Ratios

[bunyip]

There's people who have a driving license who unfortunately aren't fit to drive and shouldn't be on the road, in the same way there are some childminders with Satisfactory whose practice is very poor, close to being inadequate even, and its those ones that the government is trying to prevent from drawing the funding.

Those that believe they deserve a Good will be able to pay to be re-inspected, if the proposals are approved.

pay to be reinspected - ok in full on cynical mode but does that lead to more setting being given satistfactory so they pay to be reinspected. Not like the government didnt start to see speed cameras as not a deterent or safety device but a money pit. Like I said the cynical side is out in force today [/QUOTE]

I agree (and I don't even drive!)

Of course, we've still not mentioned the fact that there are huge inconsistencies in inspectors making arbitrary judgements based on vague elements of a bad-draughted regulatory framework. The nearest CM to me was given 'satisfactory' last October and told she didn't have enough experience cos it was her first inspection. She immediately challenged this as she had re-registered after previously allowing her registration to lapse and actually had 12+ years of experience. The inspector's reply was, "well we can't give you a higher grade anyway cos you've not been working under the new EYFS for long enough." So anyone visited close to September 2012 by at least 1 inspector had already been graded before she crossed the threshold - she was only there looking for possible 'actions'.

Moggy has a good point, though I think the agency model makes it even worse, rather than solving the problem. Posit: I am in an agency when they (not I) get inspected. What if we all get 'satisfactory' cos the office is behind on its records and Ofsted happened to inspect a sample of numpties in the same agency? Now I'm stuffed for accessing funding/resources/opportunities no matter how good my service is.

[FussyElmo]

I don't think so (but could be wrong), the report is saying that the control over who is able to draw the funding will be taken from LA's - the will no longer be able to say 'you must have a level 3' and compete loads of LA devised self evaluation forms, be inspected by a LA pedagogue etc. duplicating what we already do for Ofsted. Each LA will still be allocated the funding I think.

"Local authorities currently retain 160 million a year of the funding meant to deliver early education for 3/4 years, some of which is dulpicating wrok ofsted is already doing"

As I said i have cynical head on but does anyone else think the la's have shot themselves in the foot and the government is after the money back

Also wonder how much the agencies will cost to set up

[justgoodfriends]

pay to be reinspected - ok in full on cynical mode but does that lead to more setting being given satistfactory so they pay to be reinspected. Not like the government didnt start to see speed cameras as not a deterent or safety device but a money pit. Like I said the cynical side is out in force today

I agree (and I don't even drive!)

Of course, we've still not mentioned the fact that there are huge inconsistencies in inspectors making arbitrary judgements based on vague elements of a bad-draughted regulatory framework. The nearest CM to me was given 'satisfactory' last October and told she didn't have enough experience cos it was her first inspection. She immediately challenged this as she had re-registered after previously allowing her registration to lapse and actually had 12+ years of experience. The inspector's reply was, "well we can't give you a higher grade anyway cos you've not been working under the new EYFS for long enough." So anyone visited close to September 2012 by at least 1 inspector had already been graded before she crossed the threshold - she was only there looking for possible 'actions'.

Moggy has a good point, though I think the agency model makes it even worse, rather than solving the problem. Posit: I am in an agency when they (not I) get inspected. What if we all get 'satisfactory' cos the office is behind on its records and Ofsted happened to inspect a sample of numpties in the same agency? Now I'm stuffed for accessing funding/resources/opportunities no matter how good my service is. [/QUOTE]

That's a thought.. would the agencies have a say in who they accept on to their books - maybe they will reject numpties so they get a higher Ofsted grade!! Just looked at the MGC report again.. there's actually no mention of the agencies being graded by Ofsted, only that they will be inspected.

[blue bear]

I personally don't think much will change, the lea will no longer be funded from government, so they will set up as an agency, they will continue to make childminders jump through alsorts of ridiculous hoops, attend unnecessary training, go through fccers assessments etc to be able to access funding, only thing will change will be we have to pay for the privilege.

This is a money saving exercise from the top, they don't want to pay the lea anymore that's a massive saving, they don't want to do individual inspections because it's expensive so by forcing us into agencies to be able to access training and funding that gets rid of that expense.

It's not about the children it's about cut backs but no one wants to use that term in relation to children as there would be uproar.

[Wheelybug]

This is a money saving exercise from the top, they don't want to pay the lea anymore that's a massive saving, they don't want to do individual inspections because it's expensive so by forcing us into agencies to be able to access training and funding that gets rid of that expense.

I hadn't thought of that. If responsiblity for training is taken away from LA and given to agencies, if we don't join an agency we won't be able to access training

Cathy x.

[mum24]

Just wondering....could a group of childminders not start their own agency?
Just food for thought really.

[Mouse]

Just wondering....could a group of childminders not start their own agency?
Just food for thought really.

Supposedly yes, but no one knows anything about them yet to be able to look into it properly.

[dette]

Just wondering....could a group of childminders not start their own agency?
Just food for thought really.

how about the CHILDMINDING FORUM agency ...i thought of it first ..pay me

[SammyL]

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.

Agreed - also people need to remember that we are limited by space so regardless of how many children we can look after under the new proposed ratios we will only be allowed te same number of children depending on space!

Ie nurseries who have 50 places will continue to have 50 places - some people think that we will be able to cram as many children into homes & settings as possible.

[FussyElmo]

Agreed - also people need to remember that we are limited by space so regardless of how many children we can look after under the new proposed ratios we will only be allowed te same number of children depending on space!

Ie nurseries who have 50 places will continue to have 50 places - some people think that we will be able to cram as many children into homes & settings as possible.

But the report has stated the floor space is a "trival issue" and it could be ignored.

[lisbet]

Ie nurseries who have 50 places will continue to have 50 places - some people think that we will be able to cram as many children into homes & settings as possible.

If I've remembered what it said in the report correctly, they are relaxing the rules on floorspace and requirements to have staff rooms/ rooms for private meetings with parents so nurseries WILL be able to take more children on. I guess it's the only way they could make it workable - nursery owners won't be prepared to build expensive extensions.

Now wondering if they have already done similar to CM's: Do the new style CM registrations (automatically registering the whole property with no mention of individual numbers allowed) mean that someone could have 6 mindees in a tiny home that might previously have been restricted to say, 4?

[loocyloo]

how about the CHILDMINDING FORUM agency ...i thought of it first ..pay me

i've mentioned it somewhere too ... lets share!

[dette]

i've mentioned it somewhere too ... lets share!

OK ...ITS A DEAL