Another Ratio's Question!!!

[christine e]

At the back of my mind did wonder if it had changed but just gone and had yet another look at stat guidance and cannot see anything - page 21 3.39 -3.41 details childminder ratios and there is no mention of own children there other than note 20 at bottom of page which states
20 The numbers include the childminder's own children or any other children for whom they are responsible - for example, children who the childminder is fostering.
Would have thought it would have been here if there was any change to the previous EYFS requirements

[Bear23]

really? i didn't know that x

not that it effects me either way lol, mines 9. just interesting x

[Mouse]

really? i didn't know that x

Sarah sent me a link once, but I can't find it.

Someone had posted about taking on an extra child while their own child was at nursery and a few of us had said how your own chidren still counted in your numbers even if they weren't with you.
She said in the new EYFS you could use your child's space if they were away from home in a guaranteed arrangement (or something like that). Typically I can't find the message or the link!
I've messaged Sarah to ask

[Mouse]

not that it effects me either way lol, mines 9. just interesting x

Same here. My chidren are older, but it's interesting to know!

[christine e]

not that it effects me either way lol, mines 9. just interesting x

See my post above. Can someone tell us where in the stat requirements it states that if your own children are not present then they do not have to be included in numbers. Under the old requirements your own children reduced the number on your certificate so that if you had a 1 year old your certificate was for 5 under 8 years with only 2 under 5 years. Are the new certificates going to be different?

[Bear23]

Thanks mouse x

its all soooooooooooo confusing now. x

[jane5]

I have phoned Ofsted this week with a similar situation, I signed a new baby last march to start this week, taking my dds place as she started school, in the mean time a current par time child needed to swap days meaning when this new lo started I would have 4 under 3 a couple of mornings.
Ofsted were very clear that because I could prove that the new lo parents signed the contract months ago and the proof being that they paid a deposit into my bank account last march and is on my statement then they deemed the original child taking me over my numbers was COC, having a new child to pay my bills was not a good enough reason.

I don't know about your own child being with somebody else because my dd is 4 I am only ever allowed to have 5 children under 8 with my dd taking that number up to 6 under 8.

[sarah707]

Thank you for your message Mouse.

Ofsted informed me - as you remembered - that if arrangements for your own child are secure and will not fall through then you can replace them with another child.

Ofsted state they have been reticent to authorise variations based on this type of scenario before because it is hard to prove that your own child will not, for example, be sent home from granny's house if ill or similar.

I do have the full explanation in writing if anyone wants to see it.

Hth

[JCrakers]

I have phoned Ofsted this week with a similar situation, I signed a new baby last march to start this week, taking my dds place as she started school, in the mean time a current par time child needed to swap days meaning when this new lo started I would have 4 under 3 a couple of mornings.
Ofsted were very clear that because I could prove that the new lo parents signed the contract months ago and the proof being that they paid a deposit into my bank account last march and is on my statement then they deemed the original child taking me over my numbers was COC, having a new child to pay my bills was not a good enough reason.

I don't know about your own child being with somebody else because my dd is 4 I am only ever allowed to have 5 children under 8 with my dd taking that number up to 6 under 8.

How did you manage to get this from ofsted. When I phoned and emailed with a question they basically told me to do one.....

[lynnfi]

The question is controvertial indeed but one thing retains my attention:

If Ofsted told you that it is up to you to decide, it does mean that they (or at least the person you talked to, so I would take his/her name) agree it is possible for you to do so. Otherwise they would have said no, not legally possible.

Such as if you asked if you could take 7 children below 8years old it would def be a no.

Obviously this is not the case here, if it is for you to decide. So blurred area really. There are various interpretations according to how you turn things around.

And tbh I like the fact that is is not clear, because it leaves the door opened. It all depends on individuality as far as coping and doing a great work is concerned. Some settings with 2 under five will not be great etc, while some with 4 under 5 such as in the case of PO will thrive and do great. I think that is why it is voluntary blurred.
Don't tell me they did not know what they were doing when they wrote the texts. They could in a few well chosen sentences have clarified things very much more clearly.
They chose not to do so. Just my opinion.

In the end the inspector will judge.

I would go for it if you are sure you are going to provide quality and there is no risk due to numbers.

[jane5]

How did you manage to get this from ofsted. When I phoned and emailed with a question they basically told me to do one.....

I said I wasn't totally clear on the rules and asked for their guidance as my do is on holiday and the lady agreed that I was ok because it was COC. I think it depends on who you talk to and she didn't give me permission she agreed that in my situation I was within the rules.

[samb]

Jane5

Glad you have said about your situation as I have also something similar and I was beginning to panic! In August current mindee who has come 2 days a week for nearly 2 years, Mum told me she was pregnant and that I would therefore be losing mindee at xmas. That week I had an email enquiry from a lady looking for care for her baby from january on the 2 days that current mindee attends. I spoke to current mindees mum and explained the situation and she said to go for it. I did, Mum liked me and signed up in September and so I am currently holding the space for her. In the meantime current mindees mum asked if I could continue 1 day a week, which I can do as 1 day I currently only have this mindee so in Jan will have current and new mindee so still have space. No problem. This week current mindees mum has asked me if I continue to have current mindee on the other day (taking me to 2 siblings aged 4 and by then 19months, current mindee almost 3, plus new mindee 11 months) for 5 weeks (so 5 times, the last one being the day she is booked in for a cesarean for baby). I have just said I am not sure and will have to look into it.

I can, like you prove that the contract and registration fee was paid before this for the new mindee. I would class the variation for current mindee as Mum has asked for extra hours for coninuity of care at an unsettling time for him with new baby sibling. I have had 4 under 5s on ofsted variations (the 2 siblings, the current mindee plus my son who is now ft at school) and so I am confident and have RA etc. So I am thinking that after your conversation with Ofsted I can say yes? My trouble is that other than emails from current mindees mum asking if I can continue to have him until 1st week of feb I haven't got anything in writing about him leaving as Mum spoke to me about it verbally. Do I need to get her to backdate me some letters so I have something in writing and can show she changed her mind? She is very laid back and I am sure she wouldn't mind.

[bunyip]

The question is controvertial indeed but one thing retains my attention:

If Ofsted told you that it is up to you to decide, it does mean that they (or at least the person you talked to, so I would take his/her name) agree it is possible for you to do so. Otherwise they would have said no, not legally possible.

Such as if you asked if you could take 7 children below 8years old it would def be a no.

Obviously this is not the case here, if it is for you to decide. So blurred area really. There are various interpretations according to how you turn things around.

And tbh I like the fact that is is not clear, because it leaves the door opened. It all depends on individuality as far as coping and doing a great work is concerned. Some settings with 2 under five will not be great etc, while some with 4 under 5 such as in the case of PO will thrive and do great. I think that is why it is voluntary blurred.
Don't tell me they did not know what they were doing when they wrote the texts. They could in a few well chosen sentences have clarified things very much more clearly.
They chose not to do so. Just my opinion.

In the end the inspector will judge.

I would go for it if you are sure you are going to provide quality and there is no risk due to numbers.

I think this is a very cogent and logical argument. The practical problem for all CMs is: will individual inspectors follow the same logic. As lynnfi says, "In the end the inspector will judge." 2 months into the new EYFS it's almost impossible to say how each inspector will judge and whether they'll all be following the same interpretation.

As jane5 says, when you speak to an Ofsted telephone person, "... it depends on who you talk to...". And it's not the telephone people who inspect us or, indeed, take much responsibility for what they say. (I've yet to be convinced that some of the telephone people could find a CM's address in broad daylight.)

Just to be clear, any blurring of the rules in EYFS isn't down to Ofsted cos they didn't write EYFS. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ofsted have been left just as uncertain of the precise interpretation as EY practitioners seem to be, collectively speaking. Certainly they don't want to take any responsibility, as that might mean them being liable for permitting a variation which leads to a bad consequence. But this doesn't necessarily help us when staring down the barrel of an inspection, a complaint, or an insurance company seeking wriggle-room in the aftermath of an accident.

I don't think we'll get any meaningful picture of the way this will be interpreted until a LOT of inspections have been carried out and we see a lot of feedback on this forum by inspectees (if that's a word). Until then, I think it's very much a matter of CMs' personalities, with the optimists going one way and the more risk-averse going the other. Personally, I would not take (or advise anyone else to take) too much of a risk, but play it as safe as possible. But everyone has to decide for themselves where they stand, whether they believe their variation case will pass close scrutiny, and stand or fall by that decision - bearing in mind what may be at stake: our grading? our registration? our insurance? - even that is unclear.

I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong. The next few months/years will tell. I just hope we're not going to see a wave of post-inspection CMs on these boards who've been dealt poor grades, action points, or with insurer difficulties.

[jackie 7]

the other thing is that the 3 year old can get 15 hours free. Do you provide it? if not say to the mum that 3 year old can have the free from a nursery and take on the new child. yes you like the 3 year old but its not paying the morgage and they will leave next year and with the new one you will not have to replace them that soon.

[JMcG]

[QUOTE=jackie 7;1175019]the other thing is that the 3 year old can get 15 hours free. Do you provide it? if not say to the mum that 3 year old can have the free from a nursery and take on the new child. yes you like the 3 year old but its not paying the morgage and they will leave next year.

The 3 year old attends pre school every week day morning. The reason I collect him some days is because of the nature of the shift work that mum and dad do. They can't say to pre-school we need certain set days as their shifts vary every week. Also pre-school finishes at 3pm anyway and they collect at 6pm.

It's not just about liking him, it's also that I think they will seriously struggle to make new arrangements if I give notice so I'm stuck between trying to meet my own fanatical needs and thinking about the family's childcare needs.

I'm gutted that I hadn't thought about the fact that my daughter counts all the time! Although it does seem a less risky strategy to do it this way rather than having all 4 at the same time.

Wow! What a difficult one.

[Paulab]

yes I spoke to my do and yes if you can guarantee that your own children will not come back and impact your numbers you can increase, but you cannot have them back if ill or unsettled, they said being at a nursery or other child minder is not guaranteed but if a family member ie other parent /grandparent had them they are less likely to send them home,

hope this helps

[JMcG]

yes I spoke to my do and yes if you can guarantee that your own children will not come back and impact your numbers you can increase, but you cannot have them back if ill or unsettled, they said being at a nursery or other child minder is not guaranteed but if a family member ie other parent /grandparent had them they are less likely to send them home,

hope this helps

Ok thanks. She would be with her auntie, gran, grandad or a childminder who has had her before and she sees twice a week anyway, so with family would be fine and already feels very settled with the childminder, and if she was that unwell that she couldn't be with any of those options then surely she would be at home with me and I wouldn't have my mindees anyway? Do other childminders still mind if their own children are ill? Surely that's not ok?

[Mouse]

Thank you for your message Mouse.

Ofsted informed me - as you remembered - that if arrangements for your own child are secure and will not fall through then you can replace them with another child.

Ofsted state they have been reticent to authorise variations based on this type of scenario before because it is hard to prove that your own child will not, for example, be sent home from granny's house if ill or similar.

I do have the full explanation in writing if anyone wants to see it.

Hth

Thank you Sarah

It's good to know I didn't dream it up

[jane5]

Thank you for your message Mouse.

Ofsted informed me - as you remembered - that if arrangements for your own child are secure and will not fall through then you can replace them with another child.

Ofsted state they have been reticent to authorise variations based on this type of scenario before because it is hard to prove that your own child will not, for example, be sent home from granny's house if ill or similar.

I do have the full explanation in writing if anyone wants to see it.

Hth

This is very interesting Sarah.... Does this mean that if my husband who is my assistant is at home and is in charge of dd, I could then replace her with another child??? And what are the rules now about increasing numbers if you have an assistant, when I registered dh as my assistant I didn't ask for my numbers to be increased, do I still have to apply to Ofsted to increase numbers when working with him ??

This is another case of pot luck when talking to Ofsted.
I was told I could not replace dd.