What can I do about the 15 minutes?!

[zanacal]

I look after a child from 1pm to 6pm and have had an enquiry for a child to come from 8am to 1.15pm - is there anything I can do about the extra 15 minutes?! It would be so good to be able to fill the rest of the day! My daughter takes up the 3rd spot!

[Ripeberry]

Can the 1pm child come at 1.30pm instead?. Or the new child to go at 12.45 instead? Seems silly but the 15 mins would be a problem as it's new business.

[zanacal]

It's insane ... even if I could get the new child to collect at 1pm, what if one was early or one was late, there would have to be a gap wouldn't there?!

[zanacal]

... and the existing child is likely changing their hours in September anyway!

[natlou82]

How annoying! Although you only mention 3 children altogether, is there another?

[tess1981]

What would happen if (and I'm just throwing out there lol) the 1.15pm child was meant to go home at 12 and other child was due at 1pm but the weather was so bad and the 12pm mummy was stuck know in snow and broke down and was really late to collect and arrive at 1.30pm... my point is if you ask 1.15 mum to collect a little early she could be late no matter what time it is iyswim... so I can't see why you can't have her collect at 1 and other child arrive at 1

[hectors house]

I had something similar to this - I asked the father of the arriving child to arrive at 3.15 and said he would need to stay until the collecting parent had arrived (anytime between 3.15 - 3.30) luckily his job was flexible enough to allow him to do this. In my case it was only one day a week on a 6 week short term contract but think that after a while I may have adjusted it to have an overlap and put it down as continuity of care, if it was causing the parent to be late for work.

[JCrakers]

I would work around it tbh. I would do a 8am-1pm contract and a 1pm-6pm contract. Ask parents to pick up at contracted times but if they are late a few minutes/early then a couple of mins wouldn't matter surely. If the parent really wants the space then maybe they can come 15mins later?

Can you only have 2 under 5's?

Personally, I wouldn't be turning down a mindee and potential wage with bills to pay for a matter of a few minutes. But then I suppose that's not good advice as we have to stick to the 'rules'. :rolleyes:

[Simona]

I look after a child from 1pm to 6pm and have had an enquiry for a child to come from 8am to 1.15pm - is there anything I can do about the extra 15 minutes?! It would be so good to be able to fill the rest of the day! My daughter takes up the 3rd spot!

Ah...that is a question about overlap for cms...Truss intended to deal with it but somehow forgot and then got moved to somewhere I now forget!! :)

if I were in your shoes I would ring Ofsted...then give the DfE a call too...I would ask the parents to make the call too as they often moan we are 'not flexible' enough.

This is about 'flexibility' but the inflexibility to adapt to small requests...a very interesting thread running in this forum elsewhere.

[zanacal]

Yes sorry, there is another child - so my daughter and one other all day, an existing child in the afternoon and a potential child in the morning. I will call Ofsted for advice, thank you! I do have an Assistant I could bring in for an hour over lunch if I must.

[AliceK]

Yes sorry, there is another child - so my daughter and one other all day, an existing child in the afternoon and a potential child in the morning. I will call Ofsted for advice, thank you! I do have an Assistant I could bring in for an hour over lunch if I must.

Good luck with getting any kind of answer out of Ofsted. I had a situation and I wanted to know if it can be classed as continuity of care. All they ever did was quote the EYFS at me. Great lot of help that was, I CAN read, I just interpret it differently depending on quite HOW I am reading it. They wont give you a straight yes or no answer IMO.

xxx

[zanacal]

I daren't phone them now while the children are sleeping because I'm waiting for the recovery truck to arrive for my car which is broken down on the drive way - Monday is hitting me hard!

How would it be if mum signed up from 7.30 until 1 but was consistently arriving a little late to collect - could I then suggest she revises the hours of her contract and not worry about the 15 minute overlap because it's continuity of care. To me the message is so blurry, as to whether we are capable of looking after 3 or 4 children, that it should depend on how well you already know the child!

[Rick]

According to the EYFS and information received from DfE, there are no circumstances whereby you should increase ratios for new business, even 15 minutes. Of course with anything you decide to do, you would need to explain your actions to an inspector.

There is a PDF further down the thread on this link (post 17) with follow up questions to DfE which states clearly that we should not increase ratios for new business.

http://www.childmindinghelp.co.uk/forum/general-childminding-chat/133312-important-info-ofsted-dfe.html

[zanacal]

Thank you Rick, I'll read it.

[Simona]

I daren't phone them now while the children are sleeping because I'm waiting for the recovery truck to arrive for my car which is broken down on the drive way - Monday is hitting me hard!

How would it be if mum signed up from 7.30 until 1 but was consistently arriving a little late to collect - could I then suggest she revises the hours of her contract and not worry about the 15 minute overlap because it's continuity of care. To me the message is so blurry, as to whether we are capable of looking after 3 or 4 children, that it should depend on how well you already know the child!

If you call Ofsted or DfE explain clearly this a is an 'overlap' by 15 minutes....you are not asking for an increase in numbers....I think it is worth a try?
I agree it is very blurred and after 3 years neither depts have made an effort to clarify and make everyone's life easier.
They keep talking about flexibility...this is a prime example.

I will flag it up again at OBC.

Good luck

[zanacal]

I have gone back to the family asking if they have any flexibility to collect the child earlier on the days with the overlap. After that I will ask my existing child whether they have any flexibility to drop off a little later and then will ask my Assistant if she would consider coming in over the lunch periods on those days.

The other child I have all day is about to switch his days so I will have a space for all day (apart from the 15 minutes!) - and I have a potential family coming tomorrow! So I guess this is only an issue at the moment if the family tomorrow want the days.

Blimey, it's so complicated!

[zanacal]

Thank you Simona, I'll add it to the list of potential solutions!

[Simona]

Thank you Simona, I'll add it to the list of potential solutions!

I have just tweeted a question on overlap to Sam Gyimah...let's hope he replies...wishful thinking I know :mad:
Failing that I will tweet Ofsted...we desperately need to get a reply on this ...sick of blurred lines :thumbsup::angry:
If anyone quotes the EYFS to me I will scream!

[zanacal]

I spoke to Ofsted and they said, unsurprisingly, it is my decision! He said I would need to evaluate and risk assess to demonstrate to carers and inspectors that I'm meeting the needs of the children and the EYFS. He also suggested that I speak with my Family Information Service and/or Local Authority advisor for their opinion. Thoughts?

[JCrakers]

Ofsted don't give a monkeys....and their helpdesk seem to be run by them :D

Personally I feel that if you are able to show that for the 15mins you can care for 4 children (how hard can it be) then you should be allowed that overlap. Someone can have 4 under 5's all day so I'm sure we should be allowed to do this for 15mins.
:o

[zanacal]

I have four children of my very own so I'm fairly confident with that ;-) During that 15 minutes one would be arriving and her mum is never in much of a rush, always comes in and tells me the news about her child - and the other would be getting his shoes and coat on ready to go!

[Simona]

I spoke to Ofsted and they said, unsurprisingly, it is my decision! He said I would need to evaluate and risk assess to demonstrate to carers and inspectors that I'm meeting the needs of the children and the EYFS. He also suggested that I speak with my Family Information Service and/or Local Authority advisor for their opinion. Thoughts?

So now Ofsted want us to speak to FIS and our LA? this is just so incredible since the EYFS is written by the DfE and Ofsted interpret it their own way...imagine what 152 LAs would do.

JCrackers is right...a variation for 15 mins would be the best solution as many cms have 4 children all day long
I still think we need this clarified and not having to go cap in hand every time we are trying to please parents
What I want to know is if a short overlap is the same as a variation...if so when EYFS is rewritten in the near future it should be clearly stated.

[zanacal]

The child would leave at the beginning of the Summer holidays too as starting pre-school in September!

[natlou82]

This whole thing is so annoying surely we should be able to cover 15 mins by a variation and risk assessment. As Simona says, they want us to offer flexibility but then there's these ridiculous barriers in our way. Ultimately you need to protect yourself and your business. Do you feel you could argue your case with a full signed risk assessment in place if you had an emergency inspection? I think covering yourself with your assistant is probably the best option but it still seems ridiculous!

[SYLVIA]

I can't see a problem covering 15 mins, it's just that it's for new business. Personally I would be risk assessing it and if you feel the children you have are "manageable" ones I would be doing it

[Rubybubbles]

Reminds me why I didn't vote for ratios to stay at 1:3!! If 1;4 had come through everything would be much clearer

[Simona]

I am not sure if an 'overlap' fits into the self variation context, new business or continuity of care??...that is why I am trying as hard as I can to get clarification....now awaiting Ofsted's response

To be truthful no one knows and the fact CMs continue to ask questions on this subject shows we do not trust what Ofsted are telling us...it has been 3 years since the EYFS was reformed and DfE fails to address this matter.
I cannot find any section of the EYFS that would cause nurseries and preschools such confusion so wht should it not be the same for us?


I too would risk assess and inform parents... overlap is something that could happen to us any day 'accidentally'...especially for those cms who do sessional care....it needs sorting and reflecting on.

the main unfair part of this saga is that the EYFS should not be leaving cms to guess and worry...Ofsted should not tell us 'it is up to you' knowing fully well their inspectors have multiple interpretations, they should have an answer and not refer us to the FIS or LAs...that is almost a joke

[Simona]

Zanacal...I got the reply from Ofsted

Your overlap comes under the number of children CMs can care for ...6 under 8 maximum...you can RA and inform parents and, as long as you take care of all children's needs ...it is OK

I am also informed there is no such thing as 'variations' anymore as Ofsted do not add conditions to the number and ages we can look after as long as it is no more that 6 under 8.

I hope that clarifies it for you and for us all :thumbsup:

[SYLVIA]

So on that basis when my grandson starts with me next january and for 3 hours one day a week I will have 4 under 5 and 2 schoolies it will be fine?

[Rick]

Herein lies the problem.....

If you allow 15 minutes overlap for new business taking you over 3 under 5's, then why not 30 minutes or 3 hours?

My link above confirms new business taking you over 3 under 5's is not permitted.

Up to you if you feel 15 minutes deserves an exception to the wording in the EYFS but strictly speaking it doesn't. You would have to be confident explaining your actions to an inspector.

[Simona]

Herein lies the problem.....

If you allow 15 minutes overlap for new business taking you over 3 under 5's, then why not 30 minutes or 3 hours?

My link above confirms new business taking you over 3 under 5's is not permitted.

Up to you if you feel 15 minutes deserves an exception to the wording in the EYFS but strictly speaking it doesn't. You would have to be confident explaining your actions to an inspector.

Yes Rick...that is exactly how the officer at Ofsted put it: up to the cms to decide and feel confident in caring for all children's needs....as long as the number in 6 under 8....and the Cm able to explain it to an inspector.
The email does not mention new business or continuity of care....just that we are not allowed more than 6 under 8....That is how I have always understood it.

I can see that this is not going to resolve the problem and many may ask more questions which is fine if they are unsure.
I am absolutely clear now and I hope others will be too.

Although happy with the response I will take it further and will flag it up...again...at OBC. I would suggest other Cms can do that too and I am sure Sarah will do at her next OBC meeting on 28 February
I have also sent a message to DfE to tweak the EYFS in the next review....another wishful thinking but tenacity works at times.

[Rick]

I suppose the crux of the matter is this:

1. The EYFS isn't clear on some matters. This is the main issue....too much interpretation allowed on some matters by cm's and possible downgrading if an inspector does not agree with a cm's decision.

2. On this specific matter, there is nothing in the EYFS which allows you to exceed numbers where there are no exceptional circumstances. It states a max of 3 under 5's. It does not state you can exceed this figure with a risk assessment. Should the EYFS be amended to state every permutation allowed? Probably not as it would make it even more complicated. Would a fact sheet, similar to the number and ages of children which has been withdrawn, help matters? Definitely.

3. Should a 15 minute overlap be allowed? Common sense says yes but it is contrary to the 3 under 5's ratio so is a risk even if risk assessed appropriately. Yes cm's can increase to 4 for continuity of care, so we can presume most would cope with 4 for 15 minutes when it is new business, so why not a 15 minute overlap? The reason continuity of care is permissible: it prevents settled children having to leave the setting. If you allow 15 minutes, where do you draw the line?

[zanacal]

Thanks everyone. The parent has arranged to pick her child up at 1pm after all.

What gets me is that as a relatively new childminder, if I didn't belong to this forum I wouldn't even have heard the phrase 'continuity of care'. I would refer to the EYFS and then call Ofted and/or my Early Years Advisor (who is actually a great support) and both would have told me it's up to me and that if I risk assess I can do it!

[JCrakers]

The variation and ratio numbers thing is so confusing zanacal that even childminders who have been doing this since it came in are still confused. :mad:

We are supposed to be offering a flexible service to parents and how can we when we don't really know what we can and can't do. The problem we face is making the wrong decision and being labelled as overminding. It's a really bad system which doesn't really give us any support when making decisions.

[Simona]

I suppose the crux of the matter is this:

1. The EYFS isn't clear on some matters. This is the main issue....too much interpretation allowed on some matters by cm's and possible downgrading if an inspector does not agree with a cm's decision.

2. On this specific matter, there is nothing in the EYFS which allows you to exceed numbers where there are no exceptional circumstances. It states a max of 3 under 5's. It does not state you can exceed this figure with a risk assessment. Should the EYFS be amended to state every permutation allowed? Probably not as it would make it even more complicated. Would a fact sheet, similar to the number and ages of children which has been withdrawn, help matters? Definitely.

3. Should a 15 minute overlap be allowed? Common sense says yes but it is contrary to the 3 under 5's ratio so is a risk even if risk assessed appropriately. Yes cm's can increase to 4 for continuity of care, so we can presume most would cope with 4 for 15 minutes when it is new business, so why not a 15 minute overlap? The reason continuity of care is permissible: it prevents settled children having to leave the setting. If you allow 15 minutes, where do you draw the line?

Yes Rick you are partially right there...obviously the response I have received is not good enough so let's see if we can find another solution.

The EYFS is very clear about what we can do and I am frustrated that cms find it a worry to do what they are now allowed to do. Since 2012 when the EYFS was reformed there has been lots written on this subject and yes cms are allowed to care for 4 under 5 ...even 5 under 5 in the right circumstances.

The person who emailed me is not a civil servant at the DfE who writes 'standard letters' ...nor the phone operator at Ofsted....but one of the top officer in Ofsted...she knows what she is talking about...however I respect the fact you wish to doubt her statement.
Maybe the forum admin could find out who is at the top of Ofsted and write to them....she is well known and has even trained cms at conferences

Obviously her message is not believed....so on we go being 'confused'
I will print her email and keep in in my EYFS WR for any inspector to challenge...in addition I am now going to ring DFE and see if I can get any further with this conundrum

I am sorry about this but this forum is the only place where cms have 'worries' about the number of children Cms can look after...the only place I read we can only look after 3 under 5...I think it is not so

the best way is to find someone in the powers that be who is prepared to publish a statement for clarification....give me a chance and I will try to do so and come back.

In reply to zanacal and JCrackers...my opinion is that this matter has been confusing for a very long time but only partially and mainly here not if you speak to other cms
we need thousands and thousands of cms to now demand a clearer EYFS, to call Ofsted and DfE...let both Ofsted and DfE be inundated with enquiries...that would work I think.
Another way is to write to Sam Gyimah or even Nicky Morgan...they write the EYFS.

[Mouse]

Yes Rick you are partially right there...obviously the response I have received is not good enough so let's see if we can find another solution.

The EYFS is very clear about what we can do and I am frustrated that cms find it a worry to do what they are now allowed to do. Since 2012 when the EYFS was reformed there has been lots written on this subject and yes cms are allowed to care for 4 under 5 ...even 5 under 5 in the right circumstances.

The person who emailed me is not a civil servant at the DfE who writes 'standard letters' ...nor the phone operator at Ofsted....but one of the top officer in Ofsted...she knows what she is talking about...however I respect the fact you wish to doubt her statement.
Maybe the forum admin could find out who is at the top of Ofsted and write to them....she is well known and has even trained cms at conferences

Obviously her message is not believed....so on we go being 'confused'
I will print her email and keep in in my EYFS WR for any inspector to challenge...in addition I am now going to ring DFE and see if I can get any further with this conundrum

I am sorry about this but this forum is the only place where cms have 'worries' about the number of children Cms can look after...the only place I read we can only look after 3 under 5...I think it is not so

the best way is to find someone in the powers that be who is prepared to publish a statement for clarification....give me a chance and I will try to do so and come back.

In reply to zanacal and JCrackers...my opinion is that this matter has been confusing for a very long time but only partially and mainly here not if you speak to other cms
we need thousands and thousands of cms to now demand a clearer EYFS, to call Ofsted and DfE...let both Ofsted and DfE be inundated with enquiries...that would work I think.
Another way is to write to Sam Gyimah or even Nicky Morgan...they write the EYFS.

Unfortunately cms are still regularly being told at inspections that there is no such thing as continuity of care and that the only circumstances under which they can have 4 EYs children is for a sibling baby, or a baby of their own. So there is still a huge amount of confusion.

I know Rick and others have worked very hard to get confirmation that we can exceed ratios when a parent needs different hours etc (continuity of care), but inspectors still won't accept this and downgrade childminders. I have 4 children 3 days a week, all existing children whose parents have changed work hours. I have a folder of signed permissions, risk assessments, copies of letters people have received from Ofsted and the DfE, yet I still fully expect to be pulled up on it at my next inspection.

I'm pretty confident in my ability to argue my case with an inspector, but if they point blank refuse to accept my justification for continuity of care, what can I do?

[AliceK]

I have almost always had 4 under 5's and in the old days had written variation for it, now I RA myself if I need to grant myself an exception. It is rare I have a whole day with less than 4. They are all children who's familys have been with me for years, had the now older sibling and now have the newer younger siblings. It doesn't help that all my families are shift workers and so although I know the days / times a month in advance sometimes everyones shifts seem to coincide and I have very busy days / half days. When Ofsted inspected me in 2013 I had 4 EY's and nothing was said. I am confident in my RA, I know I can provide for all of the children so I will argue my case if it ever comes to it. I have tried time and time again to get a definitive answer from Ofsted but they will not commit. So I will do as I am doing. .

Thanks Simona for your answer on this .

xxx

[Simona]

I have just come off the phone to the DfE...someone has just given me nearly an hour of their time and we went through EYFS p24-25 and all the sections.

I explained clearly that EYFS cannot be 'interpreted' because it is a statutory framework and guess work won't do, either by us or inspectors.

DfE are aware of Ofsted 'individual interpretation' on cms' numbers, they are aware EYFS is effectively misleading and not as clear as it should be.
They endorse continuity of care but never heard of new business being a problem
They expect inspectors to follow EYFS not guess and produce their own interpretation

Please bear with me ...I totally appreciate the work being done by the forum on this but we are still none the wiser and I know Cms are turning away business because they fear inspectors...DfE endorse flexibility and choice.
What I have asked for is a 'clarifying statement' ...so let's hope we get to that...eventually especially with the new inspection framework kicking in soon.

I now need to email the query....I am also talking to my association on this.

PS: DfE has also pointed to EYFS page 22...last paragraph in that section 'Exceptionally, and where the quality of care and safety and security of the children is maintained, changes to the ratios may be made.
So do not just concentrate on pp 24-25

[Mouse]

Thanks for all your work Simona.

I think the big problem comes from inspectors being trained incorrectly, or from them applying their own interpretation.

I have already decided that when an inspector eventually phones to arrange my inspection I will discuss it with them then and make sure it's not going to be an issue on the day.

[Simona]

Thanks for all your work Simona.

I think the big problem comes from inspectors being trained incorrectly, or from them applying their own interpretation.

I have already decided that when an inspector eventually phones to arrange my inspection I will discuss it with them then and make sure it's not going to be an issue on the day.

You are correct Mouse....and DfE are aware that inspectors need better training on this...they need to follow EYFS not interpret it
Mind you the email from the Ofsted officer makes it clear what inspectors should look at and what we are entitled to do

I get the feeling EYFS is to be tweaked again so I politely asked for 'plain English'
I have just emailed my association's editor and CEO...let's see if they can get a joint statement from DfE and Ofsted on this in their magazine
I have a string of meetings in the next 2 weeks and I will raise this at every opportunity.

I wonder how cms have been so patient for so long over this...it is totally unacceptable
I have also tweeted this issue ...thanked DfE for their time this morning but let's move on now...enough is enough.

[Simona]

Does anyone know why OFSTED Factesheet no 120117 'The number and ages of children EY providers may care for' has been taken off their publication list?

I know it is out of date ...Dec 2012...but why has it not been replaced with an updated version?
thank you if you can help with this.

[hectors house]

Think lots of factsheets have been removed whether they were out of date or not - think Sarah Neville was going to take this to the next OB.

[Simona]

Think lots of factsheets have been removed whether they were out of date or not - think Sarah Neville was going to take this to the next OB.

Yes I do remember Sarah was doing this at her meeting in Manchester and I will do the same for the London OBC
I need the info on why they have not been replaced and updated so those helping in this issue know the background ...that factsheet states clearly we can have 4 under 5 in one of their examples.

[KatieFS]

Isn't this crazy? There should be a definite number shouldn't there? Or a very clear and definite exception. Too much grey area

[FussyElmo]

I am sorry about this but this forum is the only place where cms have 'worries' about the number of children Cms can look after...the only place I read we can only look after 3 under 5...I think it is not so

.

However you are not a member of fb and so are not part of any childminding groups. So you will not have ever seen the questions being asked on there. Nor will you have seen the the number of childminders being told they cant take children to make their number to 4 without it only being a sibling.

Just because the forum advises caution doesn't make us wrong to do so

[FussyElmo]

Yes I do remember Sarah was doing this at her meeting in Manchester and I will do the same for the London OBC
I need the info on why they have not been replaced and updated so those helping in this issue know the background ...that factsheet states clearly we can have 4 under 5 in one of their examples.

This is taken from the removed factsheet

Exceptions to the numbers and ages of children
Looking after more children in the early years age group3
5. 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. How to decide on when to apply such an exception is explained in paragraphs 6–9. Childminders do not have to inform or seek permission from Ofsted to change the number of children they care for. However, they must be able to demonstrate at all times that they meet the needs of all the children who attend. This includes their care needs and helping them to make progress in their learning and development.
6. Paragraph 3.40 in the EYFS allows childminders to care for myears age group if the children are aged four and five and attend other provision for a normal school day4 and/or the school holidays.
7. Paragraph 3.29 in the EYFS also allows childminders to care for more children, including babies, in the early years age group through an overarching ‘exceptional circumstances’ statement. In each case, before agreeing to take on a baby or older child as an exception, the childminder must make sure they can continue to meet the needs of all the children who attend, including making sure children are safe and that they receive an enjoyable and challenging learning experience. The childminder must make this decision in relation to each child they care for as an exception. Paragraph 3.29 does not give the permission to operate with more children in the early years age group at all times without an assessment as to whether an exception is appropriate.
8. Ofsted may also restrict the number of children childminders may care for through conditions of registration. We will only do this in circumstances where we judge a childminder cannot care for the full range of children, for example because they have a medical condition that might prevent them from lifting children.
9. In all cases, when deciding to care for additional children in the early years age group childminders should consider:
 the length of time they are providing care
 whether their furniture and equipment is sufficient
 how they will deliver the learning and development requirements of the EYFS to all the children they care for and help them make the best possible progress
 how they organise their day so that all children get enough of their time
 whether they have assessed and mitigated any risks in relation to taking on any additional children, for example through considering how they might have to rearrange play spaces to cope with an extra child or manage outings.



however with this now not being updated and removed can we still refer to it?

[Simona]

However you are not a member of fb and so are not part of any childminding groups. So you will not have ever seen the questions being asked on there. Nor will you have seen the the number of childminders being told they cant take children to make their number to 4 without it only being a sibling.

Just because the forum advises caution doesn't make us wrong to do so

it is not a secret I do not have FB...what info I have I gather from other sources, discussions and meetings and lots more....I wish I could have taped the DfE call this morning.

If cms are being told they cannot take 4 under 5 unless it is a sibling that appears to be wrong
I see that caution is being encouraged but we want to resolve this so instead of caution we can take on what is legally allowed?

From my Ofsted email and DfE call today we do have a lot of contradictory information....it has to be clarified.
I have fought this issue since the EYFS 2012 was reformed... it is not a new stance

[Simona]

This is taken from the removed factsheet

Exceptions to the numbers and ages of children
Looking after more children in the early years age group3
5. 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. How to decide on when to apply such an exception is explained in paragraphs 6–9. Childminders do not have to inform or seek permission from Ofsted to change the number of children they care for. However, they must be able to demonstrate at all times that they meet the needs of all the children who attend. This includes their care needs and helping them to make progress in their learning and development.
6. Paragraph 3.40 in the EYFS allows childminders to care for myears age group if the children are aged four and five and attend other provision for a normal school day4 and/or the school holidays.
7. Paragraph 3.29 in the EYFS also allows childminders to care for more children, including babies, in the early years age group through an overarching ‘exceptional circumstances’ statement. In each case, before agreeing to take on a baby or older child as an exception, the childminder must make sure they can continue to meet the needs of all the children who attend, including making sure children are safe and that they receive an enjoyable and challenging learning experience. The childminder must make this decision in relation to each child they care for as an exception. Paragraph 3.29 does not give the permission to operate with more children in the early years age group at all times without an assessment as to whether an exception is appropriate.
8. Ofsted may also restrict the number of children childminders may care for through conditions of registration. We will only do this in circumstances where we judge a childminder cannot care for the full range of children, for example because they have a medical condition that might prevent them from lifting children.
9. In all cases, when deciding to care for additional children in the early years age group childminders should consider:
 the length of time they are providing care
 whether their furniture and equipment is sufficient
 how they will deliver the learning and development requirements of the EYFS to all the children they care for and help them make the best possible progress
 how they organise their day so that all children get enough of their time
 whether they have assessed and mitigated any risks in relation to taking on any additional children, for example through considering how they might have to rearrange play spaces to cope with an extra child or manage outings.



however with this now not being updated and removed can we still refer to it?

I got that factsheet out and went through it again today.

I also tweeted to Ofsted if they are going to republish it and update it...if I get an answer I will share.

That factsheet was Dec 2012...the EYFS was tweaked again in 2014 but the cms section has remained the same...so I do not know why Ofsted have removed it?

If it was useful then we should try to get it republished or, at least know why it was removed?

[Simona]

My Tweet to Ofsted: please can you confirm if you will publish an updated Factsheet 120117?
Reply just now : Please now refer to EYFS for number and ages
Not sure if that is what we wanted or is any clearer?

Also called Ofsted helpline just now...same advise to refer to EYFS that factsheet is no longer valid.
If we want it republished the operator suggested 'making a complaint to Ofsted and ask for republication'

[Rick]

Thanks for your time on this Simona.

My only comment is that the EYFS needs looking at. I was surprised there were no major alterations to the ratios section in particular when the EYFS was revised last September.

I certainly don't feel the wording at present allows a cm to exceed 3 under 5's for new business. If it is the case then it needs clarifying; either in the EYFS or a supporting fact sheet.

[Simona]

Thanks for your time on this Simona.

My only comment is that the EYFS needs looking at. I was surprised there were no major alterations to the ratios section in particular when the EYFS was revised last September.

I certainly don't feel the wording at present allows a cm to exceed 3 under 5's for new business. If it is the case then it needs clarifying; either in the EYFS or a supporting fact sheet.

No problem Rick...I will give this a lot of time until we get an answer
I did tweet to Nicky Morgan asking if she could see the EYFS is tweaked and clarified because it hinders flexibility and choice to parents....no reply as yet from Sam Gyimah but he was busy at a conference today....we will wait and see

I also got some extra info reinforcing what the DfE guy said about the EYFS being 'misleading'...I have emailed him as requested so let's hope the reply is not a standard one...I told him please not to send one that was just a repetition of what we know

Any cm worried about this...please please raise it too
Last is my association who are looking into it and of course OBC ...we need to raise it at all the 7 OBC areas so each Ofsted director takes the same message away

I am beginning to see where the problem lies in all this ...but we need a statement and DfE and Ofsted talking to each other before the EYFS is tweaked again as it is ...in many areas....totally out of date.

[sarah707]

Ofsted set up an evening webinar to explain they had removed a number of factsheets after being told their website was too cluttered.

We were led to understand that the webinar would consult us on which factsheets we need.

however at no point during the webinar was the question asked of us - I did complain afterwards but apart from a 'thank you for your comments' message I have not heard anything further.

I have raised it at the Ofsted Big Conversation NW meeting in Manchester and it has also been raised by a childminder representative on the OBC Leeds group.

Sadly too many inspectors are getting it wrong and childminders are being downgraded for reasons we know to be wrong. As a result we are very cautious in our advice ... Rick has done a lot of work with Ofsted and DfE and we now have letters clarifying what we can and cannot do - but inspectors are ignoring these as well.

We are in a totally impossible position at the moment :(

I am keeping it on the agenda for OBC North West and it is still on the Leeds agenda ...

[Simona]

Ofsted set up an evening webinar to explain they had removed a number of factsheets after being told their website was too cluttered.

We were led to understand that the webinar would consult us on which factsheets we need.

however at no point during the webinar was the question asked of us - I did complain afterwards but apart from a 'thank you for your comments' message I have not heard anything further.

I have raised it at the Ofsted Big Conversation NW meeting in Manchester and it has also been raised by a childminder representative on the OBC Leeds group.

Sadly too many inspectors are getting it wrong and childminders are being downgraded for reasons we know to be wrong. As a result we are very cautious in our advice ... Rick has done a lot of work with Ofsted and DfE and we now have letters clarifying what we can and cannot do - but inspectors are ignoring these as well.

We are in a totally impossible position at the moment :(

I am keeping it on the agenda for OBC North West and it is still on the Leeds agenda ...

Thank you for that Sarah and I agree on many points
Rick has done a lot and we now have an impossible situation...but one I think can be resolved if we keep our nerve and keep holding DfE and Ofsted to account and keep asking the same thing of them

The EYFS is 'in effect misleading'...not my words but the DfE... and that is the first disadvantage for CMs, many genuinely wanting to help parents by taking on more children
Why should cms be at a disadvantage under a common framework that is enigmatic to translate and interpret?...I can't see nurseries and preschools putting up with it.


You are right ...inspectors are getting it wrong and I said I am 'beginning to see' where it has all gone wrong...what has happened and why.

Thanks for reminding us of the webinar...I did not participate but I gather you did not receive a response.
I fail to understand why asking for a factsheet to be republished is considered a complaint as the Ofsted helpline woman suggested?...she was helpful but said the same thing over and over again: refer to the EYFS now!....as I was talking to her Ofsted tweeted the same reply...so we have a new clue now....follow the EYFS and yes we want that when it is re written in plain English...I think that is coming but when I don't know...in fact a lot is going to be republished due to the common inspection framework.

I think we need to put pressure on the DfE to tweak the cms EYFS section and raise it over and over again at OBC.
3 OBC areas are on the ball ..there are 4 to go

The Ofsted helpline woman also told me their website was overloaded...but that is our problem not hers....we can navigate the info we need.

The Dfe is aware of cms concerns on ratios but I was unable to give details except cms being anxious at inspectors' individual interpretation ...I won't repeat what he said on that score!

[Simona]

Zanacal...your OP has now branched off to something a bit bigger
Sorry about that but hope this will help you ...and many more CMs...in the end.

I will continue to look into the matter and when I have news I will post in a new thread

PS: has any cm ever seen/read an actual inspection report where another cm has been downgraded for having too many children?

does anyone know if any cm has ever complained after inspection about being downgraded for having too many children?

[Mouse]

PS: has any cm ever seen/read an actual inspection report where another cm has been downgraded for having too many children?

does anyone know if any cm has ever complained after inspection about being downgraded for having too many children?

Yes. My cm friend was graded inadequate as she had 4 children one day a week. Her report was worded that she compromised the safety and welfare of children by having more than she was allowed and was breaching legal requirements.

She did complain after her inspection as the inspector had told her there was no such thing as continuity of care (she had the 4th child as mum had changed work hours and there was an overlap of 1hr45 mins). In her complaint she referred to that factsheet, that was till available at the time. She was told that yes, her case did fall into the category of continuity of care and that the inspector was wrong to say it didn't exist, but the inspector had judged that she wasn't able to meet the individual needs of all the children,so the inadequate grading stayed. She had to give notice to one of the children.

She had a good monitoring visit a couple of months later and another inspection a few months after that She was absolutely crucified at the inspection, again graded inadequate (for completely different reasons) and is now looking for work elsewhere.

[Simona]

Yes. My cm friend was graded inadequate as she had 4 children one day a week. Her report was worded that she compromised the safety and welfare of children by having more than she was allowed and was breaching legal requirements.

She did complain after her inspection as the inspector had told her there was no such thing as continuity of care (she had the 4th child as mum had changed work hours and there was an overlap of 1hr45 mins). In her complaint she referred to that factsheet, that was till available at the time. She was told that yes, her case did fall into the category of continuity of care and that the inspector was wrong to say it didn't exist, but the inspector had judged that she wasn't able to meet the individual needs of all the children,so the inadequate grading stayed. She had to give notice to one of the children.

She had a good monitoring visit a couple of months later and another inspection a few months after that She was absolutely crucified at the inspection, again graded inadequate (for completely different reasons) and is now looking for work elsewhere.

That is very useful Mouse

Although the Factsheet 120117 is not available anymore...continuity of care is clearly stated on page 7 and applied to your friend at the time from what you say

What you say also confirms what I 'gathered' from the various discussions yesterday.
A lot seems to revolve around evidence that any cm has to provide as proof of her decision to increase numbers, why and that the provision will not change....it is beginning to make sense to me.

On a good note ...this issue is now going to be raised with Ofsted....just got confirmation of that:thumbsup:.

[Simona]

Got a tweet last night from Ofsted....at least they are acknowledging the query!

[Mouse]

That is very useful Mouse

Although the Factsheet 120117 is not available anymore...continuity of care is clearly stated on page 7 and applied to your friend at the time from what you say

What you say also confirms what I 'gathered' from the various discussions yesterday.
A lot seems to revolve around evidence that any cm has to provide as proof of her decision to increase numbers, why and that the provision will not change....it is beginning to make sense to me.

On a good note ...this issue is now going to be raised with Ofsted....just got confirmation of that:thumbsup:.

One of the frustrating things for my friend was that the inspector didn't even see her with 4 children. On the day of her inspection she only had 2 there, but the inspector could see from the register that she sometimes had 4. She initially said that continuity of care didn't exist, but when challenged on that agreed that it was possible, but from what she'd seen she judged that the cm wouldn't have been able to manage 4 children. My friend felt it was just an excuse to cover up the fact the inspector had been wrong about continuity of care not applying.

[Simona]

One of the frustrating things for my friend was that the inspector didn't even see her with 4 children. On the day of her inspection she only had 2 there, but the inspector could see from the register that she sometimes had 4. She initially said that continuity of care didn't exist, but when challenged on that agreed that it was possible, but from what she'd seen she judged that the cm wouldn't have been able to manage 4 children. My friend felt it was just an excuse to cover up the fact the inspector had been wrong about continuity of care not applying.

AH...we are going back to inspectors' training and individual interpretations which is what DfE is talking about.
We also must remember that any judgement by inspectors goes back to the Ofsted Quality Assurance team...so if an inspector makes the wrong judgement the QA should be able to spot it?...if they can interpret the EYFS themselves that is!!

[AliceK]

It's so wrong that depending on which inspector you get depends on what they know and how they make decisions :censored:.
As I said before, I had 4 EY's children when I was inspected in 2013, at no point was it mentioned by the inspector other than as she was typing in her laptop where she just said to me "you have 4 early years children". I was then and will always be ready to argue my case about it if neccs.

xxx

[Simona]

The number and ages of children providers on EY and Childcare register may care for

I think you make a valid point AliceK in your post and worth reflecting on....very pertinent because it is your own experience of what happened and that is evidence.

Inspections are a 2 way system...the inspector's knowledge and training are just as important as the cm's confidence and competence in evidencing facts at inspections and challenging inaccuracies when/where appropriate

At the end of the inspections we receive a feedback...in fact ALL providers receive that...and that is the time to question any grey areas...inspectors have they own schedule to tick and we should have that 'evaluation' at hand...or at least know it well in order to question.

When we receive a report we have a short time in which to raise any points about factual aspects in the report.

I am getting replies from those I have sought help with this matter and.. so far... it is promising but I have a bit to go yet next week....I hope the DfE will respond.

Factsheet 120117 can no longer be used...I have gone through it again and it refers to EYFS 2012...when EYFS was revised in 2014 the factsheet was not...so the reference in 120117 does not correspond to EYFS 2014

The most important info in that factsheet was in Sections 1, 2 3 and allows Ofsted to judge if any increase is in line with EYFS
120117 is not just for cms but providers on the childcare register as per Introduction on p3.

Section 4 is even clearer and part of the assessment
Section 5 is the crux of the matter 'cms may care for more children in the EY group but no more that 6 under 8'
Apart from 3.39 to 3.41 there are other EYFS sections to take account such as 3.56 (space) and 3.29

Section 9 is all about evidence to be presented in the form of a RA etc....again a very robust assessment of practice.
All the above was in EYFS 2012 and still is in 2014 but the paragraphs have changed compared to 2012.

For EYFS 2014 I think cms must look at sections 3.28, 3.29 and 3.30...the latter gets quoted all the time in the replies I now have and even DfE referred to it....alongside 3.39 to 3.41...that is the obscure bit!

I have found 'continuity of care' mentioned but not 'new business'

which wording would cms like to see reviewed if DfE was to tweak EYFS 2014?...knowing that would help.

[natlou82]

I would like it to be very clear that if an existing clients work pattern changes and they wish to increase their hrs that it is acceptable to have 4 EYFS children providing we have risk assessed and it will not affect the care of all 4 children.

Back to the OP original question. It needs to be clear that to provide flexibility to clients it may be necessary to have 4 EYFS children for an overlap, they could give a set time limit for this eg 1 hr.

To help clients who work shifts could we be granted 4 EYFS children in order to provide those customers with the flexibility which at the moment is very difficult.

Just examples that I know I have personally encountered.

[Simona]

I would like it to be very clear that if an existing clients work pattern changes and they wish to increase their hrs that it is acceptable to have 4 EYFS children providing we have risk assessed and it will not affect the care of all 4 children.

Back to the OP original question. It needs to be clear that to provide flexibility to clients it may be necessary to have 4 EYFS children for an overlap, they could give a set time limit for this eg 1 hr.

To help clients who work shifts could we be granted 4 EYFS children in order to provide those customers with the flexibility which at the moment is very difficult.

Just examples that I know I have personally encountered.

The very reason I contacted the DfE and Ofsted was about the original question about the 'overlap'.

Both have said an overlap is allowed ...as long as ..a cm never exceeds 6 children under 8.
I have reported what Ofsted said in their email and what the DfE also think...the latter will write to me with their view.
Both DfE and Ofsted have quoted 'flexibility' as a reason to increase numbers when appropriate and following the required assessment process etc etc.

I do not know why it is difficult to understand when both EYFS and the withdrawn factsheet say this very clearly but I appreciate the anxiety this causes.

I will raise overlap at my meetings and ...of course...not name anyone.
We do not get granted a variation anymore...that is up to us to decide...both DfE and Ofsted have confirmed that too....so I am worried you feel this is difficult to achieve....can you explain why?

The ratio issue does cause a lot of stress and worry for cms from what I read...and possible loss of business ... the only way to get it clarified is to ask for a rewording of the EYFS and something from Ofsted.

Thank you for your input...I see that over 1,300 people have read this thread but there have not been many suggestions on what we can do for those still confused that I can take forward....that will not stop me from continuing to see if I can get an answer.
I never was, am or ever will be confused on this issue....so no gain for me personally!

In addition in Nov 2012 I organised an Ofsted workshop for cms ...one cm here will vouch for that.
The message was the same then as it is now...we can increase our numbers in the right circumstances and I have the minutes to prove that.

On another note...another one of my threads in the independent section has been deleted...no reason or explanation...it was purely an info sharing post....so I am not sure if I post anything on this issue when I get a reply it will get accepted?

I know many cms are interested in this issue so please contact me for further news or if you wish to input any ideas....I will continue reading this thread with interest.

[Rick]

I would like it to be very clear that if an existing clients work pattern changes and they wish to increase their hrs that it is acceptable to have 4 EYFS children providing we have risk assessed and it will not affect the care of all 4 children.

Back to the OP original question. It needs to be clear that to provide flexibility to clients it may be necessary to have 4 EYFS children for an overlap, they could give a set time limit for this eg 1 hr.

To help clients who work shifts could we be granted 4 EYFS children in order to provide those customers with the flexibility which at the moment is very difficult.

Just examples that I know I have personally encountered.

This letter is from Nick Hudson who is director of Early Years at Ofsted. This confirms that continuity of care exists.

[loocyloo]

I think the confusion is not so much for childminders, but for the inspectors, who don't agree with the childminders decision or say we can't care for more than 3 EY children at any one time!
be it for continuity of care or for new business/overlap etc whatever! the problem is, that regardless of what Ofsted/DfE SAY the inspectors should do/think etc, they don't, and that is why I think we need it in writing. we all know of inspectors who don't follow their guidelines, but at least they are there! with ratio issues, there is not even a guideline to fall back on, and for all we are told to read the EYFS - we all know how differently that can be interpreted!

I frequently have 4 EY children due to parents needing extra care and I am happy with this, and that all children still get quality care and attention etc, however, an inspector could turn up and decide that they didn't agree! ( because regardless of how well I look after 4 children, and however well it works, when an inspector arrives, the dynamics change and I could have all 4 children have a 'crisis of confidence' etc and the day could be horrendous and the inspector could/would assume that everyday is like that and that I shouldn't have the 4 children! )

if we had it in writing EVERYONE was know where they stand, and childminders would have more confidence that what they were doing was ok!

[Mouse]

I agree with Loocyloo. The uncertainty, confusion and reluctance to take on 4 EYs children comes from the way inspectors deal with it. No matter who we have letters and emails from (even the heads of DfE and Ofsted) if an inspector doesn't accept continuity of care as a reason to have 4 children there's not a lot we can do about it.

[Rick]

I agree with Loocyloo. The uncertainty, confusion and reluctance to take on 4 EYs children comes from the way inspectors deal with it. No matter who we have letters and emails from (even the heads of DfE and Ofsted) if an inspector doesn't accept continuity of care as a reason to have 4 children there's not a lot we can do about it.

Well we can challenge this at the time or complain afterwards. What the letters tell us is that we know we are in the right and we have to challenge an inspector on it.

All letters I have seen state that we have to demonstrate to an inspector that we can still provide high levels of learning and care with four EY children, so in some instances the inspector may deem that a cm isn't doing this but on the technical aspect of four EY children for continuity of care we have been told we can do it.

[Simona]

I think the confusion is not so much for childminders, but for the inspectors, who don't agree with the childminders decision or say we can't care for more than 3 EY children at any one time!
be it for continuity of care or for new business/overlap etc whatever! the problem is, that regardless of what Ofsted/DfE SAY the inspectors should do/think etc, they don't, and that is why I think we need it in writing. we all know of inspectors who don't follow their guidelines, but at least they are there! with ratio issues, there is not even a guideline to fall back on, and for all we are told to read the EYFS - we all know how differently that can be interpreted!

I frequently have 4 EY children due to parents needing extra care and I am happy with this, and that all children still get quality care and attention etc, however, an inspector could turn up and decide that they didn't agree! ( because regardless of how well I look after 4 children, and however well it works, when an inspector arrives, the dynamics change and I could have all 4 children have a 'crisis of confidence' etc and the day could be horrendous and the inspector could/would assume that everyday is like that and that I shouldn't have the 4 children! )

if we had it in writing EVERYONE was know where they stand, and childminders would have more confidence that what they were doing was ok!

But it is in writing Loocyloo.....several times over ...so what else do cms need?
Of course continuity of care exists as does new business...it is in the fact sheet...plain and simple

What we need to demonstrate is in the EYFS...inspector must judge provision, assessment and much more...those who were downgraded...if true that was the main reason....must have It in their report...why not challenge?

Good luck to you ....I can see this will never be solved if we continue to pass the buck on to inspectors and not look at a way to solve this issue

There are reams written about increasing numbers and cms do it successfully all the time and get past inspections without a problem!

I see there is no mention of why my thread was deleted either

[loocyloo]

But it is in writing Loocyloo.....several times over ...so what else do cms need?
Of course continuity of care exists as does new business...it is in the fact sheet...plain and simple

What we need to demonstrate is in the EYFS...inspector must judge provision, assessment and much more...those who were downgraded...if true that was the main reason....must have It in their report...why not challenge?

Good luck to you ....I can see this will never be solved if we continue to pass the buck on to inspectors and not look at a way to solve this issue

There are reams written about increasing numbers and cms do it successfully all the time and get past inspections without a problem!

I see there is no mention of why my thread was deleted either

I'm fine with it and I don't feel I actually need anything in writing but for those who need the security of a written unambiguous document, it would be helpful! Because I hear of inspectors that don't accept/read copies of letters saying it's ok and childminders who need support.
An 'official' /endorsed document on the ofsted website would just help!


And I have no idea about deleted threads, that's why I didn't mention it.

[natlou82]

I appreciate your responses on this Simona, Rick and Loocyloo. As a new childminder I have read several threads in the past on here which have made me feel worried regarding increasing to 4 EY children for continuity of care. I have found this thread to be very informative and helpful in this matter and I would feel confident if I needed to do this in future - thanks :-)

[Simona]

I'm fine with it and I don't feel I actually need anything in writing but for those who need the security of a written unambiguous document, it would be helpful! Because I hear of inspectors that don't accept/read copies of letters saying it's ok and childminders who need support.
An 'official' /endorsed document on the ofsted website would just help!


And I have no idea about deleted threads, that's why I didn't mention it.

Yes you say it very well...'I hear' and that is where this is coming from...what we hear from other cms...on the FB page maybe?...but we need evidence and we need to see inspection reports which so far are not mentioned
You also prove that you can be confident enough to increase your number while we read we have to be very 'cautious' here?


natiou82......you confirm what I have said all along...Cms are getting worried when they should not be but good to read you feel better informed
On we soldier with getting some breakthrough on this!!

Rick...you say Nick Hudson also gave his input on this...would it be possible to see his comments?...thank you

Sorry Loocyloo I did not mean to address the deleted thread question to you but to Rick who was taking part in the discussion

I posted a thread with a link to pacey's survey and it has been deleted without warning or explanation
Pacey have now added their survey to PLA and NDNA who also produced them but those were not deleted when I posted them...an explanation would be helpful

This survey is actually also very good and asks some very pertinent questions on costs...I recommend cms go and look for the link elsewhere as I have posted it on LinkedIn and is very widespread on twitter.

[Richard]

We do not link to PACEY or provide free marketing for them.

Our company used to pay PACEY to advertise in their magazine and they made a decision to disallow us from further advertising with them.

They attempted to setup in competition with Childcare.co.uk and delete references to Childcare.co.uk from their own forums and facebook groups.

[Rick]

Yes you say it very well...'I hear' and that is where this is coming from...what we hear from other cms...on the FB page maybe?...but we need evidence and we need to see inspection reports which so far are not mentioned
You also prove that you can be confident enough to increase your number while we read we have to be very 'cautious' here?


natiou82......you confirm what I have said all along...Cms are getting worried when they should not be but good to read you feel better informed
On we soldier with getting some breakthrough on this!!

Rick...you say Nick Hudson also gave his input on this...would it be possible to see his comments?...thank you

Sorry Loocyloo I did not mean to address the deleted thread question to you but to Rick who was taking part in the discussion

I posted a thread with a link to pacey's survey and it has been deleted without warning or explanation
Pacey have now added their survey to PLA and NDNA who also produced them but those were not deleted when I posted them...an explanation would be helpful

This survey is actually also very good and asks some very pertinent questions on costs...I recommend cms go and look for the link elsewhere as I have posted it on LinkedIn and is very widespread on twitter.

My post (#64) contains a letter from Nick Hudson to another childminder stating continuity of care exists.

[SYLVIA]

I know new business is not allowed in the 'over 4 under 5's' but it would help if we could do it if we knew it was only for a set period of time. We are all capable of working out if we can manage it with the children/routines we have and as they are openly telling us there is not enough places for childcare, this would help to ease this situation. I get many enquires for children to start in June/july but because all the children start school/preschool in september I have to say no. Then come september I'm desperate for a placement. This is where I find this 3 under 5 annoying. I was recently asked if I had a two day space in march next year for a 1yr old. I had to say no, but I have two leaving in july. It just doesn't make sense. Whats the difference between a sibling and a new child. It's still an extra child.

Sorry just realised I'm having a rant!!

[sarah707]

One of the frustrating things for my friend was that the inspector didn't even see her with 4 children. On the day of her inspection she only had 2 there, but the inspector could see from the register that she sometimes had 4. She initially said that continuity of care didn't exist, but when challenged on that agreed that it was possible, but from what she'd seen she judged that the cm wouldn't have been able to manage 4 children. My friend felt it was just an excuse to cover up the fact the inspector had been wrong about continuity of care not applying.

This is happening with another colleague I am talking to right now.

she was first told that 4 for coc didn't exist - so she challenged it.

The inspector said - for the first time raising a concern now she'd been proven wrong on the coc - well I didn't think you were coping anyway so the judgement still stands :(

Our colleague is devastated. She is doing everything right and still gets downgraded because an inspector doesn't want to admit she was wrong :(

[Mouse]

This is happening with another colleague I am talking to right now.

she was first told that 4 for coc didn't exist - so she challenged it.

The inspector said - for the first time raising a concern now she'd been proven wrong on the coc - well I didn't think you were coping anyway so the judgement still stands :(

Our colleague is devastated. She is doing everything right and still gets downgraded because an inspector doesn't want to admit she was wrong :(

That's my point all along. No matter what proof we have that coc does exist, we're completely at the mercy of any inspector who doesn't like the idea of it. I'm very confident working with 4 EYs children. I know I cope and I know the children achieve very highly, but I also know that an inspector could completely turn that upside down if they want to. I'll be back to 3 children a day by Sept at the latest and I can't wait. Much as I love working with 4 children, the uncertainty has completely put me off and I'll hesitate before doing it again. Unfortunately I'm likely to be inspected between now & then and I'll be very surprised if I don't have a problem with it :(

[loocyloo]

Because an inspector doesn't want to admit she was wrong :(

And that is exactly why we need something in writing!

I have heard of it happening elsewhere too :-(

[loocyloo]

That's my point all along. No matter what proof we have that coc does exist, we're completely at the mercy of any inspector who doesn't like the idea of it. I'm very confident working with 4 EYs children. I know I cope and I know the children achieve very highly, but I also know that an inspector could completely turn that upside down if they want to. I'll be back to 3 children a day by Sept at the latest and I can't wait. Much as I love working with 4 children, the uncertainty has completely put me off and I'll hesitate before doing it again. Unfortunately I'm likely to be inspected between now & then and I'll be very surprised if I don't have a problem with it :(

I agree ... I'm at 4 several days a week and in September, just when I get it back to 3 I will have a baby sibling starting! ( hopefully that will be looked on better! )
I haven't had an inspection for over 6 years ... They are bound to come at some point!

[Simona]

Thanks for the letter Rick...is it possible to print it?....although Hudson is stating the obvious...yes continuity of care is allowed and he seems puzzled by your questions?
DfE replies...also state the obvious but thanks for the reminder

Loocyloo....it is in writing already...I wonder if cms are reading a different document
has anyone read 120117...all in there

Thanks everyone for your input...invaluable.

Richard.... about the pacey post .....it was not advertising pacey and nothing to do with commercial competition...it was an article by Nursery World
You say you do not link to pacey...I am confused as you clearly do,

As you know all associations have produced a survey...you may hear about this a bit more outside of this forum so pacey finally did their own
Sorry if I can't see any connection to anything to do with reciprocal advertising or monetary gain etc etc...this was to allow cms to answer very good questions on their business in the never ending saga of childcare issues

My worry is when a post is to be deleted...please inform of the reason why in advance so we are not left wondering what is that has gone against your principles.

Thanks everyone

[Simona]

Rick...I have been able to magnify the letter and print it

I would suggest though that the cm it was sent to be protected as her full address and email are in public view.
I have made sure her private details are not raedable...if she is not worried then nothing needs doing.

[Simona]

Hurrah!!! I got a reply from the DfE
I think it has clarified the various shades of doubt.

I will post the reply in a different thread so everyone can look and decide for themselves :thumbsup:

[*daisychain*]

Will look forward to reading it :-)

[Simona]

Will look forward to reading it :-)

I posted the DfE's response in the general chat section yesterday...in a sticky thread that has been there a long time ...right at the top of the page
I personally feel the reply is the clearest the DfE or Ofsted have offered so far.

I was really never in doubt what we could do when looking at ratios but this reply has made me even more sure and it looks like DfE, Ofsted and others may come up with solutions to help cms further in this area.

I hope other cms will find it as useful as I have and feel more confident when deciding on the ratio.

Good luck everyone.

[KatieFS]

Sorry must be me but can't find it?!? What's it called?

[Simona]

Sorry must be me but can't find it?!? What's it called?

The post is a sticky...right at the top of the General childminding chat.

For general information to those who read it:
The extracts I posted are taken 'word for word' from the various emails.
They are their explanations ..therefore cms must decide for themselves ...if in doubt do contact the DfE

[KatieFS]

Ok will have to log on to laptop to check it out

[fluff1975]

A childminder friend has an exact same 15 minute situation. She phoned Ofsted who said she could do it so long as she fully risk assessed it and had written consent from all parents. Its works for her and she's had an inspection since where it wasn't mentioned, despite that being the day she was over her numbers for 15 minutes! :huh:

[Simona]

A childminder friend has an exact same 15 minute situation. She phoned Ofsted who said she could do it so long as she fully risk assessed it and had written consent from all parents. Its works for her and she's had an inspection since where it wasn't mentioned, despite that being the day she was over her numbers for 15 minutes! :huh:

This is music to my ears!!!
Strange that Ofsted would endorse this individual request but refuse to clarify overall?

Thank you for sharing!

[fluff1975]

This is music to my ears!!!
Strange that Ofsted would endorse this individual request but refuse to clarify overall?

Thank you for sharing!

Strange and Ofsted. Say no more :rolleyes:

[Rick]

This is music to my ears!!! Strange that Ofsted would endorse this individual request but refuse to clarify overall? Thank you for sharing!

I agree it's strange as they don't give variations any more so it would still be on the cm's head if an inspector deemed it unacceptable. Also did the reason for the four children come up?

If we could get something in writing which states taking on new business taking you to four EY children is viable then I would be happier! This will be hard because they might say yes to a small overlap but how much is that!

[Simona]

I agree it's strange as they don't give variations any more so it would still be on the cm's head if an inspector deemed it unacceptable. Also did the reason for the four children come up?

If we could get something in writing which states taking on new business taking you to four EY children is viable then I would be happier! This will be hard because they might say yes to a small overlap but how much is that!

I am in agreement with you on this Rick :thumbsup:
We need it in writing...clear precise English....so that exceptional circumstances are given some guidance.

if the DfE says they may 'consider' tweaking the EYFS then let's push for that and I have made that clear today in my reply to their reply to my reply to the original query!!!

I will carry on at the DfE ...you get Nick Hudson to reply...a reply in unison would be a great help to us all :thumbsup:...and so says all of us ?

[Rick]

I am in agreement with you on this Rick :thumbsup: We need it in writing...clear precise English....so that exceptional circumstances are given some guidance. if the DfE says they may 'consider' tweaking the EYFS then let's push for that and I have made that clear today in my reply to their reply to my reply to the original query!!! I will carry on at the DfE ...you get Nick Hudson to reply...a reply in unison would be a great help to us all :thumbsup:...and so says all of us ?

Agreed :thumbsup:

[Simona]

Agreed :thumbsup:

Don't forget to address Hudson by his new title ' Director of Early Childhood' now :thumbsup:

[Simona]

A childminder friend has an exact same 15 minute situation. She phoned Ofsted who said she could do it so long as she fully risk assessed it and had written consent from all parents. Its works for her and she's had an inspection since where it wasn't mentioned, despite that being the day she was over her numbers for 15 minutes! :huh:

I wonder if you could help me with a little clarification...just for myself and to base it on what Ofsted say in their replies 'we cannot comment on individual cases'...same as the DfE really.

Your friend was inspected and you say she had 4 under 5...do you know if this was in her inspection report? was there a comment about 'meeting all children's needs'?
when she rang Ofsted for support she was told it was ok....was this recorded by the operator in your friend's file ?

It would help to know