PDA

View Full Version : Why Govt plans will cost more



sarah707
31-01-2013, 07:44 PM
An excellent article from MSN money - well worth a read! :D

Why childcare plans will actually increase costs - MSN Money UK (http://money.uk.msn.com/features/why-childcare-plans-will-actually-increase-costs#scptifs)

hectors house
31-01-2013, 07:49 PM
Have quickly scanned it, looks like someone is at least on the same wave length as us - have copied the link to e-mail to parents later

Thanks Sarah

Mouse
31-01-2013, 07:54 PM
I would take more notice of articles like that if they actually got their facts right.

The article starts off by saying about "increasing the number of kids a childminder can look after by 50% (from four children to six, with double the number of babies)". Where do these people get their figures from?

She then talks about " a nappy change for one baby would mean leaving the other baby unattended and feeding them all (and cleaning up afterwards) would in my opinion take the childminder half the afternoon". Again, why would a nappy change mean you left another baby unattended? Why would feeding & cleaning up afterwards take half an afternoon?

If she's trying to paint a picture of childminders as being stressed out imbeciles, then she's doing a very good job. If she's trying to prove any other point, she's failed miserably.

FussyElmo
31-01-2013, 08:04 PM
I would take more notice of articles like that if they actually got their facts right.

The article starts off by saying about "increasing the number of kids a childminder can look after by 50% (from four children to six, with double the number of babies)". Where do these people get their figures from?

She then talks about " a nappy change for one baby would mean leaving the other baby unattended and feeding them all (and cleaning up afterwards) would in my opinion take the childminder half the afternoon". Again, why would a nappy change mean you left another baby unattended? Why would feeding & cleaning up afterwards take half an afternoon?

If she's trying to paint a picture of childminders as being stressed out imbeciles, then she's doing a very good job. If she's trying to prove any other point, she's failed miserably.

I thought she made a very good point of how it wasnt going to reduce the cost of childcare. No one is going to want to take on more children and reduce costs. Also I did quite like the way she put that higher qualifications would increase standards but anothe pair of arms and eyes would. Basically another person then:D

bunyip
31-01-2013, 08:06 PM
Thanks Sarah. The linked article by Polly Toynbee is excellent also.

bunyip
31-01-2013, 08:10 PM
I thought she made a very good point of how it wasnt going to reduce the cost of childcare. No one is going to want to take on more children and reduce costs. Also I did quite like the way she put that higher qualifications would increase standards but anothe pair of arms and eyes would. Basically another person then:D

I agree entirely. :thumbsup:

Btw, would all the 1000's of Trussites who want to increase their numbers of mindees please speak up? But only if you're prepared to do it for the same money you're earning now.

Mouse
31-01-2013, 08:20 PM
I agree entirely. :thumbsup:

Btw, would all the 1000's of Trussites who want to increase their numbers of mindees please speak up? But only if you're prepared to do it for the same money you're earning now.

Why? Why speak up only if we're prepared to do more work for less money? I'm all in favour of an increase in numbers. I look after 4 anyway, all charged at my basic rate or higher. Does this mean that if I cut down to only 3 children now I can increase me fees for each parent?

How will it work? I currently charge £35 a day. 4 children gives me £140. If I cut down to 3, can I put my fee for the remaining parents up to £46.66, so that I still get the same daily rate?

And if I only had 3 children at £35 a day, that's £105. If one leaves can I start charging the others £52.50 each so I'm still on the same amount?

It doesn't work that the amount you charge depends on the number of children you have.

sarah707
31-01-2013, 08:30 PM
It doesn't work that the amount you charge depends on the number of children you have.

It will if we are left with no alternative but to price fix as part of an agency and they tell us what we earn per child because they pay us a wage - or no alternative but to drop prices in order to get work because that's what everyone else is doing and nurseries have so many spare places that they are aggressively marketing us and each other out of business :(

There are too many ifs and buts in the new plans. Too much uncertainty. What we do know is that they are very unpopular with a lot of different types of providers... and that we have to protect our own interests.

xx

bunyip
31-01-2013, 08:31 PM
OK, I give in.

Let the other 999 speak up if they also support Truss's manifesto so they can make a packet out of it.

In fact, if we all know exactly what we can and can't do, who needs regulation anyway? :huh:

Mouse
31-01-2013, 08:41 PM
OK, I give in.

Let the other 999 speak up if they also support Truss's manifesto so they can make a packet out of it.

In fact, if we all know exactly what we can and can't do, who needs regulation anyway? :huh:

:ROFL1::ROFL1:

So you think I have 4 children so I can make a packet out of it...this is childminding, you know? If I wanted to make a packet I certainly wouldn't be childminding :laughing:
I look after 4 children now to accommodate my current families. It's not something I set out to do. It just happened that way because of parents having more babies, or other changing jobs. I love it & find it easy. If I can do it now, why would I object to it being made possible for me to do it all the time?

As for "if we all know exactly what we can and can't do, who needs regulation anyway?", that doesn't really make sense. We know what we can do in line with regulation. Are you suggesting deregulation for childminders? Now, that is a dangerous idea and one I'd rethink if I were you.

FussyElmo
31-01-2013, 08:47 PM
:ROFL1::ROFL1:

So you think I have 4 children so I can make a packet out of it...this is childminding, you know? If I wanted to make a packet I certainly wouldn't be childminding :laughing:
I look after 4 children now to accommodate my current families. It's not something I set out to do. It just happened that way because of parents having more babies, or other changing jobs. I love it & find it easy. If I can do it now, why would I object to it being made possible for me to do it all the time?

As for "if we all know exactly what we can and can't do, who needs regulation anyway?", that doesn't really make sense. We know what we can do in line with regulation. Are you suggesting deregulation for childminders? Now, that is a dangerous idea and one I'd rethink if I were you.

I must be very unpaid as I think £140 a day is making a packet :laughing::laughing::laughing:

In fact my dh when he saw those figures said he could retire if I earned that :D

Mouse
31-01-2013, 08:54 PM
It will if we are left with no alternative but to price fix as part of an agency and they tell us what we earn per child because they pay us a wage - or no alternative but to drop prices in order to get work because that's what everyone else is doing and nurseries have so many spare places that they are aggressively marketing us and each other out of business :(

There are too many ifs and buts in the new plans. Too much uncertainty. What we do know is that they are very unpopular with a lot of different types of providers... and that we have to protect our own interests.

xx

I agree there are too many ifs and buts...and too much doom & gloom about it all. Changes are happening and there's nothing we can do to stop that. But why the assumption that everything will be bad? Admittedly there are alot of worrying aspects to the proposals, but until we know the ins & outs we're getting all het up about what "could be".

Yes it will leave us with no alternative IF we have to join an agency and have to charge a dictated fee. And IF the nurseries have spare places and IF they drop their fees..

but what if the proposed agencies don't work, what if parents prefer to rely on personal recommendation as many do now, what if we accept that not all parents will go with the cheapest option, what if parents still appreciate the value of home based childcare with lower ratios within a childminding setting?

I guess the way we look at it depends on whether we're a glass half full, or a glass half empty kind of person.

You can guess which I am (and I know I'm in the minority), but accept others aren't and do have genuine concerns about their livelihood :) I hope we hear some more definite plans so the worriers can relax a bit, or the laid back ones can jump up & act :thumbsup:

bunyip
31-01-2013, 08:58 PM
:ROFL1::ROFL1:

As for "if we all know exactly what we can and can't do, who needs regulation anyway?", that doesn't really make sense. We know what we can do in line with regulation. Are you suggesting deregulation for childminders? Now, that is a dangerous idea and one I'd rethink if I were you.

My point entirely.

Btw, I'm assuming £140 a day is a lot. It's certainly more than I could drink. :p

Mouse
31-01-2013, 08:59 PM
I must be very unpaid as I think £140 a day is making a packet :laughing::laughing::laughing:

In fact my dh when he saw those figures said he could retire if I earned that :D

But I chose to only work 4 days a week. I can only do that because I earn more for the other 4 days. I don't get that 5 days a week.

Depending where you live it might seem a lot, but around it's below the average weekly amount as I don't have any school children at all.

bunyip
31-01-2013, 09:05 PM
Depending where you live it might seem a lot, but around it's below the average weekly amount as I don't have any school children at all.

Please, please, please - tell me it's not South West Norfolk.....
:panic:

FussyElmo
31-01-2013, 09:08 PM
But I chose to only work 4 days a week. I can only do that because I earn more for the other 4 days. I don't get that 5 days a week.

Depending where you live it might seem a lot, but around it's below the average weekly amount as I don't have any school children at all.

Dh says even better he gets a day when there are no children about :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Im in a very deprived area we are lucky if parents go to work if there were any jobs.

Talking to the manager of a preschool who is struggling as it is she has said she would probably have to reduce costs and take more children just to survive in a very depressed market. Bet Ms Truss is hoping a lot of places have to do the same :(

rickysmiths
31-01-2013, 09:08 PM
An excellent article???? Sorry Sarah but I am surprised that you think that.

I do wish when people write about a topic they would research it. Frankly she has written a load of rubbish about childminders and hasn't got a clue. The facts are researched with no care for getting it right!!

Who has said we can have 50% more children? That would mean the intention is for us to be able to have 9 under 8s. I know maths isn't my strongest subject but 50% of 6 is 3 and 6 + 3 = 9. Has anyone said we will be able to have that many? I haven't read that anywhere but please tell me if I am wrong.

Not able to change one child's nappy without leaving the others alone? Says who?

Take half the afternoon to give 4 children under 5 lunch and clear up? Says who? I have given 2 under 3s, 1 under 2 and an 8 month old fresh cooked lunch and cleared up in half an hour, 45 mins at most!!!!!

Never leave the house, really??? Says who? I have had a triple buggy, a forth toddler under 3 and 2 5 year olds walking together quite safely and happily.

I dispare when I see this sort of poorly written and poorly researched article .

Mouse
31-01-2013, 09:13 PM
Please, please, please - tell me it's not South West Norfolk.....
:panic:

:laughing:

Oooh no...can you imagine having her as your MP :panic:

I'm no fan of her's at all, but don't see all her proposals as bad. It would be much easier if I did and fell into line with the majority of ...well, everyone else...but that's never been me :rolleyes:

bunyip
31-01-2013, 09:31 PM
I think it's an excellent article in terms of it's central point, but a lousy piece of journalism. Heck, some parts of the article are just plain badly-written. (Like that sentence.) But I don't think that means there's anything to cheer about in these latest regime proposals.

I use a triple buggy, but I wouldn't want to get a 4th in there too, or have too many others to watch. Even if I could, I don't think many responsible parents would want me to try. I've asked at a 2 major baby and child shops about how many child seats they would consider safe to fit in a car. Answer: 2. Legally, they could fit more, but don't recommend it. My friend's dh is a fireman and he is petrified at the sight of vehicles with more than 2 child seats, cos he knows the brigade could not expect to rescue more than 2 from a car fire.

No, I don't get the nappy argument either. :confused:

I have howver provided care for a child who can take up to 3 hours to eat lunch. I've done it as ad hoc/emergency and feel priviledged to have been trusted with him. His usual CM has this every single day of her working life. She won't be looking to fill her coffers by boosting her numbers. She won't even charge the mum extra like all th other local CMs who tried it on when mum was desperate for someone to care for her lovely but, yes, rather demanding little chap.

Maybe "More Great Childcare" should've concentrated a bit more on the "great care" and a bit less on the "more child(ren)"
:(

Mouse
31-01-2013, 09:47 PM
I think it's an excellent article in terms of it's central point, but a lousy piece of journalism. Heck, some parts of the article are just plain badly-written. (Like that sentence.) But I don't think that means there's anything to cheer about in these latest regime proposals.

I use a triple buggy, but I wouldn't want to get a 4th in there too, or have too many others to watch. Even if I could, I don't think many responsible parents would want me to try. So as a responsible childminder you wouldn't take on more children than you can comfortable get out & about? It doesn't mean anyone taking on 4 WILL do that. I have never had 4 children needing to be in a buggy. There would be no point as we'd never be able to leave the house. I don't even use a triple buggy. If I couldn't manage with a double & children walking I wouldn't take on the work.I've asked at a 2 major baby and child shops about how many child seats they would consider safe to fit in a car. Answer: 2. Legally, they could fit more, but don't recommend it. My friend's dh is a fireman and he is petrified at the sight of vehicles with more than 2 child seats, cos he knows the brigade could not expect to rescue more than 2 from a car fire. Simple - I don't drive! We walk or get the bus. Again, it's about knowing and working in accordance with your own limitations.

No, I don't get the nappy argument either. :confused:

I have howver provided care for a child who can take up to 3 hours to eat lunch. I've done it as ad hoc/emergency and feel priviledged to have been trusted with him. His usual CM has this every single day of her working life. She won't be looking to fill her coffers by boosting her numbers. She won't even charge the mum extra like all th other local CMs who tried it on when mum was desperate for someone to care for her lovely but, yes, rather demanding little chap. But that is hardly a usual situation. Generally, lunch for 4 children doesn't take hours...although we all know children who can take forever!

Maybe "More Great Childcare" should've concentrated a bit more on the "great care" and a bit less on the "more child(ren)"
:(

"More Great Childcare" sounds stupid anyway. I'm sure they could have come up with a catchier phrase.

hectors house
31-01-2013, 10:20 PM
Maybe this article was written in draft on Monday when we all thought Ms Truss was suggesting we double our numbers - originally they were saying nursery staff would look after 8 children instead of 4, but on the news they only say 6 children.

I thought on Monday that they were suggesting we have 6 children under 5, whereas luckily it is still 6 children under 8, I occasionally have 4 children and I welcome the news that we don't have to keep doing self variations for our under 5's.

nipper
31-01-2013, 10:38 PM
Er people, the Polly Toynbee article refers to the National Standards, a document written in 2001

http://www.lbcma.org.uk/standards.pdf


And as for this at the end of her rant

"Packed in with just one minder for six toddlers, many will be strapped into high chairs in front of the TV."

:angry:

Mouse
31-01-2013, 10:53 PM
And as for this at the end of her rant

"Packed in with just one minder for six toddlers, many will be strapped into high chairs in front of the TV."

:angry:

And the bit before "The extreme inequality of British society is almost insurmountable, but the best hope of changing life chances is intense family support from a friendly local children's centre with infants at the best nurseries with well-trained teachers."
So not with childminders at all then :panic:

TAZ
01-02-2013, 12:12 AM
Why? Why speak up only if we're prepared to do more work for less money? I'm all in favour of an increase in numbers. I look after 4 anyway, all charged at my basic rate or higher. Does this mean that if I cut down to only 3 children now I can increase me fees for each parent?

How will it work? I currently charge £35 a day. 4 children gives me £140. If I cut down to 3, can I put my fee for the remaining parents up to £46.66, so that I still get the same daily rate?

And if I only had 3 children at £35 a day, that's £105. If one leaves can I start charging the others £52.50 each so I'm still on the same amount?

It doesn't work that the amount you charge depends on the number of children you have.

Thank you for speaking up Mouse :thumbsup:

I too am in favour of the increase of pre-schoolers & babies that we would be able to care for. The proposed change for childminders is not that radical It gives each one of us more flexibility in our working if we want it & feel we can manage it.
I have had previous variations for just this & had no trouble in meeting the needs of these children, in fact I find 4 children often works better than 3. It does not mean that they will all need to ride in a pushchair, 2 yr olds are very good capable of walking, and as long as the situation is planned out in advance, I've had no trouble getting 4 pre-schoolers in & out of a car safely (the car seats are arranged ahead of time!!).

As for £35 daily rate, around here that would be considered very low.

Mouse
01-02-2013, 07:53 AM
Thank you for speaking up Mouse :thumbsup:

.

Thank you for your support Taz. I do feel that certain members on this board are incredibly critical of anyone who has a different point of view. I am respectful that others think differently to me, but I feel a distinct lack of respect for my views. Certain members do like to feel they are always right and refuse to accept that others may think differently. There is no set right or wrong to this issue, but it seems that unless you agree with certain members they will do their utmost to shout you down.
Discussion of different view points is good. Pure rudeness and attempts at ridicule are not.

bunyip
01-02-2013, 08:00 AM
It's like deja vu - all over again.

"Disagreeing" is not the same thing as "shouting down". :panic:

Mouse
01-02-2013, 08:07 AM
It's like deja vu - all over again.

"Disagreeing" is not the same thing as "shouting down". :panic:

Lack of respect is the same however you put it :(

LauraS
01-02-2013, 08:11 AM
I am embarrassed to say that I don't see the issue with the ratios either. How many times do we see posts on his forum where a cm wants to take on siblings beyond her ratios or similar, and s/he is advised to take in one sibling and start the second a couple of weeks later, or to take the child for one day then implement a variation etc.

We all know that variations are widely used by cms, and 'fiddled' by many. Plenty work with four ey kids as a matter of course, so I can't see the problem.

From my own personal point.of view, I have happily had four ey's before and would do so again, for the right mix.of.children.

The only bit.of the proposals I object to is the rest ;)

bunyip
01-02-2013, 08:11 AM
I thought so.

Off to get some CocoPop: keep digging.

Face? Bothered? :huh:

FussyElmo
01-02-2013, 08:13 AM
Lack of respect is the same however you put it :(

Where as there been any lack of respect - no one has been rude or insulting. As you have said everyone is entitled to a different opinion.

Come on mouse you know written word comes across much more critical that it being said.

Mouse
01-02-2013, 08:16 AM
I thought so.

Off to get some CocoPop: keep digging.

Face? Bothered? :huh:

Ah, I get it now. Sorry, was slow to catch on :laughing:

Of course, you're right!

Enjoy the 'cocoPop' ;)

FussyElmo
01-02-2013, 08:19 AM
I am embarrassed to say that I don't see the issue with the ratios either. How many times do we see posts on his forum where a cm wants to take on siblings beyond her ratios or similar, and s/he is advised to take in one sibling and start the second a couple of weeks later, or to take the child for one day then implement a variation etc.

We all know that variations are widely used by cms, and 'fiddled' by many. Plenty work with four ey kids as a matter of course, so I can't see the problem.

From my own personal point.of view, I have happily had four ey's before and would do so again, for the right mix.of.children.

The only bit.of the proposals I object to is the rest ;)

Just because some cms choose to fiddle their ratios so they can take on extra children is one of the reason the government thinks increasing ratios is the way to go. Honestly if you have four children and they are not siblings really there is no justification for taking the child on except for money. I was told at my breifing session not to go into childminding to be rich.

Do you think the government will be bothered how many cms, preschools, nurseries go out of business its entirely a vote winner and the only way people will be voting for them is to see a marked decrease in their childcare.

Im not campaigning against the ratio change etc etc Im campaigning for the children they deserve better not to be educated to be ready for employment. As the report says trivial issues such as floor space show the childrens issues is not at the heart of any change.

Ok Im of my soapbox now :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Memina
01-02-2013, 08:24 AM
Hi I have been childminding for 4 years now and I have regularly looked after 4 children and now that I'm 5 months pregnant I'm still managing to do it.

However my issue with the report is lowering my fees as mine would stay the same. I have a huge issue with these agencies mainly because I dont feel ofsted do an excellent job with inspections so if the agency is doing it and ofsted inspecting them then that feels me with all sorts of dread.

In a previous life when my first son was born we used a childminder and selected her for her nature, care and attention to my son and love of the job. I am very committed to my childminding career and although I feel its only a good thing to have the support. I have learnt far more from more experienced childminders.

Sorry for rambling but I'm so confused! Plus baby brain has truly settled in!

sarah707
01-02-2013, 08:27 AM
An excellent article???? Sorry Sarah but I am surprised that you think that.



It is an excellent article Ricky - it's got everyone talking about the issues and discussing ways forward.

Ok, it might not have some of the facts right - she is clearly not a childminder and maybe should have spoken to one of us first - but she is passionate and trying to offer her support and get the message out there to the media that there are big problems with the economics angle of Ms Truss' report.

For those of us who are also very worried about the possible implications of the plans, she has offered another angle which we can use when presenting arguments in the future.

Crikey it's a bit early in the morning to get that deep! :laughing: xx

mama2three
01-02-2013, 08:30 AM
Im somewhere in the middle here.
Mouse youre working day sounds similar to mine. The mix of littlies I currently have works. I get about. We have fun. The children progress well. Ofsted are happy ( well , were when I was inspected) Parents are happy. .
I take £140 a day when I have 4. The profit on that is around £70 - which for an 11 hour day is £6.30 ish an hour. Not a fortune - just above the minimum wage!! Add in paperwork and preparation time and its below .

Im anti-truss. She is interested purely in finances not in our children. Her proposals are largely useless - they dont meet her aim as childcare wont be cheaper for parents in general. And outcomes for children are likely to be poorer overall. She doesnt listen which is what annoys me most - hence her nickname here of 'corn' ( ears but cannot hear!)

Childminder ratios work ok for me - I think that there will always be some who take the maximum numbers without thinking how they will cope and offer a good service. If my mix of little ones was to change Im not sure I could. But thats no different to now , we can all give examples of poor practice , we can all give examples of excellent practice.

the rest of her proposals - mainly the whole agency issue - fill me with dread. We dont know exactly how these agencies will operate , and though I see mouses point about not worrying about Maybes , Im afraid that my mind works overtime and I can see exactly where all this could head.

The original point of the thread , that article , Im torn. Dreadful research and reporting ,more negativity for childminders , but a valid point about costs increasing.

migimoo
01-02-2013, 09:01 AM
Maybe i'm reading it wrong but I thought only newly registered CM's after Sept will be required to be signed to an agency?

Mouse
01-02-2013, 09:11 AM
Maybe i'm reading it wrong but I thought only newly registered CM's after Sept will be required to be signed to an agency?

That seems to be one of the fuzzy areas...and there are lots of them!

It doesn't specifically say they have to join, it does say agencies will be optional, but then it talks about how it might be good for new minders and it doesn't specifically say they don't have to join.

I wonder when we're going to get clarification on a lot of points made in the report. After months of speculation it was the big announcement we were all waiting for, but all it seems to have done is raise more questions and confusion :(

Memina
01-02-2013, 09:59 AM
Although I've read it as we dont have to join agencies this will be government initiative. So parents will big given information about the agencies first and foremost. If they are associated with the schools parents will trust them as its probably the school thier children go to.

It will be hard to get new business and I can see it being all a bit of a mess!

rickysmiths
01-02-2013, 12:08 PM
I think it's an excellent article in terms of it's central point, but a lousy piece of journalism. Heck, some parts of the article are just plain badly-written. (Like that sentence.) But I don't think that means there's anything to cheer about in these latest regime proposals.

I use a triple buggy, but I wouldn't want to get a 4th in there too, or have too many others to watch. Even if I could, I don't think many responsible parents would want me to try. I've asked at a 2 major baby and child shops about how many child seats they would consider safe to fit in a car. Answer: 2. Legally, they could fit more, but don't recommend it. My friend's dh is a fireman and he is petrified at the sight of vehicles with more than 2 child seats, cos he knows the brigade could not expect to rescue more than 2 from a car fire.

No, I don't get the nappy argument either. :confused:

I have howver provided care for a child who can take up to 3 hours to eat lunch. I've done it as ad hoc/emergency and feel priviledged to have been trusted with him. His usual CM has this every single day of her working life. She won't be looking to fill her coffers by boosting her numbers. She won't even charge the mum extra like all th other local CMs who tried it on when mum was desperate for someone to care for her lovely but, yes, rather demanding little chap.

Maybe "More Great Childcare" should've concentrated a bit more on the "great care" and a bit less on the "more child(ren)"
:(

I'm sorry but that is just daft! I have never heard that ever. What an earth do the friends I have who have 3 and 4 children do for a start? Parents who have 2 children, go for a third and have twins!

Surely it depends on the car and are you implying that no childminder should have more than 2 car seats in a 7 or 8 seater? I have friends who are firemen and traffic policemen and have never commented on me carrying 4 under 3s in my car.

I have a large hatch back car and always have 3 seats in the back. They have been carefully selected so they fit correctly. I am then able to have a forth in the front because I can isolate the air bag. This is fitted according to the car manufacturers recommendations and again the seats used were purchased for the car they are used for. 3 of the 5 seats I own were purchased at halfords and they come out to the car and fit the seats to see that they fit correctly, we tried a few before they did fit correctly.

If this statement is correct then I suspect that a very large number of parents and childminders are breaking it.

If it is the case then why is it not pointed out by MM and Blu Fin who Richard's CC.co are going to be using not inform you that your insurance is invalid if you have more than 2 car seats in the car? I'm sure they would make it a condition of covering us if this was the case. The only advise I have ever been given is that I would not be covered if I carried more than the number of passengers tan my car was designed to carry and that in my case is five.

Over the last five years I have often cared for 4 under fives and they have always been under 3 with often one under one in the mix. I have always asked the parents in my care if they are happy and the answer has always been yes. It has always been to accommodate their children though! It hasn't put prospective parents off either, I have just signed a contract with a couple part time and they did ask what would happen if they had another one or wanted to increase their days at any time in the future. I explained I would have to RA for a variation and ask the other parents and then I could have 4 of them. The thought of 4 didn't stop them signing. So parents are different and so are we in what we are happy and comfortable doing. I have also had 4 under 3s and two 5-6-7yr olds after school though I do try to have no more that 2 in a buggy at one time with the others walking.

bunyip
01-02-2013, 01:02 PM
I'm sorry but that is just daft! I have never heard that ever. What an earth do the friends I have who have 3 and 4 children do for a start? Parents who have 2 children, go for a third and have twins!

Surely it depends on the car and are you implying that no childminder should have more than 2 car seats in a 7 or 8 seater? I have friends who are firemen and traffic policemen and have never commented on me carrying 4 under 3s in my car.

I have a large hatch back car and always have 3 seats in the back. They have been carefully selected so they fit correctly. I am then able to have a forth in the front because I can isolate the air bag. This is fitted according to the car manufacturers recommendations and again the seats used were purchased for the car they are used for. 3 of the 5 seats I own were purchased at halfords and they come out to the car and fit the seats to see that they fit correctly, we tried a few before they did fit correctly.

If this statement is correct then I suspect that a very large number of parents and childminders are breaking it.

If it is the case then why is it not pointed out by MM and Blu Fin who Richard's CC.co are going to be using not inform you that your insurance is invalid if you have more than 2 car seats in the car? I'm sure they would make it a condition of covering us if this was the case. The only advise I have ever been given is that I would not be covered if I carried more than the number of passengers tan my car was designed to carry and that in my case is five.

Over the last five years I have often cared for 4 under fives and they have always been under 3 with often one under one in the mix. I have always asked the parents in my care if they are happy and the answer has always been yes. It has always been to accommodate their children though! It hasn't put prospective parents off either, I have just signed a contract with a couple part time and they did ask what would happen if they had another one or wanted to increase their days at any time in the future. I explained I would have to RA for a variation and ask the other parents and then I could have 4 of them. The thought of 4 didn't stop them signing. So parents are different and so are we in what we are happy and comfortable doing. I have also had 4 under 3s and two 5-6-7yr olds after school though I do try to have no more that 2 in a buggy at one time with the others walking.

I'm not about to contradict this view. It appears no more or less valid than my own post. I'm not a driver and have no personal experience of or expertise in fitting child seats. I am merely reporting what I've been told by a single fire officer and 2 individuals at branches of major 'mother and baby' retail chains when I accompanied a fellow CM who wanted to replace some of her child safety equipment. I may be 'daft' (Mrs Bunyip says "definitely";)) but I am not making it up.

The store mentioned the risk from airbags, so I fully accept the point about isolating them. They did say they were able to fit more than 2 seats and that it was perfectly legal, but that they would not advise or recommend it. The CM I was with had a standard 4-seater car, and I can only assume that more firefighters can access more passengers in larger/multi-doored vehicles.

On the insurance issue, I'm never convinced that insurance rules or premiums are entirely based on logic. They've spent a long time basing them on prejudice instead. It remains to be seen whether all CMs will have to pay higher premiums to cover an insurer's perception of risk based on increased numbers, irrespective of the individual's actual numbers (since PLI policies seem to be issued at a fixed price.)

I'm not questioning whether RS or any other individual CM is capable of minding 4 or whether a particular group of parents are happy with it or not. I'm entirely confident that your parents are happy with it or you wouldn't be doing it. But I do think there are wider issues about what should be the norm, and what many parents think of it. The whole industry/profession (call it what you will) could be about to have its reputation tarnshed in the public perception, as many parents see low ratios and something close to 1-to-1 care as one of the main unique selling points of CMing.

AFAICS, the Trussite doctrine is that her proposals form an integrated, holistic package in which raised numbers are inextricably linked with an expectation of lowered fees. Even leaving aside any argument against higher numbers, it's dangerous to cherry-pick and think we can take what we like from the Truss manifesto and reject what we find unpalatable. It, she, and the rest of the ConDemNation doesn't work like that. :(

Mouse
01-02-2013, 01:08 PM
I'm not questioning whether RS or any other individual CM is capable of minding 4 or whether a particular group of parents are happy with it or not. I'm entirely confident that your parents are happy with it or you wouldn't be doing it. But I do think there are wider issues about what should be the norm, and what many parents think of it. The whole industry/profession (call it what you will) could be about to have its reputation tarnshed in the public perception, as many parents see low ratios and something close to 1-to-1 care as one of the main unique selling points of CMing.

AFAICS, the Trussite doctrine is that her proposals form an integrated, holistic package in which raised numbers are inextricably linked with an expectation of lowered fees. Even leaving aside any argument against higher numbers, it's dangerous to cherry-pick and think we can take what we like from the Truss manifesto and reject what we find unpalatable. It, she, and the rest of the ConDemNation doesn't work like that. :(

Out of interest, have you ever minded 4 children at once?

LauraS
01-02-2013, 01:23 PM
Just because some cms choose to fiddle their ratios so they can take on extra children is one of the reason the government thinks increasing ratios is the way to go.

I know, I suppose all I'm saying is that its not a lot.different from the situation we have at present from the child's point of.view. Many cms already have four, rightly or wrongly, whether doing a good job or not.

From a nursery perspective, the rise makes me weep, though. Four babies would be very, very tough.


Honestly if you have four children and they are not siblings really there is no justification for taking the child on except for money.

Really? Surely there are lots of circumstances in which having four mindees is justifiable?

bunyip
01-02-2013, 01:24 PM
Out of interest, have you ever minded 4 children at once?

Personal interest?

If you mean 4 EY children, as a paid job, on my own, then "no". If I ever did, then it wouldn't be the norm.

If the question is posed in the Bugs-Bunny-as-Groucho-Marx "Have you stopped beating your wife? Please answer yes or no" style then I have to concede you have hit upon a double-jeopardy poser of pharisaic proportions. How clever. :D

bunyip
01-02-2013, 01:27 PM
I know, I suppose all I'm saying is that its not a lot.different from the situation we have at present from the child's point of.view. Many cms already have four, rightly or wrongly, whether doing a good job or not.

From a nursery perspective, the rise makes me weep, though. Four babies would be very, very tough.



Really? Surely there are lots of circumstances in which having four mindees is justifiable?

Absolutely. But until this week there were good reasons for it to be "exceptional" and not the norm. The only reason for the change is money. :(

Mouse
01-02-2013, 01:31 PM
Personal interest?

If you mean 4 EY children, as a paid job, on my own, then "no". If I ever did, then it wouldn't be the norm.

If the question is posed in the Bugs-Bunny-as-Groucho-Marx "Have you stopped beating your wife? Please answer yes or no" style then I have to concede you have hit upon a double-jeopardy poser of pharisaic proportions. How clever. :D

Nothing clever about it, just a simple question.

Interesting reply though, thank you.

bunyip
01-02-2013, 01:32 PM
I got help with the big words. :rolleyes:

FussyElmo
01-02-2013, 01:32 PM
I know, I suppose all I'm saying is that its not a lot.different from the situation we have at present from the child's point of.view. Many cms already have four, rightly or wrongly, whether doing a good job or not.

From a nursery perspective, the rise makes me weep, though. Four babies would be very, very tough.



Really? Surely there are lots of circumstances in which having four mindees is justifiable?

Ok maybe a parent increasing hours :-)

Yes but I also read about cms already having 5 under 5 (and under 3) and how many people actually think we can have 6 under 5.

I believe very strongly that the ratios were set having the child interest however this new plan does not take the childs interest into consideration. More so in the nurseries the child is appearing as cash signs :panic:

FussyElmo
01-02-2013, 02:31 PM
Think there is a spilt betweent the minders who dont take more than 3 maybe the need has never arisen and the minders who have becuase of continuity of care.

I think its hyporcritical of people (none on this thread I hasten to add) who have 4 maybe 5 under 5 and are then saying the ratios shouldnt be changed. Mmmm really you say its alright for you but not ok for everybody else.

I personally dont think i would want 4 but thats my personal perference however if it was to keep a long standing mindee.

Again I say that Im campaigning and supporting the petition because of the damage I think it will do to the next generation of children. If that means using the increase in ratio apart from continuity of care as it is now I consider that a small price to pay

Mouse
01-02-2013, 03:07 PM
Think there is a spilt betweent the minders who dont take more than 3 maybe the need has never arisen and the minders who have becuase of continuity of care.

I think its hyporcritical of people (none on this thread I hasten to add) who have 4 maybe 5 under 5 and are then saying the ratios shouldnt be changed. Mmmm really you say its alright for you but not ok for everybody else.

I personally dont think i would want 4 but thats my personal perference however if it was to keep a long standing mindee.

Again I say that Im campaigning and supporting the petition because of the damage I think it will do to the next generation of children. If that means using the increase in ratio apart from continuity of care as it is now I consider that a small price to pay

I agree with you completely. I have questioned why those who look after 4 or 5 are petitioning against an increase. How can you petition against something you are doing already? Surely their justification & reasoning for not having a general increase would stop them from having that many children in the first place :huh:

And I agree that the split comes because some childminders having experience of looking after more than 3 under 5s and others not having had that experience. Maybe it seems impossible to those who have never done it, but unless you try it you can only have a guess at what it might be like. Reality could be very different...or ir could be every bit as bad as you imagine! Maybe the answer is to have to prove you can increase your numbers, rather than having a general increase for everyone? Then those who wanted to do it could apply to & those who don't to wouldn't feel pressured to take on more than they can comfortably manage.

bunyip
01-02-2013, 04:47 PM
I broadly agree with posts 48 and 49 (Elmo and Mouse) and certainly don't see how it can make sense to petition against something one is doing already. The idea of a CM proving they can do it is an emanently sensible one :thumbsup:: though it remains to be seen whether Ofsted's somewhat arbitrary processes could adequately manage this, but let's leave the detail for now.

One of my biggest practical worries (there are several, but I won't bore you all with too many column inches) is about what becomes accepted as 'normal' for everyone. What I like about the current system is that it sets a safer figure of 3 EY children as the norm, and requires anything beyond that to be 'exceptional'. What I don't like is that the guidance is far too vague about what actually counts as 'exceptional'. It's as if Ofsted are inviting CMs to put their necks in a noose and wait until inspection to see the individual inspectors will kick away the stool. Add to that, some DOs and even some Ofsted phone-bods seem to be merrily encouraging CMs to find a way round the rules in somewhat contrived ways. That surely can't be right?

It is quite possible that I may find myself in a silly situation over a 'rising 5' in September. This is not through any choice of mine or the parents', but because school only have the reception class in for half days over the first 1-2 weeks. The child is the same age, has the same needs, etc. but he won't officially be a 'schoolchild' until he starts on 10 sessions a week. Arbitrary nonsense, but I'll need to do an equally arbitrary self-managed variation all the same.

Fact: some experienced CMs have gradually learnt that with the right mix of children and happy parents they can make an excellent job of looking after 4 lo's sometimes. But, does that mean every single CM should do so? I don't think it does. Neither do I think it's quite enough to simply say that every CM, irrespective of experience, situation, etc. should just self-manage the numbers issue. A lot of you will disagree with me here - "hey, Bunyip, whatever happened to individual responsibility?" But I say this cos virtually every pre-reg prospective CM eventually comes out with the same question: "how many children can I have?" There's pretty much always an active thread on that topic every week. I always want to say, "well, how many can you manage?" but the replies are always just quoting the official limits, and I guess almost every new CM holds that figure in mind like it's a target they have to fulfil. That's a concern, and I think we have to address it collectively, with some sort of system where we all carry a collective responsibility that protects the reputation of CMing for all our sakes. Like it or not, whenever an individual CM gets something wrong, we all lose a tiny piece of credibility. Before you say that can't happen, take a look at the lack of public respect for social workers.

In my view, the numbers element of the Truss proposals are actually the least worrying aspect of the whole thing. But i don't think they provide an adequate solution to the puzzle of how to allow some CMs to legitimately do what they're capable of whilst asking the over-eager to maybe wait a while and take it easy. Moreover, I don't think the proposals are offered with a view to us taking a pick-and-mix approach towards what we like or find distasteful therein. I've a nasty feeling that each time a CM says, "I like that bit" it will be ticked off as a positive voice in favour of the whole document and thus provide succour to the politicians who have very different plans for us. It'll be spun as "##% of childcare workers favour at least some part of the plan, and we're working to find consensus on...blah, blah"

Sorry, that's still pretty long and I hope it makes some sort of sense. Thanks for reading this far. :)

justgoodfriends
01-02-2013, 04:57 PM
The MGC report states that it is a Ten Year Plan so the agencies may not be created for a long time yet, maybe never if we have a change of govt before then?!

Mouse
01-02-2013, 05:03 PM
Do I get a gold star for reading to the end :D

One thing I do agree with is not being able to pick & chose which bits of the propsal we like & which we don't. It seems to come as a whole & we can either be for it or against it. Too many parts are intertwined for them to be stand alone considerations. I guess there is more I dislike about it than like about it, so if it came down to a simple for or against vote, I'd have to go with against and lose out on the bits I consider good :(

As for what "exceptional" means, I'm pretty sure it comes into the same category as food packaging labelled "20% tastier" or "now, 50% healthier". They sound impressive, but are actually completely unquantifiable.

bunyip
01-02-2013, 05:52 PM
Do I get a gold star for reading to the end :D

One thing I do agree with is not being able to pick & chose which bits of the propsal we like & which we don't. It seems to come as a whole & we can either be for it or against it. Too many parts are intertwined for them to be stand alone considerations. I guess there is more I dislike about it than like about it, so if it came down to a simple for or against vote, I'd have to go with against and lose out on the bits I consider good :(

As for what "exceptional" means, I'm pretty sure it comes into the same category as food packaging labelled "20% tastier" or "now, 50% healthier". They sound impressive, but are actually completely unquantifiable.

Give yourself a gold star. :)

My personal preference* would be to:-
1. First of all kick 'More good childcare' a very long way into the long grass.
2. Apply pressure through a representative body (eg. NCMA if they aren't too busy 'rebranding') to get Ofsted/Dept of Ed to review the whole mess of interpreting 'exceptional' variations, etc. and look for a better system, as previously discussed.

It might not even be too much to hope that Ofsted would eventually reach the same conclusion under their own steam once their 'quality assurance' checks start highlighting the problems of passing arbitrary judgements via an ill-devised and vague regulation. They might then move on to tell the press what "and" means. :huh:

*Actually, this isn't entirely true. My personal preference would be to send the Truss woman to the salt mines, pursued by a large swarm of giant killer piranha-bees, but then you can't have everything, can you? :rolleyes:

FussyElmo
01-02-2013, 05:58 PM
Give yourself a gold star. :)

My personal preference* would be to:-
1. First of all kick 'More good childcare' a very long way into the long grass.
2. Apply pressure through a representative body (eg. NCMA if they aren't too busy 'rebranding') to get Ofsted/Dept of Ed to review the whole mess of interpreting 'exceptional' variations, etc. and look for a better system, as previously discussed.

It might not even be too much to hope that Ofsted would eventually reach the same conclusion under their own steam once their 'quality assurance' checks start highlighting the problems of passing arbitrary judgements via an ill-devised and vague regulation. They might then move on to tell the press what "and" means. :huh:

*Actually, this isn't entirely true. My personal preference would be to send the Truss woman to the salt mines, pursued by a large swarm of giant killer piranha-bees, but then you can't have everything, can you? :rolleyes:

As long has she takes micheal "I'm trying to ruin education " gove with her :thumbsup:

sarah707
01-02-2013, 05:58 PM
*Actually, this isn't entirely true. My personal preference would be to send the Truss woman to the salt mines, pursued by a large swarm of giant killer piranha-bees, but then you can't have everything, can you? :rolleyes:

Nooooooooooooo you can't do that!! :panic:

Most of the salt mines are in Northwich just down the road from me and we really don't want her here just now we are all too cross!! :panic:

FussyElmo
01-02-2013, 06:04 PM
Nooooooooooooo you can't do that!! :panic:

Most of the salt mines are in Northwich just down the road from me and we really don't want her here just now we are all too cross!! :panic:

Not far from me neither perhaps a forum get together to watch bunyip chuck in her the mine :thumbsup:

SYLVIA
01-02-2013, 09:32 PM
So many thoughts on the ratio question that I'm rethinking my position. I do have 4 under 5 half a day or a day if needed. It would depend on the children I had and their ages as to whether `i took one on permanently. So maybe I am not so anti the ratio change. However if agencies become involved and are able to dictate how many mindees I have to have then I do have a problem. Only I know if `i can cope with more LO's at any particular time as I am the only one providing the care and the service to the parents. I have to say that the parents I have are not in favour of increased numbers

rickysmiths
01-02-2013, 10:02 PM
Think there is a spilt betweent the minders who dont take more than 3 maybe the need has never arisen and the minders who have becuase of continuity of care.

I think its hyporcritical of people (none on this thread I hasten to add) who have 4 maybe 5 under 5 and are then saying the ratios shouldnt be changed. Mmmm really you say its alright for you but not ok for everybody else.

I personally dont think i would want 4 but thats my personal perference however if it was to keep a long standing mindee.

Again I say that Im campaigning and supporting the petition because of the damage I think it will do to the next generation of children. If that means using the increase in ratio apart from continuity of care as it is now I consider that a small price to pay


As I understand it though you will not have to have four under fives if you don't want to.

Those of us do will be able to without it being continuity of care or siblings which I think is good. I have never understood the logic of allowing me to have four on those terms but not four if it was new business. Yes there is of course an element of if I have four I earn more money. And yes I do consider the long term when I take on new families. Siblings can be like chalk and cheese so why not if Ofsted have confirmed they think me suitable to care for four under fives should it not be for new business? It could increase my income significantly I admit it and that is an attractive proposition, I admit it.

I don't see any long term harm to the children if I care for four of them at once. I enjoy it because I actually feel if you have the right mix of children the 4th makes it feel like a real group.

I quite understand if people don't want 4 under 5s that is their choice of course.

FussyElmo
02-02-2013, 06:51 AM
As I understand it though you will not have to have four under fives if you don't want to.

Those of us do will be able to without it being continuity of care or siblings which I think is good. I have never understood the logic of allowing me to have four on those terms but not four if it was new business. Yes there is of course an element of if I have four I earn more money. And yes I do consider the long term when I take on new families. Siblings can be like chalk and cheese so why not if Ofsted have confirmed they think me suitable to care for four under fives should it not be for new business? It could increase my income significantly I admit it and that is an attractive proposition, I admit it.

I don't see any long term harm to the children if I care for four of them at once. I enjoy it because I actually feel if you have the right mix of children the 4th makes it feel like a real group.

I quite understand if people don't want 4 under 5s that is their choice of course.

Well I have four children so I have to deal with four 24/7 :D

I have no doubt I can cope with 4 - dont think I would want to and Im sure a lot of good minders can easily do it - may be tired at the end of the day.

But what about the minders who cant? The ones who dont bother with anything as it is. One accident and WE all be tarred with that brush that we have put children at risk for money.

As I said the increase in ratios for cms in not that bad - under the eyfs now we can grant variations for 4 under 5 and there are people out there who are going above this number. BUT it wouldnt bother me if we lost the increase and the status quo applied if the MORE GREAT CHILDCARE got thrown onto the scrapheap.

And it does need throwing when it say preparing children and not just children babies for employment

bunyip
02-02-2013, 05:11 PM
As long has she takes micheal "I'm trying to ruin education " gove with her :thumbsup:

We could fasten them together. I could borrow a nailgun. ;)

rickysmiths
02-02-2013, 05:51 PM
Well I have four children so I have to deal with four 24/7 :D

I have no doubt I can cope with 4 - dont think I would want to and Im sure a lot of good minders can easily do it - may be tired at the end of the day.

But what about the minders who cant? The ones who dont bother with anything as it is. One accident and WE all be tarred with that brush that we have put children at risk for money.

As I said the increase in ratios for cms in not that bad - under the eyfs now we can grant variations for 4 under 5 and there are people out there who are going above this number. BUT it wouldnt bother me if we lost the increase and the status quo applied if the MORE GREAT CHILDCARE got thrown onto the scrapheap.

And it does need throwing when it say preparing children and not just children babies for employment

Unfortunately there are minders who can't cope with the current ratios and there are ones who don't do anything now. I know some who fit those descriptions but why should that stop a good childminder who can and does from the chance to earn some more money when the care and learning of the children is not in any way compromised?

I know a number of excellent childminders who can for 4 under fives and they are often 4 under 3s. The children are very well cared for, loved and they go out and about. I would hesitate to leave my own children with the kind of minder mentioned before but would hesitate with the ones I know who often have four children.

I do agree with you about the More Great Childcare!

To be honest the thought of the 'Agencies' fills me with far more fear and trepidation than the Ratios issue. It is ill thought through, it will increase the cost of childcare to the parent and decrease the childminders income. It will decrease choice for parents and childminders will have no motivation to excel so childminding will eventually become dull and grey and lake interest. Motivated highly qualified people will no longer see it as a viable career and so they will get less qualified, less motivated people becoming childminders and so the quality will reduce. There will be a certain kind of parent who won't care because it is there on a plate, the Agency will always provide holiday and sickness cover and it will be cheap and they take little interest as long as the child is cared for fed and changed.

The parents who do care will do everything they can to employ a Nanny who can work in their home with their children, who they have some control over as to what is done, who they can motivate to take the children to the activities they want their children to go to.

I fear childminding as we know it now will be all but gone in 5-7 years and I fear for my son and daughter as to what choice at what cost they will have when they have their children. I hope they will be in careers that pay well enough for them to be able to have a choice.

JCrakers
02-02-2013, 06:38 PM
I'm with the ratio changes..so haven't signed the petition.

My week consists of
Mon- 4 under 5
Tues - 4 under 5
Weds - 3 under 5
Thurs - 3 under 5
Fri - 2 under 5

Mum of a child who attends mon,tues and weds has asked for a thurs and fri and I've said yes. I'll have to write a detailed risk assessment again, having already done about 8 since September for children swapping or adding extra days for parent work training, funerals, staff sickness at work amongst other reasons that the parents have to go into work.
If I was allowed 4 under 5 which is quite manageable having worked with children for 18yrs then that would benefit me, not for financial reasons (although its nice to have extra money) but I could do the extra days without having to stress about how I'm going to show ofsted how I coped.

FussyElmo
02-02-2013, 07:30 PM
I'm with the ratio changes..so haven't signed the petition.

My week consists of
Mon- 4 under 5
Tues - 4 under 5
Weds - 3 under 5
Thurs - 3 under 5
Fri - 2 under 5

Mum of a child who attends mon,tues and weds has asked for a thurs and fri and I've said yes. I'll have to write a detailed risk assessment again, having already done about 8 since September for children swapping or adding extra days for parent work training, funerals, staff sickness at work amongst other reasons that the parents have to go into work.
If I was allowed 4 under 5 which is quite manageable having worked with children for 18yrs then that would benefit me, not for financial reasons (although its nice to have extra money) but I could do the extra days without having to stress about how I'm going to show ofsted how I coped.

Yes but I dont think you can look at the proposal and say oh I like that bit that suits me but I object to that bit.

I think as I have said many times and keep on saying I fighting the proposals for the children and if we lose the increase in ratios that would be ok. Not that it affects any minders who are at the min looking after 4 if the status quo remained.

bunyip
02-02-2013, 08:05 PM
The document comes from an MP who got her ministerial seat by convincing a right-wing think-tank that she could put us back in our place, teach the entire childcare sector a thing or 2 and reduce the cost of childcare without it costing government a penny. After all she's got a career: we, OTOH, only exist to make sure people with "proper jobs" can put in the maximum hours.

It's led by money, driven by money, and is all about money.

i think there needs to be a lot less: Money, Money, Money

and a bit more: Children, Children, Children. :mad:

(....no matter how much we like Abba.) :rolleyes: