Ratios

[kime]

Hi guys - I was hoping someone could help me with a question about ratios please....

A lady is coming to see me & wants me to take on her 3 & 2 year olds. The 3 year old will just be for 40 minutes in the morning before taking him to school but this will take me over my limit for "young children". This will be for 3 mornings a week. Am I allowed to do this?

TIA for any help x

[jellytots2912]

No unfortunately you cannot use a variation for new business x

[dette]

could you get an assistant for that hour in the morning .You may find another parent that would be happy to walk to school with you that day.

[kime]

Thanks for your advice-the answer is what I thought! I already have my mum starting with me as an assistant but that hour in the morning takes us over :-(

[Chatterbox Childcare]

You could have 12 under 8 of which 6 can be under 5 with two of you. Do you mean you want to go to 7 or 13?

[kime]

I want to go to 7 under 5 just for that 40 minutes in morning. The rest of the time 6 under 5 with both us :-)

[Chatterbox Childcare]

Then it is a definate no no unless you have another assistant. It is a violation of law and therefore no insurance either

What a shame

[kime]

That's what I thought but wanted up double check! It is a shame but never mind!

Thanks for your help :-) x

[shortstuff]

Then it is a definate no no unless you have another assistant. It is a violation of law and therefore no insurance either

What a shame

Law? Really? I thought it was regulation? Or am i confused as normal?

[mrsrockychick]

I am so frustrated at the lack of guidance from Ofsted and my childminding advisor. I am a very experienced minder registered for 6 under 8's. I currently mind a 3 year old, a 2/ 12 and a 4 1/2 who goes to school nursery from 12-3, that is my Monday rota. Now the one year old I have the other days needs a place on Mondays too due to my job sharer pulling out.
Can I add the one year old on the basis of continuity of care, it will be for 9 weeks as then the nursery boy will be full time school.
I would still be within my numbers of 6 under 8 but on those few hours I would have 4 under 5's.
The Mum is tearing her hair out as I had already promised her a place later this year, it would be awful for this little tot who has been with me 6 months to have to do one day a week in a nursery or with another minder.
I want to do this and am happy to do risk assessment and parental permission etc but am terrified of falling foul of Ofsted!
If anyone can advise me I would be so grateful.
It was so much easier when you applied to Ofsted for a variation, you would get yes or no, black or white not this passing the buck!

[mama2three]

I would certainly do this under continuity of care .. just risk assess and be prepared to 'prove' to an inspector that taking on the extra for that session hasn't detracted from the level of service the others get...

[Simona]

I want to go to 7 under 5 just for that 40 minutes in morning. The rest of the time 6 under 5 with both us :-)

There is no such thing as '7 under 5'
The maximum number you are allowed to look after is '6 under 8' as clearly stated in the EYFS and Ofsted guidance...children over 8 do not count in your ratio

If you are not sure ...give the DfE a call...if every cm was to ring them with the query they may just get their finger out and get down to rewrite the badly worded EYFS
On top of that you could also ring Ofsted and ask them too...the more cms call the more they will wake up to the need to synchronise their policies!

Good luck

[mama2three]

There is no such thing as '7 under 5'
The maximum number you are allowed to look after is '6 under 8' as clearly stated in the EYFS and Ofsted guidance...children over 8 do not count in your ratio

If you are not sure ...give the DfE a call...if every cm was to ring them with the query they may just get their finger out and get down to rewrite the badly worded EYFS
On top of that you could also ring Ofsted and ask them too...the more cms call the more they will wake up to the need to synchronise their policies!

Good luck

Simona I was replying to mrs Rockchick , the original question is well out of date.

Mrs Rockchick you'd probably get more replies making a new thread rather than adding to a very old one.

[Simona]

Simona I was replying to mrs Rockchick , the original question is well out of date.

Mrs Rockchick you'd probably get more replies making a new thread rather than adding to a very old one.

I was replying in general terms ...not directed at anyone in particular due to the fact this issue is still very much unclear for many and both DfE and Ofsted are being asked to review their guidance.

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I was replying in general terms ...not directed at anyone in particular due to the fact this issue is still very much unclear for many and both DfE and Ofsted are being asked to review their guidance.

But 7 under 8 is extremely clear - no no no under any circumstances.

[Simona]

But 7 under 8 is extremely clear - no no no under any circumstances.

Yes CC...I have never said that was ok but I tend to use the much quoted '6 under 8' from EYFS, DfE and Ofsted
I will be relieved when we can all be sure and never have to ask again.
Fingers crossed

[Chatterbox Childcare]

Yes CC...I have never said that was ok but I tend to use the much quoted '6 under 8' from EYFS, DfE and Ofsted
I will be relieved when we can all be sure and never have to ask again.
Fingers crossed

Simona this wasn't answering your comments but general ones as I read through the whole thread

[Simona]

CC...you highlighted my words and replied underneath...how is that not replying to me directly? what is going on here?

I am finding this rather funny if not a tad sad!

I am not even sure why I input in these rather aimless discussions on 'ratios'...the more cms discuss the more complicated it seems to get.
In reality the matter of ratios issue is very simple...as it is for the rest of the workforce and to other cms elsewhere.

Let's not confuse new or established cms anymore...please!
Lets move on to the several news items that came out today about funding etc etc...much more important!

[bunyip]

Let's post lots of links instead.


My2d-worth*
I saw it as Chatterbox 'picking up and running'** with a point you'd raised. Not necessarily the same thing as replying directly.

But let's not split hares (I don't agree with coursing*** in any case. )


If anything, the point is (and I don't include the OP's case in this, so please don't anyone get upset or "offended") that a large proportion of 'variation question' threads don't seem to be about a lack of understanding of the regulations, but more about an unwillingness to want to understand them (ie. the numbers must only apply to other people, because I can cope with 12 children at a time) from CMs who just want lots of other CMs to agree with them and say "it's fine." ****


ESOL note:-
*This is 'old money' - you don't need to know.
**This is a common English idiom (...........whereas I am an uncommon English idiot. )
*** This is a tasteless pun.
**** This is a horribly over-long sentence with too many sub-clauses about which my erstwhile English master is no doubt spinning in his grave.*****
***** See **, above.

[smurfette]

[QUOTE="bunyip;1392259"]Let's post lots of links instead. My2d-worth* I saw it as Chatterbox 'picking up and running'** with a point you'd raised. Not necessarily the same thing as replying directly. But let's not split hares (I don't agree with coursing*** in any case. ) If anything, the point is (and I don't include the OP's case in this, so please don't anyone get upset or "offended") that a large proportion of 'variation question' threads don't seem to be about a lack of understanding of the regulations, but more about an unwillingness to want to understand them (ie. the numbers must only apply to other people, because I can cope with 12 children at a time) from CMs who just want lots of other CMs to agree with them and say "it's fine." **** ESOL note:- *This is 'old money' - you don't need to know. **This is a common English idiom (...........whereas I am an uncommon English idiot. ) *** This is a tasteless pun. **** This is a horribly over-long sentence with too many sub-clauses about which my erstwhile English master is no doubt spinning in his grave.***** ***** See **, above. [/QU

Lol I always thought it was splitting 'hairs'' not 'hares '!!