Ratios

[MrAnchovy]

I understand the apprehensive feelings many people have had regarding changes to the number of children childminders are allowed to look after during a period of much uncertainty and rumour over the last nine months. The strength and depth of feeling is illustrated by the level of response to recent petitions launched before the publication of the report "More great childcare" by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (education and childcare), Liz Truss.

However many childminders already care for 2 children under one, or 4 children under 5, under the "continuity of care" arrangements of EYFS 2012 (previously under a "variation" from Ofsted). I think it is wrong to assume that the proposed changes to the regulatory regime, which may well be made by laws in the same way as the overall 1:6 limit rather than through the EYFS, will continue to allow optional variations - laws don't tend to work that way. It appears to me that a change in the law would potentially provide a clear and firm statement of limits that are no higher than those which already apply in practice to replace the current system which most people agree is confusing and open to abuse.

So if you believe that childminders should continue be able to look after twin babies, or take on two families with a full time toddler and a wrap-around pre-schooler, I think that you should consider the specifc proposals which are published in the report very carefully before reaching a conclusion on whether you are "for" or "against" them.

[Mouse]

Well said Mr A.

It's evident just from the questions on this forum asking for advice on numbers that the current system is confusing & too easy to bend. The new ratios seem to tighten up & clarify what our numbers will be. No longer will a childminder be able to have 6 children under 5, whereas they could do now. Surely that's got to be better?

[wendywu]

Well said Mr A.

It's evident just from the questions on this forum asking for advice on numbers that the current system is confusing & too easy to bend. The new ratios seem to tighten up & clarify what our numbers will be. No longer will a childminder be able to have 6 children under 5, whereas they could do now. Surely that's got to be better?

My thoughts exactly, i am for the new ratios but dont like the agency idea. Also i can now pull down the funding , where at the moment i cannot as i do not a la level 3, i have O levels and A levels and City and Guilds but at 56 and working 55 hours per week am too old and too busy to start training again and for a job i have been doing for 17 years

[Carol M]

Well said Mr A.

It's evident just from the questions on this forum asking for advice on numbers that the current system is confusing & too easy to bend. The new ratios seem to tighten up & clarify what our numbers will be. No longer will a childminder be able to have 6 children under 5, whereas they could do now. Surely that's got to be better?

I read it that under the new proposals the standard ratios will be increased to 4 ( 3 now) under 5's and within these 4 it will be standard that childminders CAN have two under 1 . We will still be able to grant exceptions to this rule for continuity of care , siblings etc as long as we do not exceed 6 under 8's. As many of us already have exceptions in place for 4+ children The only difference I can see is new childminders will be able to go straight in to having 4 under 5's- madness in my view- I think higher ratios should only be allowable to those that have been in the job for a minimum of a couple of years and/or have relevant qualifications( Childminders ratios)
I'm reading it that I could still have 6 under 5's as I don't care for over 5's..... but I would have to carefully consider the compliment of children and assess risks etc.
See, still bloomin confusing!
Carol x

[lisbet]

It is the part of the proposal concerned with changing ratios in nurseries that particularly worries me. I used to work in a nursery that strove to give responsive care to each baby and child, and it was challenging enough under current ratios, regardless of our level of education and expertise. I think more children per adult will damage the quality of relationships and early years experiences, and have an especially negative impact on the most vulnerable children.

Also, there are only a finite number of jobs for parents/ children needing care, and if large nurseries are able to get more children into the same space by meeting relatively low qualification requirements, then perhaps they will be able to attract parents away from childminders?

And I also thought it would mean that a child minder could technically have 6 early years children too?

(I'm also concerned about child minder agencies and the 'schoolification' of the early years. )

[christine e]

I think it was the idea that if we took on extra children under 5 years Ms Truss felt that we would then lower our fees - this was ludicrous especially as we would then have to reduce the number of children we cared for in the 5- 8 years band because the overall number of 6 under 8 years remains the same.

[dette]

i have to say the new ratios will make it much easier for me to be flexible with my families.i currently have 7 part time children who all need a little extra here and there and swap days and its a ballancing act .i have recently been on here asking for advice as to how i can look after a newborn full time baby with a ten and half month old part timer,luckily for me im now getting a student placement that solves the problem but i was gutted to think i couldnt help this 18yr old pregnant girl who desperatly doesnt want her baby in a nursery.current rules say only for continuity but now that these experts have said that its safe to do this then i would quite happily write myself a variation stating that it is the best interest of the baby to be with me,let OFSTED strike me down.
I have no intentions of getting new business as im pretty sure my present bunch will just fill out to use the space anyway but as mother to 7 with 13ys experience as a childminder i know that im safe to do this i only hope that less experienced people dont just think about the money as we can all tell them its not easy

[MrAnchovy]

We will still be able to grant exceptions to this rule for continuity of care , siblings etc as long as we do not exceed 6 under 8's.

That's not how I read it: it does need to be clarified as a matter of urgency.

[Wheelybug]

It is the part of the proposal concerned with changing ratios in nurseries that particularly worries me. I used to work in a nursery that strove to give responsive care to each baby and child, and it was challenging enough under current ratios, regardless of our level of education and expertise. I think more children per adult will damage the quality of relationships and early years experiences, and have an especially negative impact on the most vulnerable children.

Also, there are only a finite number of jobs for parents/ children needing care, and if large nurseries are able to get more children into the same space by meeting relatively low qualification requirements, then perhaps they will be able to attract parents away from childminders?

And I also thought it would mean that a child minder could technically have 6 early years children too?

(I'm also concerned about child minder agencies and the 'schoolification' of the early years. )

Schoolification is bad enough but the document even mentions readiness for employment

Cathy
www-pre-schoolplay.blogspot.com

[bunyip]

Schoolification is bad enough but the document even mentions readiness for employment

A lot of Tory mansions still have open fires. Those chimneys don't sweep themselves, do they?

[bunyip]

I think it was the idea that if we took on extra children under 5 years Ms Truss felt that we would then lower our fees - this was ludicrous especially as we would then have to reduce the number of children we cared for in the 5- 8 years band because the overall number of 6 under 8 years remains the same.

I see the Truss woman failed to mention how we could reduce fees when the inevitable consequence of her decisions would be increased costs and hours for CMs.

Costs: each extra child requires additional resources, and does she really believe that the insurance companies won't leap at the opportunity to increase our premiums? Given that she's a leading member of the rampant Capitalist vanguard who clearly believe everything can be reduced to £££, I'm quite sure this has occured to her, so it's extremely disengenuous not to mention it. In fact I don't even think nurseries wil do that well out of it (and I'm not usually known as an apologist for nurseries.) Once their landlords see the extra pairs of shoes at the nursery door, they'll be demanding a rent review and landlords always believe that, as the song goes, "The only way is up."

Hours: each extra child requires additional time spent on LJ's, planning, communicating and consulting with parents. I take it we just do that as a hobby in our spare time?

[justgoodfriends]

Even if we feel we can cope well with 4 everyday & I agree it would be good to have the flexibility, public perception is that 4:1 is too many children to not affect quality and safety, so this may also affect parents decisions when choosing childcare. Yes given the chance we can explain to prospective parents that we choose to work at a lower ratio, but we may not be given that opportunity. I saw first hand the reaction from parents at a toddler group recently to a minder who had 4 (v well behaved) mindies.. I could hear the mutterings that they thought it shouldn't be allowed!

[bunyip]

I think it was the idea that if we took on extra children under 5 years Ms Truss felt that we would then lower our fees - this was ludicrous especially as we would then have to reduce the number of children we cared for in the 5- 8 years band because the overall number of 6 under 8 years remains the same.

Perhaps the plan is for us CMs to run 'baby farms' for the under-5's, whilst schools revisit the moribund notion of 'extended services' (aka "detention with rations thrown in") to handle the schoolies which are due to become surplus to requirements. Unfortunately, all but 2 of our local schools did their research and found this to be financially unviable. One tried to provide decent care, 'good' food and interesting activities, but couldn't afford to continue (probably made the mistake of trying to provide good care and a decent staff wage - does this ring any bells?) The other school now rents its premises out to a privately-run before/after school organisation who cruise round the area providing a public nuisance with their branded mini-buses (referred to by many parents as "the child-catchers' carts") to be left with some stickle bricks* and a bowl of Value Spaghetti Hoops.

The money-minded moghuls at the Dept of Ed have probably done the equation:

if it takes 1 CM caring for 3 schoolies and 3 EY children 5 days to make a less than the minimum wage, is an increased number of EY children and fewer/no schoolies sufficient for a CM to offer a reduced fee and still make exactly the same pittance?

The maths is too complicated for me, but the early evidence suggests that 95% of parents and all but a few CMs think the proposal is complete bunkum.

*Please note: I have nothing against stickle bricks......... in moderation.

[christine e]

Perhaps the plan is for us CMs to run 'baby farms' for the under-5's, whilst schools revisit the moribund notion of 'extended services' (aka "detention with rations thrown in") to handle the schoolies which are due to become surplus to requirements. Unfortunately, all but 2 of our local schools did their research and found this to be financially unviable. One tried to provide decent care, 'good' food and interesting activities, but couldn't afford to continue (probably made the mistake of trying to provide good care and a decent staff wage - does this ring any bells?) The other school now rents its premises out to a privately-run before/after school organisation who cruise round the area providing a public nuisance with their branded mini-buses (referred to by many parents as "the child-catchers' carts") to be left with some stickle bricks* and a bowl of Value Spaghetti Hoops.

I have to admit that when I read about nurseries possibly becoming the 'agencies' my first thoughts were that childminders would be looking after the under 2's and then the nurseries would be enticing them over to themselves! I really could see this happening.

The money-minded moghuls at the Dept of Ed have probably done the equation:


The maths is too complicated for me, but the early evidence suggests that 95% of parents and all but a few CMs think the proposal is complete bunkum.

*Please note: I have nothing against stickle bricks......... in moderation.

**************************************************

[christine e]

oops tried to reply with a quote in red on the above thread but it doesn't seem to have worked - this is what I wanted to say after bunyip's first paragraph

I have to admit that when I read about nurseries possibly becoming the 'agencies' my first thoughts were that childminders would be looking after the under 2's and then the nurseries would be enticing them over to themselves! I really could see this happening.

[sarah707]

I read it that under the new proposals the standard ratios will be increased to 4 ( 3 now) under 5's and within these 4 it will be standard that childminders CAN have two under 1 . We will still be able to grant exceptions to this rule for continuity of care , siblings etc as long as we do not exceed 6 under 8's. As many of us already have exceptions in place for 4+ children The only difference I can see is new childminders will be able to go straight in to having 4 under 5's- madness in my view- I think higher ratios should only be allowable to those that have been in the job for a minimum of a couple of years and/or have relevant qualifications( Childminders ratios)
I'm reading it that I could still have 6 under 5's as I don't care for over 5's..... but I would have to carefully consider the compliment of children and assess risks etc.
See, still bloomin confusing!
Carol x

Yes Carol that's how I read it too.

Of course the problem is not just with childminder ratios... it is ratios throughout the whole early years sector and the implications of changes on every one of us.

The petition shows the level of feeling and concern. We now have something very strong in place to work from

[lisbet]

oops tried to reply with a quote in red on the above thread but it doesn't seem to have worked - this is what I wanted to say after bunyip's first paragraph

I have to admit that when I read about nurseries possibly becoming the 'agencies' my first thoughts were that childminders would be looking after the under 2's and then the nurseries would be enticing them over to themselves! I really could see this happening.

My local authority place eligible under 2's with child minders and then transfers them to nurseries at 2. They say they think some would benefit from staying with CM's longer, but then they have less spaces for the under 2's. I had been hoping they'd consider placing some of the 2yr olds newly eligible from September with CM's, but now I'm guessing they'll be going to newly available nursery places...

[lisbet]

Perhaps the plan is for us CMs to run 'baby farms' for the under-5's, whilst schools revisit the moribund notion of 'extended services' (aka "detention with rations thrown in") to handle the schoolies which are due to become surplus to requirements.

I can hear just hear it now: "If parents have the audacity to have children when they can't afford a Norland nanny, then they really should be grateful for baby farms instead of the workhouse"

[bunyip]

My local authority place eligible under 2's with child minders and then transfers them to nurseries at 2. They say they think some would benefit from staying with CM's longer, but then they have less spaces for the under 2's. I had been hoping they'd consider placing some of the 2yr olds newly eligible from September with CM's, but now I'm guessing they'll be going to newly available nursery places...

I can see the phrase "continuity of care" becoming consigned to history as the financial imperative takes top priority. Sad.

[mum24]

It is the part of the proposal concerned with changing ratios in nurseries that particularly worries me. I used to work in a nursery that strove to give responsive care to each baby and child, and it was challenging enough under current ratios, regardless of our level of education and expertise. I think more children per adult will damage the quality of relationships and early years experiences, and have an especially negative impact on the most vulnerable children.

Also, there are only a finite number of jobs for parents/ children needing care, and if large nurseries are able to get more children into the same space by meeting relatively low qualification requirements, then perhaps they will be able to attract parents away from childminders?

And I also thought it would mean that a child minder could technically have 6 early years children too?

(I'm also concerned about child minder agencies and the 'schoolification' of the early years. )

these are my concerns also, lisbet, The major concern is nurseries and some larger pre schools, and the agency role for childminders.
I agree with Mr Anchovy, that for childminders there is not a great deal of difference. It is not too long ago that people had very large families, I know they didn't have the eyfs, but really saying what about one needing changing while one is eating etc etc is not going to happen at every meal time is it? And families do cope with twins and toddlers up and down the country day in day out. My friend had three sets of twins under 6, and they are all still sane (just!!).
I would not encourage any kind of two tier childminder system, even to us saying a childminder must be experienced before she can use the new system. We all know our limits, strengths and weaknesses, and I think any new childminder who thinks, 'yay, four under 3, loads of dosh'...is going to get a very rude awakening if she/he is not prepared.