oh dear, in a mess with numbers

toddlers896 · 08-10-2013, 07:04 PM

to cut a long story short I have 4 in the early years as I thought I was doing right by the new eyfs taking on twin babies.
Now I am so paranoid about the whole situation and realise that I need to let them go or let one of my others go. How on earth will
I do this. I am absolutely dreading it. I have a child that ive been struggling with for four months and people are telling me to terminate this
contract but I feel so guilty and just don't know what to do. I am so annoyed with myself for getting myself into this mess in the first place.

**Ali56** · 08-10-2013, 07:08 PM

Can you explain a little more about how you got to 4? Are you sure you got it wrong or just worried that you have? So many childminders have made mistakes interpreting the rules they way they are now.

**moggy** · 08-10-2013, 07:09 PM

If you have a child who you are struggling with and you need to give notice to get back to within correct ratios I would be taking action ASAP. You have 2 very valid reasons. If you were to be inspected and you are over-numbers you could be down graded to inadequate- and you would still have to give notice. It is tough to do but I would not delay.
Only alternative is to take on an assistant, but that does sound unnecessary of you have a child you feel would be happier elsewhere.

toddlers896 · 08-10-2013, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ali56

Can you explain a little more about how you got to 4? Are you sure you got it wrong or just worried that you have? So many childminders have made mistakes interpreting the rules they way they are now.

I have two two year olds and was asked if I would take on sibling babies one day a week. I agreed to do it because one of my two year olds does a week of earlies and a week of lates and my other two year old finishes at 12 every day so I would only have four children every other week for three hrs. I thought I could change my numbers for sibling babies (twins), but apparently not.

**Ali56** · 08-10-2013, 07:32 PM

Ah, okay. If it is only for 3 hours every other week, is there a way to not have one of the 2 yrolds that day? are they at an age where one could go to pre school? Just trying to think how to not drop a child completely just for those three hours. I do agree that you need to sort it out though

If the other chiild is such a problem maybe you could suggest it to his parents first, or give them the option to end his contract. It's a difficult situation for you to be in. x

**AdeleMarie88** · 08-10-2013, 08:07 PM

To ensure you are not over, not even for three hours, how about you suggest to help the other child's behaviour, they go to nursery one day a week? Or even a morning? That way you don't lose too much money and you won't feel as if you are letting anyone down.

A nursery I worked at until very recently frequently go over ratios during sleep time, but as children are asleep, they have been told by early years that it is acceptable, (sounds peculiar to me) is this true in your case? Perhaps an easier option would be to call ofsted and seek advice!

**Bakez66** · 08-10-2013, 10:32 PM

Ofsted will just refer you back to the EYFS, I called them about variations a while ago and they said they can't advise, it is upto me to meet the requirements, he advised speaking to my co-ordinator

**littlemiss60561** · 08-10-2013, 10:44 PM

It's unfair that ofsted won't simply say yes or no. It's confusing. But I guess the safest option is to always stick to the normal ratios and don't go over regardless of continuity!
My DO was trying to find a way I could take on 5 regularly as she was stuck to find someone to take on emergency children! Hmm... I'm hoping she was joking! But did say 5 was ok if continuity .
I'd say, try the nursery idea, or.. Business head on... If you can afford it, end the contract of the one causing you grief. Without wanting to sound heartless!

**Bakez66** · 09-10-2013, 06:13 AM

I agree, you need to end the contract with one family as Ofsted won't accept this as it's new business. these situations would of been a lot easier if the increase of children we could care for went upto 4 as they were considering but so many childminders protested against it that they chose continuity of care instead which I think is more confusing.

**sarah707** · 09-10-2013, 06:47 AM

As you know, you can only go to 4 under 5 for continuity of care - not new business - so you do need to give notice to one child.

I suggest you do this urgently because you are working illegally at the moment and apart from the backlash from Ofsted it is unlikely that you will be insured.

Explain to whichever parent that you have had a change in circumstances and that you need to resolve it - if you can help them to find alternative care within the notice period stated on your contract then I suggest you do it so they leave early (refund as necessary).

Make sure you write up how you have acted to resolve the situation because this will show Ofsted that as soon as you became aware of the rules you did something straight away to stop working over ratios.

I hope that helps. Hugs x

**Bluebell** · 09-10-2013, 07:07 AM

Sarah - sorry I must be really thick - can you point me to the bit which says it must be continuity of care? In 3.40 it does not mention continuity of care and it also says exceptions can be made for exceptional circumstances. It also says exceptions can be made for sibling babies which includes twins. it does not say for sibling babies but only when its continuity of care.

I'm finding the leaflet 'The numbers and ages of children that providers on the early years childcare registers may care for' Is equally confusing as the specific example of twins in example one is new business.

Sorry - I don't mean to seem argumentative but it just seems so many people are misinterpreting the rules (- including me) so there must be somewhere that it is written more clearly that this is unacceptable and illegal that I haven't seen.

toddlers896 · 09-10-2013, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by sarah707

As you know, you can only go to 4 under 5 for continuity of care - not new business - so you do need to give notice to one child.

I suggest you do this urgently because you are working illegally at the moment and apart from the backlash from Ofsted it is unlikely that you will be insured.

Explain to whichever parent that you have had a change in circumstances and that you need to resolve it - if you can help them to find alternative care within the notice period stated on your contract then I suggest you do it so they leave early (refund as necessary).

Make sure you write up how you have acted to resolve the situation because this will show Ofsted that as soon as you became aware of the rules you did something straight away to stop working over ratios.

I hope that helps. Hugs x

I am insured by Pacey and have phoned them to check if my insurance is valid. My insurance covers me for 6 under eight and 6 over eight as everybodys will. Having more children in the early years does not make your insurance valid and says nothing about early years in the policy and they have confirmed this. Not having a contract written also does NOT make your insurance valid as a few people on here have said. They will not help you get your money back if you have no contract if a child doesn't pay you but it does not make you insurance invalid. Their words, a contract is for good practice and so that parents and yourself know where you stand.

toddlers896 · 09-10-2013, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Bluelion

Sarah - sorry I must be really thick - can you point me to the bit which says it must be continuity of care? In 3.40 it does not mention continuity of care and it also says exceptions can be made for exceptional circumstances. It also says exceptions can be made for sibling babies which includes twins. it does not say for sibling babies but only when its continuity of care.

I'm finding the leaflet 'The numbers and ages of children that providers on the early years childcare registers may care for' Is equally confusing as the specific example of twins in example one is new business.

Sorry - I don't mean to seem argumentative but it just seems so many people are misinterpreting the rules (- including me) so there must be somewhere that it is written more clearly that this is unacceptable and illegal that I haven't seen.

This is exactly how i, my do and many other cm's are reading it bluelion. Its got nothing to do with being thick, its how we all interoperate the wording. It is NOT clear in each section about what is required therefore people are making their own judgements and are sticking to it. I have finally been brainwashed into reading how they are reading it but ime still not convinced its the right answer. I wish I had an inspection coming up as I really want to get to the bottom of it.

anyway, terminating a contract today as my head is in a pickle

**hectors house** · 09-10-2013, 08:13 AM

I am sorry you have found yourself in such a situation - I think Ofsted should have someone who can advise us on "their rules" but I don't think they want to comment as they don't understand them either. A friend of mine recently got into a muddle with her numbers as she thought the new EYFS said she could now have 6 children under 8 (she didn't read the next part about ages)! Thankfully she has manage to arrange Nursery for one child and swap days for another one. I must admit I thought that you could take on twins even if you only had one space - but I have only skim read that part as it hasn't ever applied to me.

**Chatterbox Childcare** · 09-10-2013, 09:30 AM

To me the EYFS clearly states that we can have 3 under 5. If a parent or yourself have a baby then you can take the sibling into your ratio's and go to 4.

If you have 2 children and NEW business comes along, regardless of whether it is twins or 2 children under the age of 5 from the same family, you cannot take them on because you only have 1 space

this subject is repeating itself everyday and I wonder what is not clear?

Sorry if I sound harsh, I don't mean to but what is confusing?

**Mummits** · 09-10-2013, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Chatterbox Childcare

To me the EYFS clearly states that we can have 3 under 5. If a parent or yourself have a baby then you can take the sibling into your ratio's and go to 4.

If you have 2 children and NEW business comes along, regardless of whether it is twins or 2 children under the age of 5 from the same family, you cannot take them on because you only have 1 space

this subject is repeating itself everyday and I wonder what is not clear?

Sorry if I sound harsh, I don't mean to but what is confusing?

Chatterebox, what the EYFS clearly states to you is apparently not clear to everyone, including myself. Could you clarify where in the new EYFS it says what you are interpreting to rule out taking on siblings as new business?

I think the root of my confusion is that the new EYFS document actually says (at 3.40) that "exceptions to the usual ratios can be made when childminders are caring for sibling babies, or when caring for their own baby..." There is no mention of continuity of care. There is no mention of the exception only applying to existing mindees, or ruling out "new business". The only stated requirement is that the parents must be consulted. So I can't see why someone could not take on new siblings, including twins, so long as all the children's needs were met. There is not even any definition of who might be regarded as a baby.

I suspect either that a lot of people are carrying forward ideas from the old EYFS and assuming they must still apply (when that is not OFSTED's intention) OR that OFSTED did intend that these old rules/concepts should be carried forward, but have failed to reflect this in the new EYFS framework. It certainly does not help that they are washing their hands of offering any clarification. I have just raised a point for clarification and been told (wearily) by OFSTED that it is not their role to clarify their own rules and that I should seek advice from my local authority. If the rules were properly drafted nobody would be in doubt. It would also seem to me to be grossly unfair if anyone were penalised by OFSTED for breaching a rule that they refuse to clarify.

**Bluebell** · 09-10-2013, 10:54 AM

I completely agree with everything you said (except that babies are usually termed as being an under 1)

If it is so blatantly clear that the answer is no then Ofsted should say so!

**Rachel6** · 09-10-2013, 10:58 AM

What about if you already have 2 children in the eyfs which one is a sibling & then mom has twins would that count as continuity of care :-)

**Mummits** · 09-10-2013, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Bluelion

I completely agree with everything you said (except that babies are usually termed as being an under 1)

If it is so blatantly clear that the answer is no then Ofsted should say so!

I agree that we are accustomed to call children under one "babies", but a legal document really should have terms such as this unambiguously defined. Otherwise one might argue that a child of say 18 months was a baby.

This does however raise an interesting point ... If as it says a childminder may apply an exception to the usual ratios when caring for sibling babies, what happens when the baby becomes a toddler? As this highly unsatisfactory document is worded, would they then have to leave? Common sense would suggest no ... EYFS document applied literally would say yes.

Sorry Toddlers896, I am digressing!

In your current situation, I would personally seek urgent written clarification from my local authority children's services as to whether the position you find yourself in is within the new EYFS rules (and if they say not, then be prepared to give notice as suggested above). If their advice were that you are okay as you are, I would personally be prepared to argue the case with OFSTED if it came to that, taking into account firstly that the chances of them even taking an interest are pretty low, but also that I would feel quite confident of winning the argument with LA backing.

**Mouse** · 09-10-2013, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Bluelion

I completely agree with everything you said (except that babies are usually termed as being an under 1)

If it is so blatantly clear that the answer is no then Ofsted should say so!

Even that's not straight forward as babies can sometimes be classed as under 2s!

I agree with what everyone is saying about it all being open to interpretation. I do however think that some people only read the bits they want to, forgetting the fact that Ofsted fact sheets need to be read in conjunction with the EYFS framework.

Sarah & others have worked very hard to gain what clarification they can from Ofsted (higher up people, not those on a phone line) etc. At the end of the day though we must each take responsibility for our own numbers. If someone wants to grant themselves a variation they need to be very sure they are clear on why they have done it and how they think it fits in with the regulations...then keep their fingers crossed that an inspector sees it the same way

Wouldn't a clear answer from Ofsted make things so much easier? They should at least let us speak to someone in the inspection team to get their views on it.