Local Authority Muddying the Waters!!!!

**Daftbat** · 06-12-2013, 08:12 AM

Yesterday I received an emaiil (with a read receipt request!) from my local authority saying that they had received several information requests about ratios and wanted to put things straight to help. They attached a document which had 6 questions and their answers.

Well, they have managed as far as I am concerned to confuse people more and possibly worry them unnecessarily.

They have quoted the EYFS 3.40 where it says that exceptional circumstances for having 4 under 5 are for siblings or the childminder having a baby. They make reference to the document in “the numbers and ages of children that providers on the Early Years and Childcare Register may care for” published Dec 2012 but actually fail to include the fact that we can extend numbers to include continuity of care which IS covered in the very document they are quoting.

I am fuming that such an email has been distributed. I am very much on top of documents and ensure that I print off relevant information for reference and it even had me fishing things out and double checking. I can only imagine that some childminders in my area have been unduly stressed overnight after this.

Honestly, how are we expected to work properly when the very people who are supposed to be there for help and support can't get their act together.

Well done Derbyshire Childcare Improvement Service!!!! I have naturally emailed them with the correction. Lets hope they take some action!!

Simona · 06-12-2013, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Daftbat

Yesterday I received an emaiil (with a read receipt request!) from my local authority saying that they had received several information requests about ratios and wanted to put things straight to help. They attached a document which had 6 questions and their answers.

Well, they have managed as far as I am concerned to confuse people more and possibly worry them unnecessarily.

They have quoted the EYFS 3.40 where it says that exceptional circumstances for having 4 under 5 are for siblings or the childminder having a baby. They make reference to the document in “the numbers and ages of children that providers on the Early Years and Childcare Register may care for” published Dec 2012 but actually fail to include the fact that we can extend numbers to include continuity of care which IS covered in the very document they are quoting.

I am fuming that such an email has been distributed. I am very much on top of documents and ensure that I print off relevant information for reference and it even had me fishing things out and double checking. I can only imagine that some childminders in my area have been unduly stressed overnight after this.

Honestly, how are we expected to work properly when the very people who are supposed to be there for help and support can't get their act together.

Well done Derbyshire Childcare Improvement Service!!!! I have naturally emailed them with the correction. Lets hope they take some action!!

How right you are when the very people who should support us actually get it wrong themselves!!
I would like to know where does your LAs see the '4 under 5' in the EYFS (3.40)? because it is not mentioned at all as we can clearly read below?

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

Lets assume for one minute that a CM is looking after 3 children of the following age...say 2 years, 3 and another 3 1/2.
If 2 of the parents have a baby and wanted us to look after them for continuity of care...we could consider it because they are siblings but it would mean having 5 under 5......is that wrong?

We have read extensively since Sept 2012 when the revised EYFS came out of CMs with 5 under 5 and, as long as they have done their RA, checked resources, space, buggies, consider the school run, if any, and discussed with ALL the parents, in my view, that is not wrong

What that also means is that the CM would be left with just 1 space for an older child so that her total is 6 under 8...which is the statutory requirement
I would suggest all LAs get a training day to understand the EYFS because some do not get it at all and manage to add to the confusion!