Why Govt plans will cost more

[Mouse]

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]

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]

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.

[bunyip]

[QUOTE=LauraS;1205389]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?[/QUOTE]

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]

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.

Nothing clever about it, just a simple question.

Interesting reply though, thank you.

[bunyip]

I got help with the big words.

[FussyElmo]

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

[FussyElmo]

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]

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

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]

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 : 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]

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]

Do I get a gold star for reading to the end

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]

Do I get a gold star for reading to the end

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.

*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?

[FussyElmo]

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.

*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?

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

[sarah707]

*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?

Nooooooooooooo you can't do that!!

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!!

[FussyElmo]

Nooooooooooooo you can't do that!!

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!!

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

[SYLVIA]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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