More Great Childcare - summary of the key points

[sarah707]

I have written the attached to set out the key points of the Government's 'More Great Childcare' document clearly and concisely.

I think this overview might help us focus more easily on the key points and help us decide which bits we find most worrying.

Your comments as always will be very much appreciated and valued.

Thank you

[SammySplodger]

Thank you for this Sarah

As in my other post - Agencies are my greatest concern and I think we need to find out more. I do not believe that Central Gov and LAs don't know. I'm sure there is a (sinister) plan, but they daren't reveal it yet.

[FussyElmo]

The only thing in that list that does make me want to rant is the GCSE requirements. Personally I think for people leaving school and college etc these should be basic requirements like they are for most other professions But that is my personal opinion.

[phoenix2010]

Im a bit confused as I thought that they were proposing 6 children under 5

These ratios for childminders seem OK to me , but personally I would not want 4 children under 5 all the time , I do it 2 mornings a week and that is more than enough

I do think that relaxing the ratios a little is a good idea , but there will always be some that take advantage and will have the maximum all the time and I do wonder how someone would manage to still provide excellent care under those conditions

Not sure how agencies would work , are they proposing that they are compulsory?
Im not sure that would be the best way to match parents with minders , many parents choose on a gut instinct and sometimes come with a flexible approach to what hours they need

Some parents have fitted in with what I have to offer because they like me , others havnt chosen me even though I can offer exactly what they need

I like the idea that OFSTED can determine where childminders can offer funded places , if i achieve an outstanding at my next inspection then I feel Im able to provide as good if not better education than a nursery , so why should my little ones have to leave me to take advantage of the funded places

too many things to discuss lol

[jillplum]

As a childminder I am ok with the propsed ratios for us. As a parent I disagree with the propsed Nursery rations.
I strongly disagree with an agency. I am self employed and sucessful.I do not need anyone telling me what to charge or who to look after etc. As a parent I want to choose my own child are and negotiate the details personally. My child, my decision.

Can we petition aginst the agency idea specifically?

[loocyloo]

thanks sarah, i have read your notes and am now going away to inwardly digest them!

i was trying just now to explain to DS about the agency and how it sounds a bit like when i worked for nanny agency. i used to do temp jobs to fill in odd days when i was working part time .. i would get a phone call sometimes in advance, or sometimes that day ( !!! ) telling me to go to X address and that my hours would 8-5, 3 children, school run, preschool and a swimming lesson that i needed to go in the pool for etc. i would do the days work and at the end of the day call the agency to confirm and then they would pay me whatever the set rate was. the rate never changed, regardless of hours i worked, number of children etc. i can't remember about mileage. i know parents used to pay a premium for the service and they would have signed a contract with the agency. i was lucky as the agency i worked with were very good and always gave their temps a call during the day to see how it was going, or you could phone with any problem and they would sort it. this worked on a temp basis, but i can't see just having children sent to you for long term care will work! parents/children & childminder need to 'click' and have the same ethos ( or at least, be willing to accept each others ethos! ) i've met parents and just known that we would never be able to work together, where as others, you know from the word go that you will get on great!

[bunyip]

The only thing in that list that does make me want to rant is the GCSE requirements. Personally I think for people leaving school and college etc these should be basic requirements like they are for most other professions But that is my personal opinion.

Government doesn't like poor and under-educated people having children. Only the well-off should be allowed to reproduce. Don't want the proles messing up the gene pool, do they, what?

You can see the hidden agenda by what they envision as 'success' and 'achievement' in the early years.

I suppose they'll be seperated when the workhouses are re-invented.

[margimum]

Nobody should be happy with an uneducated population Bunyip. A reasonably well educated childminder will be more confident in helping children with beginning to read and use numbers for counting.
Have you heard the saying 'educate a man and you have an educated worker, Educate a woman and you have an educated generation!

[chriss]

I dont like the idea of "the Agency" matching me with the parents.
AND
I dont think its a good idea for very young children to be in a school like setting.

[bunyip]

I dont like the idea of "the Agency" matching me with the parents.
AND
I dont think its a good idea for very young children to be in a school like setting.

The company I currently "train" with is part of a larger organisation which is supporting the agency model very strongly. They already act as a de facto agency, but currently have to do it by directly employing the childcare workers. To be fair, they haven't (yet) 'approached me' with a offer, but that may be cos I live a little too far from the city. They're quite cagey about the whole thing and never mix their employees with us, but run separate training sessions. I wonder if they're scared that self-employed CMs might tempt their staff to go it alone.

[sarah707]

Am I the only one to have noticed the appalling grammar in the title of the document?

My old English teacher would be spinning!!

[bunyip]

Am I the only one to have noticed the appalling grammar in the title of the document?

My old English teacher would be spinning!!

Has anyone noticed it's an anagram of "recharged crime a lot" ?



....or even "rare dogmatic lecher" ?

[FussyElmo]

Am I the only one to have noticed the appalling grammar in the title of the document?

My old English teacher would be spinning!!

Oh dont we are constantly telling ds not to put more in front of word. More better, more colder, more great childcare.

[lubeam]

in my LA we have childcare officers (not sure if thats the same everywhere.) from what it sounds like to me they are going to be out of a job ! i no im a newbie, but i really dont think you can run childcare through an agency! as its been said before you have to no parents and children in order to offer the best care , not just throw them in a pot and distribute them where ever theres a space available! i use to work for an agency and we use to make magazines and some ppl where good at it and others not so much and you could always tell because of the amount of waste when there was an agency worker on the machine who couldnt do it! i no its completly different but you get the principle?! if there just trying to stuff us with as many kids as were legally aloud (i no they said its not compulsary but if your part of an agency it will be pushed) then some ones going to suffer along the way! and it wont just be CM's

[Blaze]

Thank you

[miffy]

Thanks Sarah

Miffy xx

[blue bear]

The nursery ratio's to me are just bonkers, when the eyfs first came in there was much talk of level playing fields and nurseries working to be more homely with children getting out into the commu it's more, now it's proposed to stop worrying about floor space per child and pack them in like battery hens with no hope of getting them out safely into the community.

Schools being encouraged to take two year olds brings them in line With the pre schools (around here anyway) where they all take two year olds now, it's means all the vulnerable two year olds all get put into one place, crazy way of thinking to me, not only are these poor workers having to cope with the increased work load a vulnerable family bring they want to increase the ratio too, what benefit is that to a vulnerable two year old

Childminder ratios I don't see a problem,yes you get the.odd one who might pack them in for the money but for the majority its a vocation we do it in the best interests of the child and always put them first so having higher ratios doesn't necessarily mean we would use them because if it affected the care and development of a child we are more likely to deliberately take on less children not more.

As I have put on another post the agency idea is a cost cutting exercise, the government no longer wants to pay the lea staff, the idea they are using three year old funding money to pay them is daft, I don't know any three and four year olds refused funding. So is the idea that ofsted grades will be the only thing that stops or allows you to offer the funding. Lea's will set up as agencies, they will continue to make childminders jump through hoops to access the funding. You will need to be part of the agency to access training which we will have no choice because safeguarding training must be lea approved. And so guess who will pay the lea staff wages and spending budget, oh yes it will be us and the idea is we will have to take on another pre schooler to pay the agency it's the only reason she has upped the ratio to four.
This whole thing is part of the bigger picture of cut backs only they don't want to use that term in relation to such young children so are dressing it up as ratio and better value for parents.

[AgentTink]

The nursery ratio's to me are just bonkers, when the eyfs first came in there was much talk of level playing fields and nurseries working to be more homely with children getting out into the commu it's more, now it's proposed to stop worrying about floor space per child and pack them in like battery hens with no hope of getting them out safely into the community.

Schools being encouraged to take two year olds brings them in line With the pre schools (around here anyway) where they all take two year olds now, it's means all the vulnerable two year olds all get put into one place, crazy way of thinking to me, not only are these poor workers having to cope with the increased work load a vulnerable family bring they want to increase the ratio too, what benefit is that to a vulnerable two year old

Childminder ratios I don't see a problem,yes you get the.odd one who might pack them in for the money but for the majority its a vocation we do it in the best interests of the child and always put them first so having higher ratios doesn't necessarily mean we would use them because if it affected the care and development of a child we are more likely to deliberately take on less children not more.

As I have put on another post the agency idea is a cost cutting exercise, the government no longer wants to pay the lea staff, the idea they are using three year old funding money to pay them is daft, I don't know any three and four year olds refused funding. So is the idea that ofsted grades will be the only thing that stops or allows you to offer the funding. Lea's will set up as agencies, they will continue to make childminders jump through hoops to access the funding. You will need to be part of the agency to access training which we will have no choice because safeguarding training must be lea approved. And so guess who will pay the lea staff wages and spending budget, oh yes it will be us and the idea is we will have to take on another pre schooler to pay the agency it's the only reason she has upped the ratio to four.
This whole thing is part of the bigger picture of cut backs only they don't want to use that term in relation to such young children so are dressing it up as ratio and better value for parents.

Blue bear I believe your thinking about the LA's being agencies is very close to the mark. Have you seen this thread I commented on in particular thread 11 and 14

I have just received this from our local council

[mum26]

Think you are right Blue Bear, just wish it wasn't so. How can floor space not be an issue. It is ridiculous. I work with an assistant and we are allowed to have 6 under 5s between us with 2 over (this was under old EYFS). It is right that we are limited by the amount of area we have in the house - it is no fun for anyone being packed into a small area where no-one can move (ok maybe an exaggeration!), and how on earth can the children experience quality care in that sort of environment.

[ChocolateChip]

Thankyou Sarah, your notes have set out the points brilliantly, I have been struggling to pick 'the meat from the bones' so this is really helpful, thankyou!

I could write an essay on it but I have to say my main worries are the nursery and nursery class ratios (2yr olds included a ratio of 1:13- really?). All I can see happening there is distressed children, stressed staff, higher turnover, less continuity Some nurseries already juggle ratios by having staff 'on the premises' rather than actually in the room, especially to cover lunches, breaks etc, if the ratios are pared even more I worry about staff coping with large numbers of children, especially if an incident occurs or someone has to suddenly go home for illness etc.
And if I'm honest, perhaps controversially I would prefer a cm to have some experience before being allowed more than the ratios we have now.

As for the agencies, where do I start? No way do I want someone dictating to me who I have to work with, I am quite capable of finding my own customers, all of whom are either people I either know or have come from word of mouth recommendation, apart from one who passed on to me by school, and I am as busy as I want to be (more than, if completely honest!). And how exactly are they going to lessen my paperwork- will they send someone round to do my accounts and obs every week? I already access all the training I need/ want to do thanks to my LA and the occasional online training, and I make it clear to all my families when they start that they need to have back up carers in place for unforeseen circumstances so I fail to see how an agency is going to help me in any way.

I agree with comments I have seen elsewhere, it sounds as if they are going to get rid of all our exisiting support such as early years teams, FIS etc and have these 'agencies' controlling everything. Fair enough if they want to streamline services but why all the smokescreen?