Why Govt plans will cost more

[sarah707]

An excellent article from MSN money - well worth a read!

Why childcare plans will actually increase costs - MSN Money UK

[hectors house]

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]

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]

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

[bunyip]

Thanks Sarah. The linked article by Polly Toynbee is excellent also.

[bunyip]

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

I agree entirely.

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]

I agree entirely.

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]

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]

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?

[Mouse]

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?

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
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]

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
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

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

[Mouse]

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

[bunyip]

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.

[Mouse]

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

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

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]

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.....

[FussyElmo]

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

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]

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]

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

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

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

[bunyip]

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)"

[Mouse]

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.

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.