Ooooooh, interesting. Personally, I think it could go either way on this one - on the one hand, you would be providing continuity of care for your ad hoc mindee, so all good. On the other, you would be taking on new business in the full knowledge that there would no longer be a space for ad-hoc should they need one, but still keeping ad-hoc on. So even though ad-hoc child is not the new business, it is new business which has created the need for an exception.
I think, in this situation, the correct thing to do is to either offer parents of ad-hoc the chance to neotiate a more permanent spot, or let them know that ad-hocs space was now taken. Anything else would seem like having your cake and eating it.
I don't think I would want to risk my registration and grading over it so soon into the EYFS2012 - although we have some clarification in writing re these situations we don't really have much proof of the pudding yet. I have been reading some 2012 style Ofsted reports over the last few days in preparation for my inspection and there was one where the inspector found someone to be overminding and it was really very very negative, despite stating that the overlap had been well risk assessed and was only for a very short period - the CM was in contravention of the rules and was downgraded. Having read that, I'm wishing I hadn't had my (I beleive perfectly legal) exception now . I certainly wouldn't risk contriving one.
Edited to say: I see blue bear disagrees - interesting! Perhaps I am too cautious in my thinking
Last edited by LauraS; 04-01-2013 at 09:29 PM.
Apologies for the random full stops. Phone buttons too small, thumbs too big.
Bookmarks