Childminders views on the funding...

[sarah707]

A new report based on a small sample of childminders contacted before the 30 hours rules were finalised... so I'm not sure how relevant it is but it does make interesting reading :D

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586224/Childminder_s_views_on_funded_early_education_-_RR646.pdf

[loocyloo]

A new report based on a small sample of childminders contacted before the 30 hours rules were finalised... so I'm not sure how relevant it is but it does make interesting reading :D

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586224/Childminder_s_views_on_funded_early_education_-_RR646.pdf

Very interesting but seemingly random selection of childminders ... majority were over 50?!

[catswhiskers]

Can't quite believe it! Quite patronising really! I'm over 50, what are they trying to say? The whole report is very be-littling of childminders.

[catswhiskers]

Thanks for posting this by the way sarah! I don't know how you keep up with everything.

[loocyloo]

Can't quite believe it! Quite patronising really! I'm over 50, what are they trying to say? The whole report is very be-littling of childminders.

I think it's because they concentrated on minders who didn't offer funding, didn't have or use computers and that turned out to be the older childminders. But I agree, it did make us out to be a bit useless. And I wasn't impressed that they didn't verify the figures the minders told them, with relevant LAs! That WOULD have been interesting!

[bunyip]

Can't quite believe it! Quite patronising really! I'm over 50, what are they trying to say? The whole report is very be-littling of childminders.

I find it neither patronising nor belittling. It's just that it's bound to be highly inaccurate because of the risibly small sample size. I find it unbelievable that a government survey can be conducted on the basis of a mere 40 responses. :eek: It's a bad joke.

[blue bear]

For all that it was very wish washy in its evidence gathering the outcomes held some very valid points in that the funding needs to be paid monthly in advance,needs to increase the rate to allow for local hourly rates, the promotion of childminders needs to Increase so parents don't just think its nursery funding etc.

Overall it came over as something they had to be seen to have done and put very little effort into it.

[sarah707]

I questioned the bit about claiming petrol because it is illegal to do that if you are not registered as a taxi...

I received this reply from the lady who wrote it up earlier -

Thanks very much for your feedback. The point of our research was to answer the question DfE posed in the way they suggested. Originally that was with a sample of 20 childminders which we proposed increasing to at least 40. We also reported what childminders told us, irrespective of whether it was correct / breach of regulations etc. We fed back to DfE about the charging of top up (which was prevalent) and the issue of transport was raised in nearly every interview - particularly about the costs and practicalities of taxi-ing of children.

We are making no judgement on these perceptions, merely reporting them. It is up to DfE to comment on the findings, so I will pass your comments on to them.

Many thanks again for getting in touch. We have hopefully made the point sufficiently strongly about how different childminders' considerations are to other providers and about how with simple tweaks the 30 hour policy could be much improved and better support them to deliver it.

Kind regards