for must not exceed six.

I have been given conflicting advice about the rising 5's. Children can attend a maintained nursery school full time from the age of three where I live in Manchester. This is 9am till 3pm, 10 sessions a week, i.e a normal school day. So reading the above I take it that when these children turn 4, they can be classed as a rising 5. Nowhere in the EYFS , unless I am mistaken and forgive me if I am , does it state that the children have to be in reception class.
I have been emailing ofsted to clarify the matter for them to send me links to the eyfs !
Another childminder I met at a meeting had three children who were about to start nursery school full time and wanted to keep them on as she had had them from a very early age and was worried she couldn't because she couldn't take on any more children, can't really live of a wage of before and after school pick ups and sat twiddling thumbs all day with no other children.

Simona
11-03-2014, 07:58 AM
To be it reads as you are allowed 3 under 5 unless an exception for a sibling baby or a cm has their own baby :thumbsup:

You are right Fussy Elmo ...that is all it says...
so I want to see where the 'new business' idea has come from which so many cms quote all the time as a NO reason for self variation
it is worth clarifying I believe considering the amount of questions we get on this subject all the time and the sure answers we hear about new business

Also many Cms quote 'continuity of care'....which together with new business is what is mostly used to guide self variations....I hope many more will give their interpretation

The other issue is where does it say how long can a variation last?

I hope this will prove useful...all I want to do is put it to Ofsted at the London meeting or send to The Childminding Director Lorna Fitzjohn

The aim is to see it clarified in the EYFS when it gets revised....failing that a letter to Truss may be another good idea

Mouse
11-03-2014, 09:23 AM
What are "exceptional circumstances"? What is the "norm"?

When setting rules I really don' think it is helpful to use such ambiguous terms.

I tend to grant myself exceptions based on what I know Ofsted have granted me in the past. So if a baby sibling started (what is the definition of baby?) or if a parent requested a change of days, I would do it.

bunyip
11-03-2014, 11:27 AM
I confess I am not offering a solution here, merely some perspectives on the problem.

1. The 'normal' (as per regulations) numbers are clear.

2. The circumstances in which a CM can make an exception (as per regulations) are also clear. By this, I refer to 3.40 covering:-
a. EY children in full-time school (the 'rising 5s') and,
b. A sibling baby or CM's own baby - which I take to mean an under-1yo, as per The Childcare Act's definition of a "baby".

So, the strict regulatory rules are actually much tighter than what Ofsted/inspectors 'on the ground' are permitting. The confusion is not so much in the regs, as in the way Ofsted are applying them, and the guidance documents they've issued. The latter are meant to clarify, but actually contradict the regs and therefore muddy the waters.

Understand that I am not making any judgement here about how many children a CM is capable of looking after, nor how many they should be allowed to care for. I am simply pointing out the facts of the regs.

Further complications:

3. Ofsted apply the general principle of 'exceptional circumstances' which they say is contained within the EYFS. But this principle is described (poorly) not in the section about CMs' ratios, but rather in the section concerning group settings.

4. None of this is helped by Ofsted (and the industry in general) bandying about ill-defined terms such as "self variation", "new business" and "continuity of care". I say "ill-defined"; in fact, these terms are completely undefined and nowhere are they mentioned within the EYFS.


An observation, and opinion. There is an unfortunate trend for CMs to ostensibly "ask" about a 'self variation' they are proposing, and frequently to get into quite heated arguments when advised against it. (Usually along the all-too familiar lines of "sound advice" = "thanks for agreeing with me" and "rude and offensive" = "how dare you disagree".) Such threads tend to rumble along like a cross 5yo, flitting from mummy to daddy et al in the desperate bid to find someone to agree with them: only "yes, darling, you can have an ice cream" is replaced with "yes, darling, you can mind whomsoever you wish."

The problem with seeking 'clarification' is simple: we might just get it. The regulation is perfectly clear: it is the deviation from the regs, as practiced, which has made things unclear.

What's more, every CM is going to want something just a little bit different out of 'variations'. eg. I'd like to see scope for going over ratio just for, say, an hour where children overlap - rather than having 4 lo's all day just cos 2 are brothers.

If we are to demand clarification then have no illusions about where it may lead. We are not all going to get what we want. Don't be surprised if Ofsted simply fall back on the regs as written: rising 5's, sibling under-1s, own under 1s, and nothing else. Be careful what you wish for.

FussyElmo
11-03-2014, 11:46 AM
You are right Fussy Elmo ...that is all it says...
so I want to see where the 'new business' idea has come from which so many cms quote all the time as a NO reason for self variation
it is worth clarifying I believe considering the amount of questions we get on this subject all the time and the sure answers we hear about new business

Also many Cms quote 'continuity of care'....which together with new business is what is mostly used to guide self variations....I hope many more will give their interpretation

The other issue is where does it say how long can a variation last?

I hope this will prove useful...all I want to do is put it to Ofsted at the London meeting or send to The Childminding Director Lorna Fitzjohn

The aim is to see it clarified in the EYFS when it gets revised....failing that a letter to Truss may be another good idea

But surely 3.40 clarifys it. No where in the eyfs does it say you can go over your numbers for new business. Even on the other factsheet it gives various scenarios and not one of them state new business :)

Ofsted | Factsheet: childcare - The numbers and ages of children that providers on the Early Years and Childcare Registers may care for (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/factsheet-childcare-numbers-and-ages-of-children-providers-early-years-and-childcare-registers-may-c)

Mouse
11-03-2014, 11:47 AM
How much easier would it have been to increase ratios to say we can have 4 under 5s, full stop? No need for variations. No wondering if we could have 5, or even 6 children under 5? Simple a rule that the maximum we can have is 4.


Oh, hang on...that's what was proposed before wasn't it? That's what the petitions and protests were against. That's the battle the we 'won', so that we couldn't have more than 3 under 5s unless we followed ambiguous rules and took our chances that an inspector would agree with our interpretation :rolleyes:

loocyloo
11-03-2014, 11:48 AM
What are "exceptional circumstances"? What is the "norm"?

When setting rules I really don' think it is helpful to use such ambiguous terms.

I tend to grant myself exceptions based on what I know Ofsted have granted me in the past. So if a baby sibling started (what is the definition of baby?) or if a parent requested a change of days, I would do it.

That's what I do too. It is always to help parents who need extra days.

A variation used to either be for a set period of time or 'until a child within the variation no longer requires care' ( ie mindee comes for an extra day every Tuesday...making 4 EY children. In September different mindee goes to full time school putting numbers back to 3 EY children )

loocyloo
11-03-2014, 11:51 AM
How much easier would it have been to increase ratios to say we can have 4 under 5s, full stop? No need for variations. No wondering if we could have 5, or even 6 children under 5? Simple a rule that the maximum we can have is 4.

Oh, hang on...that's what was proposed before wasn't it? That's what the petitions and protests were against. That's the battle the we 'won', so that we couldn't have more than 3 under 5s unless we followed ambiguous rules and took our chances that an inspector would agree with our interpretation :rolleyes:

I was happy with 4 under 5 proposal. Would have made my life much simpler!

FussyElmo
11-03-2014, 12:10 PM
How much easier would it have been to increase ratios to say we can have 4 under 5s, full stop? No need for variations. No wondering if we could have 5, or even 6 children under 5? Simple a rule that the maximum we can have is 4.


Oh, hang on...that's what was proposed before wasn't it? That's what the petitions and protests were against. That's the battle the we 'won', so that we couldn't have more than 3 under 5s unless we followed ambiguous rules and took our chances that an inspector would agree with our interpretation :rolleyes:

But why 4 why not say no more than 3 under 5?

Mouse
11-03-2014, 12:14 PM
But why 4 why not say no more than 3 under 5?

Because 4 is a perfectly manageable number. Who decided it should be 3 children? Where is the research and evidence showing that an experienced childminder working in their own home (where they have total control over safety etc) is only capable of looking after 3 young children at a time?

smurfette
11-03-2014, 12:30 PM
Because 4 is a perfectly manageable number. Who decided it should be 3 children? Where is the research and evidence showing that an experienced childminder working in their own home (where they have total control over safety etc) is only capable of looking after 3 young children at a time?

I had four this morning and it was grand! All under three

FussyElmo
11-03-2014, 12:31 PM
Because 4 is a perfectly manageable number. Who decided it should be 3 children? Where is the research and evidence showing that an experienced childminder working in their own home (where they have total control over safety etc) is only capable of looking after 3 young children at a time?

Im thinking surely there must have been some research into the numbers as it always been 6 under 8 etc etc. Can anyone remember it being any different? Perhaps the mistake that was made was allowing leeway with these numbers for baby siblings/cross overs so now 4 is considered the norm.

Mouse
11-03-2014, 01:01 PM
Im thinking surely there must have been some research into the numbers as it always been 6 under 8 etc etc. Can anyone remember it being any different? Perhaps the mistake that was made was allowing leeway with these numbers for baby siblings/cross overs so now 4 is considered the norm.

I agree there must have been some reasoning behind it. But if 3 is the optimum number, why were we faced with the possibility of an increase? Presumably it was felt that 4 was a manageable number. And what is the difference between looking after 4 children for continuity of care, or 4 children when one is new?

Just because things have always been done one way it doesn't necessarily make it the best or right way.

I'm sure we can all think back to rules that used to exist in cming, but have been changed or removed for the better.

And why are cms so limited on numbers, when nursery staff are deemed capable of looking after a far greater number?

Simona
11-03-2014, 01:53 PM
Bunyip...asking for clarification and a more 'english' speak should not lead us to having something we do not wish for...al least I hope it won't lead to that.
I am sure that, while there maybe CMs who may abuse the variations...or get it all wrong...there are also many who won't even contemplate increasing their numbers for fear of getting their interpretation wrong...so many cms could be losing business

Preschools and nurseries are not in our position as their ratios in the EYFS are in black and white...there is no 'exceptional circumstances' ...no 'new business' hidden in the blurb...no 'continuity of care'...just plain numbers
Their ratio is also spread over 4 pages (18-21)...while CMs are relegated to 3 short paragraphs in very obscure English

Can't we have the same? or at least say a plain '4 under 5' and that is it and leave room for 2 after school children...so much simpler in my view.

FussyElmo
11-03-2014, 01:59 PM
I agree there must have been some reasoning behind it. But if 3 is the optimum number, why were we faced with the possibility of an increase? Presumably it was felt that 4 was a manageable number. And what is the difference between looking after 4 children for continuity of care, or 4 children when one is new?

Just because things have always been done one way it doesn't necessarily make it the best or right way.

I'm sure we can all think back to rules that used to exist in cming, but have been changed or removed for the better.

And why are cms so limited on numbers, when nursery staff are deemed capable of looking after a far greater number?

I honestly don't know but also why do Scottish cms have stricter ratios? What makes English cms more capable than out north of the border cms :confused:

Would it be wrong to say it because the powers that be don't really know themselves :rolleyes::littleangel:

Chatterbox Childcare
11-03-2014, 02:02 PM
I disagreed with the 4 under 5's because it would then be standard. It is okay if you are an experienced childminder but what if you are not, would you be able to cope? would you know that you weren't able to cope? would you be giving a sub standard service and not know?

I think the rules are clear - 3 under 5 unless you or a current parent has a baby and then you can go to 4 or under continuity of care a parent needs more days or needs to move current days, short or long term.

By granting yourself a variation you have to thing of all scenario's and document it - risk assess etc.. makes self evaluation of ourselves and our practice which in the long run benefits the children we care for.

Don't see why this is such an issue but it could be that I have been through so many changes in my time that this reads well to me.

Mouse
11-03-2014, 02:14 PM
I disagreed with the 4 under 5's because it would then be standard. It is okay if you are an experienced childminder but what if you are not, would you be able to cope? would you know that you weren't able to cope? would you be giving a sub standard service and not know?

.

The same could be said about 3, or even 2 children.

Some cms cannot manage 3 children under 5, others easily manage 4.

Should there be a one-rule-fits-all approach? Should those who can manage be penalised because there are others who can't?

I would be quite happy to have to prove my ability to care for more than 3 EYs children. I don't think it should merely go on experience or qualifications, but I would welcome some sort of assessment scheme that you could undertake if you wanted a permanent increase to allow 4 under 5s.

SYLVIA
11-03-2014, 02:16 PM
I would be happy to have 4 under 5. It has worked well before here. Generally I have 3 but it would help sometimes if it could be 4 without thinking about paperwork and then wondering if Ofsted will see it as ok, shld they walk through the door for an inspection. If you know the children you have well enough you can usually tell if an extra one would be ok or upset the balance.

sarah707
11-03-2014, 02:54 PM
To clarify, the 'new business' wording came directly from the then director of early years at Ofsted when she proof read the variations document which is in Forum files -

Variations2012 (http://www.childmindinghelp.co.uk/freeresources/Free%20downloads/variations2012.html)

She was very clear - childminders must not use the variations flexibility to take on new children - it is only for continuity of care in defined circumstances.

Ofsted then released their guidance document - Ofsted | Factsheet: childcare - The numbers and ages of children that providers on the Early Years and Childcare Registers may care for (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/factsheet-childcare-numbers-and-ages-of-children-providers-early-years-and-childcare-registers-may-c)

Many of us felt at the time that Ofsted's factsheet did not go far enough to fully explain the rules - but it was the best we were going to get so we do our best with it!

Our advice is always based on a combination of the Eyfs - the Ofsted factsheet - our knowledge of what is happening out there at the moment as inspectors judge whether cms are getting it right or not.

We are hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence at the moment that inspectors aren't agreeing with continuity of care variations which last for a long time - but we don't have that in writing from Ofsted so, if asked, we will help cms fight that judgement.

We are also hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence that inspectors aren't agreeing with 4 under 5 for any reason! Again, we will help cms if that judgement limited their grade and they want to complain.

I did ask at the last OBC meeting - I have yet to receive a reply beyond 'follow the rules of the Eyfs' ...

Hth :D

Simona
12-03-2014, 07:59 AM
There is certainly a lot of guidance on the variations ...however...it does not feel to me that cms are very 'confident' when considering a variations...the regular threads on this issue make it very obvious some Cms are not sure and want advise while others seem very sure...while some would not even consider variating for fear of getting it wrong

My feeling is that the EYFS needs to be reworded and be more clear so we avoid cms having to be downgraded for 'misinterpretation' and then having to complain about an inspector's judgement...that would be very stressful as those who undergo an appeal have testified...they do not always win.

Also Ofsted has undergone a complete makeover...my view is those in the Directorship must be aware...in every area...that this is a concern
The same Ofsted manager who advised this forum on variations also presented a workshop to CMs which I organized...she did discuss variations there too.....a lot has changed since...mainly the fact that inspectors have the power to make an 'individual judgement' and like other examples twist the guidance...see the call to cms before a scheduled inspection as an example!! some do it some don't!

Just as an added thought...many have mentioned the ratio campaign which mainly was about other settings using the 1:13 ratio when a graduate is in place

This ratio is still valid for those who wish to put it in practice...settings choose not to do so to Truss' frustration!!

The ratio campaign also meant Truss wanted CMs to have more children ...more babies and more children overall as she compared them to other countries ...it was not the same thing as variations

Chatterbox...you are very sure and confident but many Cms are not...what has pacey done to address this matter and get it clarified on behalf of its members?

maybe before looking at Ofsted we should look at those who represent us and we pay to smooth these problems for us...lets hope this opportunity is not lost before the EYFS is revised

bunyip
12-03-2014, 11:15 AM
A political/philosophical point, but one which needs to be understood. All laws, regulations, rules, etc. are, at best, a 'best-fit' compromise or, at worst, completely arbitrary. That's why The Dangerous Dogs Act fails to cover some of the breeds which are reponsible for the most attacks in the UK. It's also why we have a motorway speed limit which baffles drivers from Germany (which has no national mandatory limit and many sections where drivers are permitted to choose an appropriate speed for themselves) whilst allowing some people to drive at speeds way beyond their abilities (we've all seen them on the motorway when they shouldn't even be allowed near a Little Tikes Cozy Coupe.)

The point is that we will get a rule, number or ratio which is not what every CM thinks is right, or equates to what they think they can manage (assuming we're all capable of making that judgement correctly.) Given the potential risks, government is likely to err on the side of caution. They do not want headlines about accident rates increasing in childcare settings. They will only increase the numbers if they believe they can do so without increasing the risk significantly and had evidence that it would drive down our fees.

The argument of "why can't it be a nice, clear 4 under 5's?" is not a good argument. For one thing, it leaves a lot of CMs with 5yo reception class children on their hands for whom they would no longer be allowed to provide a wrap-around service (and with the regime's current enthusiasm for more provision on school premises, this is a dangerous simplification for us to be promoting.) More obviously, the same argument could equally well be used for "why can't it be a nice, clear 3 under 5's?" or indeed "why can't it be a nice, clear 2 under 5's?" :huh:

In other words, simplification doesn't always deliver quite what you want.

When I worked in the rail industry we had a similar thing over tickets. The public/media/government complain that the range of fares is confusing and needs simplifying. So the rail companies simplify it. A week later, the public/media/government are scandalised that they no longer have the choice they used to have, and what have they done with my cheap 2nd class off-peak Thursday-only day return to Altnabreac via Penzance?

In fact, the main reason we got in this mess is that, whatever number the DofE fixes on, there will always be some CMs who want to have exceptions, variations, call it what you will, but it all boils down to "go on - just one more, pleeeeez." The CM will always have a 'good reason' for the exception, and simple rules cannot be simple if they cover every single individual circumstance of every single request.

We've also overlooked the individual children. Yes, a lot of us could look after 4. I also know there are some children who are a real handful and need something much closer to 1-to-1. Many of us have had a child and thought "I'm glad I don't have more than one like him/her at the same time." What about children with SEN or disabilities? Do we want 4 of them? Or are we going to turn away a child cos we already "have enough with disabilities"? And then we're staring down both barrels of the Equalities Act.

I can understand why inspectors are judging against long-term self-variations. The Factsheet (linked by Sarah) contains examples which state they are for a limited time only. So the inspectors may well be justified in applying that principle. And I'd go back again to the fact that even that limited-time principle is far more lenient than what is stated strictly within EYFS 3.40.

bunyip
12-03-2014, 11:24 AM
But surely 3.40 clarifys it. No where in the eyfs does it say you can go over your numbers for new business. Even on the other factsheet it gives various scenarios and not one of them state new business :)

Ofsted | Factsheet: childcare - The numbers and ages of children that providers on the Early Years and Childcare Registers may care for (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/factsheet-childcare-numbers-and-ages-of-children-providers-early-years-and-childcare-registers-may-c)

Not criticising your post, but extending the theme.

I think the evidence is in a lot of the threads which pop up on the forum. Too many CMs read the EYFS as if it were The Pirates' Code (a la Jack Sparrow) - not so much rules, more like "suggestions". The thought in their minds is not "what are my responsibilities?" but rather "how much can I get away with?"

We get just the same attitude over, "EYFS doesn't directly mention ICO registration, so I don't have to do it."

I could equally well argue that nowhere in EYFS does it say directly that I can't have the lo's burying nuclear waste in the nearby park (local by-laws notwithstanding) so that's this afternoon's outdoor play sorted. :p

JCrakers
12-03-2014, 12:19 PM
I've always thought it was 'open to confusion' when the rules changed back in Sept 12. It's vague and Ofsted offered no help it was just a straight change that Ofsted washed their hands of but have no problems scrutinising us on Inspection.

I've only ever done a variation when I was 100% sure it was the right decision, then if Ofsted asked me what my reasons were I would have a straight forward answer as to why I did it. I have on various occasions had 4 under 5yrs to accommodate parents going into work an extra day. I will have a variation in Sept for a new baby sibling but it will be for 1 morning a week.
I have on 1 occasion had 5 under 5yrs, something I wouldn't think about doing again because I was knackered. I already had a variation in place for 4 that day but the evening before Mum rang me to say she had been in hospital with Mastitis and could I have her little one for a few hours while she rested. Her husband had 3 days off work previously to look after the children but was out of the country, her Mum was ill.
I only did this because the ages of the children were manageable. I knew I had 3 good walkers/independent children and two for a buggy. (10m,16m,3yrs,4yrs,4yrs) I wouldn't have done it if they had all been under 2 or even 3. I knew it wouldn't impede on the school run and I had a strong written Risk Assessment.

I now know from the experience of having 5 that I probably wouldn't rush to say yes again as although they all played so well together it was hard work making lunch, changing nappies, sleeping at different times etc.

I did have a situation once where the 'New business' rule came into play although it was continuity of care for the child but she wasn't on my books. My hairdresser who I've known for 6yrs has a 2yr old who used to come to play at my house while Mum cut my hair, she loved coming and playing in the playroom we got to know each other really well. While Mum worked she went to her granny's 3 days a week but Granny was on a 4 week trip to Australia. Mum had managed to ask her MIL for one week and she had booked 2 weeks off work but was stuck for the 4th week. Being that she knew me, had been to my house since a baby and knew 2 of my mindees it would have been a great opportunity for her to come, but I couldn't say yes as I wasn't 100%.
It would have been the best decision as far as the child was concerned, for her welfare but as the rules aren't that clear then I couldn't make that decision easily as it was an individual thing.

Mouse
12-03-2014, 12:37 PM
Not criticising your post, but extending the theme.

I think the evidence is in a lot of the threads which pop up on the forum. Too many CMs read the EYFS as if it were The Pirates' Code (a la Jack Sparrow) - not so much rules, more like "suggestions". The thought in their minds is not "what are my responsibilities?" but rather "how much can I get away with?"

We get just the same attitude over, "EYFS doesn't directly mention ICO registration, so I don't have to do it."

I could equally well argue that nowhere in EYFS does it say directly that I can't have the lo's burying nuclear waste in the nearby park (local by-laws notwithstanding) so that's this afternoon's outdoor play sorted. :p

The problem with that is the rules are so vague.

It's like having house rules - play nicely, be polite, use your quiet voice indoors. What does "play nicely" actually mean? Is my polite the same as yours? What scale do we use to measure how quiet our voices are?

For rules to be fully enforceable they need to be water tight. To say we can exceed our ratios in "exceptional circumstances" means nothing? What is an exceptional circumstance? If a parent wanted you to care for their child for an extra day as they were having an operation, is that an exceptional circumstance? What if the same parent wanted you to have their child for an extra day so they could have a day out with friends? Would we say no to that? Does the exceptional circumstance govern what WE want to do (ie. exceed our numbers for a day) or what the parent wants to do (ie. something serious or something frivolous?)

Simona
12-03-2014, 12:56 PM
The EYFS does mention about Data Protection ...so it does not have to specify we need to register with the ICO because that is already very clear.

The '4 under 5' was just an example on what we could get that is more clear
I agree with Mouse the rules are too vague, left to our interpretation and then we get hit by an inspectors who does not agree...we could try to get this solved so we stop going round in circles...it is obvious none are really very sure about this legislation

sing-low
12-03-2014, 01:00 PM
It seems to me that the problems stem from Ofsted no longer issuing variations. Isn't that what we want to go back to? Not that I'd know what that was like, as I'm still relatively new to cm-ing.

Simona
12-03-2014, 01:32 PM
It seems to me that the problems stem from Ofsted no longer issuing variations. Isn't that what we want to go back to? Not that I'd know what that was like, as I'm still relatively new to cm-ing.

It was long winded and very bureaucratic but at least approved by the powers that be

Often asking for emergency cover meant the confirmation came well after the date needed and we had a stream of new certificates each time we were granted a variation...BUT....who says that system could not have been improved on?

Plenty of ways, in my view, that Ofsted could still be in charge of overseeing a self variation....but without the delay, reduced paperwork and well under control...it could be a simple system that could work for all!

sarah707
12-03-2014, 07:34 PM
It seems to me that the problems stem from Ofsted no longer issuing variations. Isn't that what we want to go back to? Not that I'd know what that was like, as I'm still relatively new to cm-ing.

I remember a friend needing a variation and applying to Ofsted - she plastered URGENT and the date all over it...

The time came and went and she couldn't help the parent :( She let the request run just to see how long it took... nearly 2 months :rolleyes:

We said then that we needed a better system - Ofsted listened to us and DfE changed the wording of the Eyfs - we are still not happy :laughing:

Simona
13-03-2014, 07:38 AM
I remember a friend needing a variation and applying to Ofsted - she plastered URGENT and the date all over it...

The time came and went and she couldn't help the parent :( She let the request run just to see how long it took... nearly 2 months :rolleyes:

We said then that we needed a better system - Ofsted listened to us and DfE changed the wording of the Eyfs - we are still not happy :laughing:

That is something that happened to me too and many other cms as well...by the time the approval arrived the emergency had past...however...it was not always like that for those who remember Ofsted when they first came in and we had a dialogue with them??

We certainly needed a less bureaucratic system and one that did not take that long but...what we have now is a system that cannot be monitored and allows those 'unaware' of how variations work to anonymously complain about cms over minding and those Cms unsure how to interpret it to either make mistakes or give up trying altogether...or constantly ask for advice
As independent CMs we should be able to make a decision not be hindered by obscure english

In addition the EYFS is written by the DfE not Ofsted.....and Ofsted should not allow individual inspectors to interpret it their 'own' way ...unless they are trying to find another stick to beat CMs with?
The inspectorate should ensure inspectors understand the framework and follow guidance by making sure all inspectors are properly trained to do so....my view of course

Mouse
13-03-2014, 08:26 AM
We said then that we needed a better system - Ofsted listened to us and DfE changed the wording of the Eyfs - we are still not happy :laughing:

I wonder how much of it is a complete naivety about how childminders actually work? It seems to me that they went for a very simplified version without giving much to how it would work in practice.

Rubybubbles
13-03-2014, 08:29 PM
Having only just received an email today from Ofsted about variations I am still none the wiser!

I emailed it across to my husband who said well thats still not confirming anything is it!

I have interest for 2 babys! But now ofsted don't do the variations there is nothing to say I can have 2! Yet summer 2012 I got a variation for it and it was for new business!

From September 2012, in most cases, we will no longer set out the numbers and ages of children that registered providers may care for through conditions of registration. Registered providers may decide how many children they can care for in line with the legal requirements. These are set out in section 3 page 21 of the Statutory framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage and the relevant regulations for the Childcare Register.

In some circumstances, childminders may care for more children in the early years age group, providing they do not exceed the maximum number of six children at any one time. These circumstances are exceptional and are not intended to be the norm.

Further information can be found in our childcare factsheet The numbers and ages of children that providers on the Early Years and Childcare Registers may care for

I hope this information helps.

no intact it didn't help as I quoted most of it to you in my email!

the big thing for me, they didn't even address it too me, it was Dear Sir/Madam!:mad:

Simona
14-03-2014, 09:14 AM
Having only just received an email today from Ofsted about variations I am still none the wiser!

I emailed it across to my husband who said well thats still not confirming anything is it!

I have interest for 2 babys! But now ofsted don't do the variations there is nothing to say I can have 2! Yet summer 2012 I got a variation for it and it was for new business!

From September 2012, in most cases, we will no longer set out the numbers and ages of children that registered providers may care for through conditions of registration. Registered providers may decide how many children they can care for in line with the legal requirements. These are set out in section 3 page 21 of the Statutory framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage and the relevant regulations for the Childcare Register.

In some circumstances, childminders may care for more children in the early years age group, providing they do not exceed the maximum number of six children at any one time. These circumstances are exceptional and are not intended to be the norm.

Further information can be found in our childcare factsheet The numbers and ages of children that providers on the Early Years and Childcare Registers may care for

I hope this information helps.

no intact it didn't help as I quoted most of it to you in my email!

the big thing for me, they didn't even address it too me, it was Dear Sir/Madam!:mad:

Looks like you received what we have now become accustomed to getting from Ofsted, DfE and Truss: a standard reply
It is infuriating that in these instances we cannot be helped, supported, guided...WHATEVER.... to understand the legislation and most of all try to help parents who according to the politicians are finding it very hard to find 'flexibility'.

The baby issue in the EYFS is very unclear ...however...lets look at two scenarios:

1. a CM has
- 2 year old in her/his care
- a 3 year old
- another 3 year old whose mum asks the CM to care for her new baby too...are we all clear this is allowed and she can variate subject to RA and all the rest?

how long should the variation last for? until the 3 year old...the sibling... is in full time at school which could be when he is 4 or even close to 5....is this limited enough and classified as 'exceptional circumstance'?

2.Cm has a baby of her own...new mum comes along with a baby too...similar age.
Cm decides to variate and take baby on...is this new business?

Anyone clear on this please share your view

bunyip
14-03-2014, 09:22 AM
"Dear Sir/Madam" strongly suggests that is a standard email going out to a lot of enquirers. :p

An Inconvenient Truth (with apologies to Al Gore)
I keep saying this, and I'll say it again. Page 21 of EYFS (by which I take us all to mean para 3.39-3.41 inclusive, re: ratios for CMs) is perfectly clear as written. Please read what it says. To an objective reader, it is perfectly clear: exceptions are allowed for a sibling baby, CM's own baby, or 4yo in full-time school (the "rising 5"). That's it: nothing more.

The plain fact is there is no regulatory provision for a CM to make an exception for any child over 1yo who is not in full-time school. Perfectly clear, as written. Anyone following the EYFS, should never have to ask about 'self-variations' for any child older than 1 year until they enter school. Why? Because EYFS does not permit them. Simple. Clear. Crystal.

Why are people saying this is unclear? Because they're not reading it objectively (and I'll say at this point, this is as much Ofsted's fault as CMs' fault.) People are reading it subjectively, in the context of what they think it should say; what they'd like it to say; and in the context of previously-Ofsted-authorised variation requests. Ofsted are failing to apply the regs as written, and are therefore encouraging this sort of confusion.

Ofsted very much to blame. They are not applying the regulation as written. It was their 'guidance document' which initially muddied the waters (rather the opposite of "clarification") as if to suggest that the EYFS doesn't really mean what it says. Also, their inspectors are permitting 'exceptions' which do not follow the letter of EYFS p21. At best, they might be excused for making decisions based on whether an individual case would've been granted a variation, based on the last set of regs. But that's not their job. They seem to have forgotten that EYFS 2012 replaced the previous regs. They seem to have read EYFS 2012 and come to the conclusion that, "well, it might say that, but it can't really mean it, can it?"

Put bluntly, Ofsted are sanctioning breaches of the regs. Mind you, this is not the only case of Ofsted seeming to overstep the mark: witness the CMs allegedly downgraded for a lack of toybox labels, windmills, or "lo should be doing this/that/the other by now", etc. There is plenty of evidence that Ofsted seems to want to re-write the rules instead of getting on with its job, which is to enforce the regulations.

The evidence of recent inspections, to which Sarah alludes, suggests Ofsted might slowly be coming round to the fact that they've not been applying the regs as written, and may be executing some sort of U-turn: albeit a slow and ponderous U-turn of the sort an oil tanker might execute in the Channel. :p

Mouse
14-03-2014, 09:34 AM
But what age is a baby? Is it specifically written that a baby is a child under the age of 1?

Simona
14-03-2014, 09:49 AM
Bunyip...I confess you have confused me now..... if it was 'perfectly clear', as you say, why are so many still so unsure?
when it comes to interpreting it ...it is down to the individual cm...objectively or subjectively... and he/she responsible and accountable to the inspector...who then has a different take on it? In which case the guidance is questionable

As I said I would use EAL as my excuse for misreading the EYFS and suffer the consequences if I 'dared' go into variations which in the past I had regularly from Ofsted and my thick file of new certificates prove and everyone was happy ?

Truss has said many times in the past: 'I would like practitioners to be able to make decisions without too much red tape'....this is not happening and I can see we are not on the way to finding a solution...at least not via sharing ideas here.

bunyip
14-03-2014, 09:50 AM
But what age is a baby? Is it specifically written that a baby is a child under the age of 1?

I asked this of Ofsted. They said under 1 year old, as defined in The Childcare Act.

Tbf, the telephone-chicken had to ask around a bit before answering. :panic:

Simona
14-03-2014, 09:51 AM
I asked this of Ofsted. They said under 1 year old, as defined in The Childcare Act.

Tbf, the telephone-chicken had to ask around a bit before answering. :panic:

For the last 20 years I have been in childcare a 'baby' has always been a child up to 1 year...so we now have a receptionist in a call centre guessing? Please....give me strength as I am losing the will to live!

bunyip
14-03-2014, 09:54 AM
Bunyip...I confess you have confused me now..... if it was 'perfectly clear', as you say, why are so many still so unsure?
when it comes to interpreting it ...it is down to the individual cm...objectively or subjectively... and he/she responsible and accountable to the inspector...who then has a different take on it? In which case the guidance is questionable

As I said I would use EAL as my excuse for misreading the EYFS and suffer the consequences if I 'dared' go into variations which in the past I had regularly from Ofsted and my thick file of new certificates prove and everyone was happy ?

Truss has said many times in the past: 'I would like practitioners to be able to make decisions without too much red tape'....this is not happening and I can see we are not on the way to finding a solution...at least not via sharing ideas here.

As I said, people are unsure because they aren't reading what it actually says.

The fact that Ofsted aren't applying what is says, and issuing 'guidance' which fails to guide, only serves to make matters worse. Again, they are exceeding their remit, which is to regulate, not to make up the rules as they go along.

Simona
14-03-2014, 09:58 AM
As I said, people are unsure because they aren't reading what it actually says.

The fact that Ofsted aren't applying what is says, and issuing 'guidance' which fails to guide, only serves to make matters worse. Again, they are exceeding their remit, which is to regulate, not to make up the rules as they go along.

Is Truss right then in wanting GCSE in English so that we can read the EYFS properly?

Mouse
14-03-2014, 10:01 AM
As I said, people are unsure because they aren't reading what it actually says.

The fact that Ofsted aren't applying what is says, and issuing 'guidance' which fails to guide, only serves to make matters worse. Again, they are exceeding their remit, which is to regulate, not to make up the rules as they go along.

But ofsted also use 3.29 in their justification. That does indeed say that exceptions can be made and doesn't specify 'only for group settings' or 'apart from childminders'.

It's a chicken and egg scenario - do ofsted allow exceptions because it says so in 3.29, or do they mistakenly allow exceptions so clutch at 3.29 to justify it?

Mouse
14-03-2014, 10:08 AM
I asked this of Ofsted. They said under 1 year old, as defined in The Childcare Act.

Tbf, the telephone-chicken had to ask around a bit before answering. :panic:

I've often wondered where it came from. I know it's always been the case that a baby is presumed to be an under 1, but I've never actually seen it stated anywhere.

Simona
14-03-2014, 10:16 AM
I've often wondered where it came from. I know it's always been the case that a baby is presumed to be an under 1, but I've never actually seen it stated anywhere.

The Childcare Act is a piece of legislation...still current and valid so how can Ofsted not know that? although I think it is the one the DfE is updating...without telling Ofsted?

bunyip
14-03-2014, 10:38 AM
But ofsted also use 3.29 in their justification. That does indeed say that exceptions can be made and doesn't specify 'only for group settings' or 'apart from childminders'.

It's a chicken and egg scenario - do ofsted allow exceptions because it says so in 3.29, or do they mistakenly allow exceptions so clutch at 3.29 to justify it?

I entirely see your point.

The problem is that Ofsted (and so CMs) are delving into a section of EYFS which deals with group settings, and then transposing inappropriate regs into the rules for CMs. Yes, I too was told by Ofsted that the "general principle of exceptional circumstances" contained within 3.29 was to be applied to CMs as well as group settings.

But before we get excited about Ofsted conceding a point, and allowing us to 'cherry pick' bits of EYFS that might seem favourable, we need to look at where this might lead.

First, and most relevant to this current thread, this is exactly what is causing things to be unclear (ie. 3.40 is clear, until we start mucking about with it in this way.)

Second, beware of setting out on a path that might lead to an unwanted destination. OK so we wish to apply 3.29 to CMs, and Ofsted don't refuse because it does not specifically say that paragraph is only for group settings. What then if Ofsted come back and say, "well. para 3.30 doesn't say it applies to group settings only - and therefore CMs must hold a level 3 and specific training on care of babies or they aren't allowed to care for under-2's."? ..... and so on from 3.31 onwards.......... ?

bunyip
14-03-2014, 10:54 AM
Looks like you received what we have now become accustomed to getting from Ofsted, DfE and Truss: a standard reply
It is infuriating that in these instances we cannot be helped, supported, guided...WHATEVER.... to understand the legislation and most of all try to help parents who according to the politicians are finding it very hard to find 'flexibility'.

The baby issue in the EYFS is very unclear ...however...lets look at two scenarios:

1. a CM has
- 2 year old in her/his care
- a 3 year old
- another 3 year old whose mum asks the CM to care for her new baby too...are we all clear this is allowed and she can variate subject to RA and all the rest?

how long should the variation last for? until the 3 year old...the sibling... is in full time at school which could be when he is 4 or even close to 5....is this limited enough and classified as 'exceptional circumstance'?

2.Cm has a baby of her own...new mum comes along with a baby too...similar age.
Cm decides to variate and take baby on...is this new business?

Anyone clear on this please share your view

This is a very good question.

In each case, I would say (according to a strict reading of EYFS) you're right: you can take the sibling/own baby on without dropping another mindee to make way for the baby. This begs the question of what happens on the baby's 1st birthday, when it ceases to be a defined 'baby'? Now that does need clarifying (or would do if Ofsted were applying the regs as written and not as they seem to have done since September 2012, ie. in a botched attempt by inspectors to apply the contents of the previous EYFS but just without the need to apply for variations in writing.)

At the heart of the matter is Ofsted's desire to move away from variation application process. There were sound reasons for this, as the system had several flaws:-
1. CMs didn't like the paperwork or elephantine slowness of the process: we've already seen how 'urgent' or 'emergency' variations simply weren't worth bothering with.
2. Ofsted must've spent a lot of money and time on variations.
3. Ofsted (and I don't blame them for this) probably had no desire to leave themselves open to negligence claims if they approved a variation which contributed to an accident or other welfare issue.
4 - ??? Probably other good reasons I can't think of right now....

Mummits
14-03-2014, 11:11 AM
But surely 3.40 clarifys it. No where in the eyfs does it say you can go over your numbers for new business. Even on the other factsheet it gives various scenarios and not one of them state new business :)

Ofsted | Factsheet: childcare - The numbers and ages of children that providers on the Early Years and Childcare Registers may care for (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/factsheet-childcare-numbers-and-ages-of-children-providers-early-years-and-childcare-registers-may-c)

I am afraid I do not think 3.40 is at all clear. It does not mention new business or suggest that whether any or all of the children involved are new business is relevant to the decision (and frankly, why should it be - is an unrelated baby any more or less difficult to care for than a sibling?). As drafted, I think it could easily be interpreted that if, for example, "new business" in the form of a family looking for care for baby twins (or triplets...or more!) then it might be okay to take them on, even if you already had two pre-schoolers, or similarly possibly "new business" in the form of a family with a baby and a toddler.

I think we are conditioned to think that variations are about providing continuity of care, and therefore pretty much applies to current families - but the new framework doesn't talk about continuity of care either. Nor does it say what happens when sibling babies are no longer babies. Presumably you don't kick someone out because they reach a year old, but 3.40 doesn't say you can continue to care for a sibling you took on as a baby either.

I think Ofsted's stance on this is disgusting. They have published a regulation which many people find unclear or difficult to apply sensibly to real life scenarios, and they wash their hands of any obligation to advise. I think the only thing wrong with the old system of Ofsted variations was the tardiness in processing requests. A simple online system with a rapid response would surely have been possible. The inspector approving the variations also had relevant information to hand such as how many children of their own the CM has raised, whether they had previously cared for more than the standard numbers, and of course their inspection and complaints history.

I also tend to disagree with the suggestion that CMs are deliberately trying to read the regulation the way which best suits them. I would say that there are probably just as many reading it excessively cautiously through fear of the consequences of getting it wrong, and that many are probably shrinking from self-varying in circumstances which would probably have been approved without question under the old regime. As a consequence our service may be letting parents down and we may be losing the flexibility always raised as one of the advantages of CMs over other forms of childcare.

Simona
14-03-2014, 11:44 AM
I am afraid I do not think 3.40 is at all clear. It does not mention new business or suggest that whether any or all of the children involved are new business is relevant to the decision (and frankly, why should it be - is an unrelated baby any more or less difficult to care for than a sibling?). As drafted, I think it could easily be interpreted that if, for example, "new business" in the form of a family looking for care for baby twins (or triplets...or more!) then it might be okay to take them on, even if you already had two pre-schoolers, or similarly possibly "new business" in the form of a family with a baby and a toddler.

I think we are conditioned to think that variations are about providing continuity of care, and therefore pretty much applies to current families - but the new framework doesn't talk about continuity of care either. Nor does it say what happens when sibling babies are no longer babies. Presumably you don't kick someone out because they reach a year old, but 3.40 doesn't say you can continue to care for a sibling you took on as a baby either.

I think Ofsted's stance on this is disgusting. They have published a regulation which many people find unclear or difficult to apply sensibly to real life scenarios, and they wash their hands of any obligation to advise. I think the only thing wrong with the old system of Ofsted variations was the tardiness in processing requests. A simple online system with a rapid response would surely have been possible. The inspector approving the variations also had relevant information to hand such as how many children of their own the CM has raised, whether they had previously cared for more than the standard numbers, and of course their inspection and complaints history.

I also tend to disagree with the suggestion that CMs are deliberately trying to read the regulation the way which best suits them. I would say that there are probably just as many reading it excessively cautiously through fear of the consequences of getting it wrong, and that many are probably shrinking from self-varying in circumstances which would probably have been approved without question under the old regime. As a consequence our service may be letting parents down and we may be losing the flexibility always raised as one of the advantages of CMs over other forms of childcare.

I agree that the 'vast' majority of cms really try hard to interpret and allow a variation...I am sure there are some who do not do that but that is their problem and they take the risk.

You are spot on...the previous system was infuriatingly slow and costly but there is an alternative that could be put in place that is simple and easy to 'police' ....for wanting of a better word.... and would save Ofsted a lot of money in complaint driven inspection rising from the public who pick up the phone and report cms unnecessarily and save a lot of grief to those cms who get downgraded and may then want to raise a complaint or appeal...another complicated system from the experiences some providers are sharing

I will put this idea in my letter when I attend the OBC in April

By the way does anyone know the email address for Lorna Fitzjohn Ofsted Director for Childminding..or at least point me to it as I cannot find it on their rather maze like website?
Thank you

bunyip
16-03-2014, 09:42 AM
Ok, so 3.40 , whilst clear to me is seemingly not clear to everyone.

So is the goal to get a regulation which is perfectly clear to everyone?

If so, is everyone going to accept what it says? It's almost certainly not going to please everyone. Remember there was no perfect consensus amongst CMs as to whether we should welcome or oppose Truss's attempts to raise the numbers last year.

Surely the more clear a rule is, the less flexible it is. A clear rule on ratios is likely to be very strict, proscriptive and risk-averse. So (rather like driving speed limits) it will be based on what the least capable CM can safely manage, and not based upon what a particularly experienced/skilled CM can handle.

Isn't that going to leave just as many CMs dissatisfied with any new system as are dissatisfied with the current rule?

Essentially, I'm suggesting that we say we want clarity until such time as we get clarity. Then we're going to want clarity plus exceptions/variations. But the current confusion only serves to show that "clarity plus exceptions/variations" is no kind of clarity at all. :huh:

sarah707
16-03-2014, 03:08 PM
Harking back yet again to days when we could get a straight answer out of someone high up in Ofsted - yes, 3.29 is the wording for all childminders to use when they are granting variations ...

AND that is confirmed very clearly in the Ofsted guidance document. It should not be questioned - it is there and it is for us all to use 'exceptionally and where continuity of care' etc etc.

Yes the Childcare Act confirms a baby is a baby up until 1.

Yes I agree that people often try to find hidden meanings in the wording so they can take on extra business - plus Mo and Flo down the road are doing it so why shouldn't they - plus they were allowed to do it before...

We do try to inform and advise :D

Simona
16-03-2014, 04:03 PM
Ok, so 3.40 , whilst clear to me is seemingly not clear to everyone.

So is the goal to get a regulation which is perfectly clear to everyone?

If so, is everyone going to accept what it says? It's almost certainly not going to please everyone. Remember there was no perfect consensus amongst CMs as to whether we should welcome or oppose Truss's attempts to raise the numbers last year.

Surely the more clear a rule is, the less flexible it is. A clear rule on ratios is likely to be very strict, proscriptive and risk-averse. So (rather like driving speed limits) it will be based on what the least capable CM can safely manage, and not based upon what a particularly experienced/skilled CM can handle.

Isn't that going to leave just as many CMs dissatisfied with any new system as are dissatisfied with the current rule?

Essentially, I'm suggesting that we say we want clarity until such time as we get clarity. Then we're going to want clarity plus exceptions/variations. But the current confusion only serves to show that "clarity plus exceptions/variations" is no kind of clarity at all. :huh:

What would be exceptionally useful in these exceptional circumstances is for Ofsted to tell us why some inspectors have decided ...or come to the conclusion...that some CMs were not granting the variations according to the EYFS

Could they quote some examples where the variation was wrong? why?
could they quote examples when the time applied was not limited? why?

In my view the self variation is new to us and has now been in place for 18 months...maybe a short feedback and review would help
What would also help is where we are getting it wrong and advice accordingly...rather than leave cms fearful that at inspection another personal interpretation is to be used


In reply to Sarah...I disagree that we should not question Ofsted...had we not done so we would not have seen the small results of Ofsted Big Conversation...things have changed slightly because we have dared to ask and got listened to

As I said before I would rather be clear than have to go through an appeal after inspection...the process is painful, stressful and demoralising...those who are reporting on their experiences show determination in pursuing the inspectorate and getting things sorted...they are doing so by challenging the very guidance Ofsted writes and inspectors are ignoring

some have even won their appeal ...so it is worth trying but I would prefer if it was avoidable in the first place because all was clear

For those on the Nursery World LinkedIn page it is reassuring to read comments from ex Ofsted inspectors on current practice ...an eye opener in fact.

If Ofsted is here to stay and nothing points to the contrary... then lets return to the way it was before when professional relationships were in place and worked because there was a line of communication that was respectful and bore results

My view of course

bunyip
17-03-2014, 08:19 AM
I think the role of Ofsted is frequently misunderstood.

Parents think is there to punish CMs over contract disputes ("how dare she want me to pay her fees?")

Ofsted act as if they are there to write the rules (which is the DofE's job - like it or not, the DofE is technically led by elected people.)

CMs often seem to think Ofsted is some free consultancy firm or advisory body - at times, we even talk as if Ofsted were some sort of beneficent Fairy Godmother, to whom we should address our latest wish-list.

Ofsted is there to regulate: not to settle spats over fees; not to make up rules as it goes along; and not to grant our wishes. Saying they should do this, that, or the other isn't going to offer much in the way of progress.

Frustrating as it is, I personally don't blame them for refusing to give advice or issue variations. Not in an increasingly litigious world where someone is forever lurking with a lawyer and £££signs in their eyes.

hectors house
17-03-2014, 09:23 AM
Maybe we should all take advantage of the New Childcare Bill and all just look after children for 3 hours for payment - without having to be registered - someone asked at the Somerset childminding conference on Saturday if that meant that unregistered people could pick up 10 children after school and look after them until 6 and the answer seemed to be YES!

Simona
17-03-2014, 09:57 AM
I think the role of Ofsted is frequently misunderstood.

Parents think is there to punish CMs over contract disputes ("how dare she want me to pay her fees?")

Ofsted act as if they are there to write the rules (which is the DofE's job - like it or not, the DofE is technically led by elected people.)

CMs often seem to think Ofsted is some free consultancy firm or advisory body - at times, we even talk as if Ofsted were some sort of beneficent Fairy Godmother, to whom we should address our latest wish-list.

Ofsted is there to regulate: not to settle spats over fees; not to make up rules as it goes along; and not to grant our wishes. Saying they should do this, that, or the other isn't going to offer much in the way of progress.

Frustrating as it is, I personally don't blame them for refusing to give advice or issue variations. Not in an increasingly litigious world where someone is forever lurking with a lawyer and £££signs in their eyes.

Bunyip...I do not know how long you have been a CM but in the past Ofsted were always willing to offer support and clarify issues
We could ring the Helpline and be helped...we could write to the managers and get very helpful replies

Variations were 'approved' by Ofsted before BUT the system was too long winded and it must have cost them a fortune to administer
In comes the DfE who rewrites the EYFS and now we have nothing but a bit of a mess

Parents who believe Ofsted is there to resolve disputes should look into what OFSTED stands for

What Ofsted should do though is to understand what the EYFS says and inspect on that not allow each inspector to make individual judgements and create confusion
You are right the DfE is a team led by elected politicians and Ofsted is an agent of the DfE...some call it quango and they need to look at being sustainable and accountable because they are 'tax payers' funded

The question many are asking is whether inspectors are properly trained for the job

BBC News - Ofsted inspectors 'lack key skills' required for job (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26580679)

shortstuff
17-03-2014, 10:34 AM
I think the role of Ofsted is frequently misunderstood.

Parents think is there to punish CMs over contract disputes ("how dare she want me to pay her fees?")

Ofsted act as if they are there to write the rules (which is the DofE's job - like it or not, the DofE is technically led by elected people.)

CMs often seem to think Ofsted is some free consultancy firm or advisory body - at times, we even talk as if Ofsted were some sort of beneficent Fairy Godmother, to whom we should address our latest wish-list.

Ofsted is there to regulate: not to settle spats over fees; not to make up rules as it goes along; and not to grant our wishes. Saying they should do this, that, or the other isn't going to offer much in the way of progress.

Frustrating as it is, I personally don't blame them for refusing to give advice or issue variations. Not in an increasingly litigious world where someone is forever lurking with a lawyer and £££signs in their eyes.

I agree with you bunyip. We all seem to have developed into a nation of slopey shoulders where if someone else makes the decision we can blame them when it all goes wrong.

bunyip
17-03-2014, 10:35 AM
Bunyip...I do not know how long you have been a CM but in the past Ofsted were always willing to offer support and clarify issues
We could ring the Helpline and be helped...we could write to the managers and get very helpful replies

Variations were 'approved' by Ofsted before BUT the system was too long winded and it must have cost them a fortune to administer
In comes the DfE who rewrites the EYFS and now we have nothing but a bit of a mess

Parents who believe Ofsted is there to resolve disputes should look into what OFSTED stands for

What Ofsted should do though is to understand what the EYFS says and inspect on that not allow each inspector to make individual judgements and create confusion
You are right the DfE is a team led by elected politicians and Ofsted is an agent of the DfE...some call it quango and they need to look at being sustainable and accountable because they are 'tax payers' funded

The question many are asking is whether inspectors are properly trained for the job

BBC News - Ofsted inspectors 'lack key skills' required for job (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26580679)

I don't disagree. I merely observe there has been a step-change in the way Ofsted handle questions, etc. They're clearly no longer fulfilling an advisory role, and I'm not at all sure that was ever meant to be part of their remit.

I'm just trying to deal with the world the way it is, not necessarily the way I'd like it to be.

jackie 7
17-03-2014, 11:06 PM
I talked to an inspector today not at an inspection. She said it is not clear and if you have a variation and get a complaint you will be downgraded. I came away from the conversation. Feeling worried as I have a variation for 1 day a week for a child who attends. I won't do it again. My variation ends in April.

Simona
18-03-2014, 07:46 AM
I talked to an inspector today not at an inspection. She said it is not clear and if you have a variation and get a complaint you will be downgraded. I came away from the conversation. Feeling worried as I have a variation for 1 day a week for a child who attends. I won't do it again. My variation ends in April.

Thank you for sharing that information...on we soldier then with trying to get this sorted...somehow.

If the inspector told you that 'if you have a variation and get a complaint you will be downgraded'....surely that is very wrong and subjective to her opinion.....as variations are allowed in the right circumstances and why should they merit a downgrade?



In general....We seem to be going round in circles and not agreeing on 'how to read' the EYFS...in the end either we get it sorted or the parents are going to be the losers and our businesses too

Bunyip...there has been a change in the way Ofsted treat and relate to us because we have a govt and a DfE who do not believe in positive engagement but a dictatorial style...
what happens in the DfE seems to have trickled down to Ofsted which just shows that Ofsted may not be as 'independent' of Gove et al as it should be....the articles in the press yesterday show that very clearly.

Sad really that a workforce willing to do their best and putting up with such chaos should be treated like this...maybe agencies will sort that out for all cms!

Nickidela
18-03-2014, 08:37 AM
A childminder friend of mine has 4 under 5s, when the inspector questioned this, she said as far as she was concerned her 3 year old child is her baby - the inspector was happy with that! Once again it depends on who inspects you and their knowledge/lack of it!

sarah707
18-03-2014, 06:43 PM
In reply to Sarah...I disagree that we should not question Ofsted...had we not done so we would not have seen the small results of Ofsted Big Conversation...things have changed slightly because we have dared to ask and got listened to



Not sure when I said we should not question Ofsted!

I am the childminder representative on the Ofsted Big Conversation group for the north of England - I have questioned them at length on a number of issues and I continue to do so on behalf of colleagues when they are too upset to ring and ask questions themselves.

Maybe my post was misinterpreted ... :D