Why Govt plans will cost more

[hectors house]

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]

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."

[Mouse]

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."

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

[TAZ]

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

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]

Thank you for speaking up Mouse

.

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]

It's like deja vu - all over again.

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

[Mouse]

It's like deja vu - all over again.

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

Lack of respect is the same however you put it

[LauraS]

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]

I thought so.

Off to get some CocoPop: keep digging.

Face? Bothered?

[FussyElmo]

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]

I thought so.

Off to get some CocoPop: keep digging.

Face? Bothered?

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

Of course, you're right!

Enjoy the 'cocoPop'

[FussyElmo]

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

[Memina]

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]

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! xx

[mama2three]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.