Unemployed to be trained as Childminders by PACEY

[angeldelight]

Please be pro active and not react to one bit of a statement...ncma caved in to a request to clarify and the rest will come next week
We need to know the full picture before we decide to stay or jump ship
you have more voice within ncma that out of it...once you leave no one will listen...petitions do nothing unless they are e-petitions that get debated in the House of Commons

the ncma events are coming up so this is the opportunity to get heard...also write to them...go on ncma local and voice your concerns as they go straight to the CEOs...contact your ncma NPF rep and tell her how you feel....approach your LA and tell them you are worried about this influx of cms, what are their plans?

we need a plan B as I have said but this reaction is not going to work...agencies are coming, new cms recruited, LAs may disappear... what can we do to survive is the vital question?
if you have ideas let me know

Chatting ...petitions which I agree are pointless most of the time ...it's going to happen whatever by the looks of things

I think you must have skipped the last few messages here ....we were saying no point in jumping ship yet ....a lot will stay anyway whatever happens

No point getting upset if some leave Pacey now .... because that will happen too

Like Sam suggested ... Let's see what they say next week

Angel xx

[Simona]

I feel I have read the messages correctly and I have also said no need to jump ship...which is the other ship we would go to as we have little info what they would offer as none of the other associations have finalised their package as yet for cms??

The plan would be to do something which I have suggested...I have done all those things listed below and have also lobbied ncma yesterday into giving a response and which has made cms start a discussion on ncma Local...

I have also visited my MP 3 times and got 3 letters from him
I have written to the DfE and still communicating with them, I wrote to Sue Gregory twice and got 2 responses and have hundreds of emails to many MPS and responded to all consultations so far and will be attending ncma event soon to put my questions to them...that is what I am trying to encourage others to do

ncma have stated more clarification will come next week in the message below...how they are passing that message on no one knows...ncma local, newsletter, email to volunteers, general statement? whichever method they choose it will be shared

[angeldelight]

Calm down Simona

It's the weekend ...smile

Have a break ...relax

Have a good one

Angel xx

[Simona]

I am very calm and by the responses below looks like others cms are engaging in discussion positively and sharing information.

[SammySplodger]

Chatting ...petitions which I agree are pointless most of the time ...it's going to happen whatever by the looks of things

I think you must have skipped the last few messages here ....we were saying no point in jumping ship yet ....a lot will stay anyway whatever happens

No point getting upset if some leave Pacey now .... because that will happen too

Like Sam suggested ... Let's see what they say next week

Angel xx

My membership runs until January anyway. Let's just say I'm keeping a VERY close eye on what PACEY do this year. If I still feel unhappy with them, I won't renew it. To be honest, if it was coming up for renewal right now, I don't think I would - not sure what they stand for any more and 'how the land lies'. Too many uncertainties that need clarifying.

What I can see is an awful lot of money being wasted by these grants. If the new CMs are expected to do all their training (including Maths & English?) BEFORE registering, how many could potentially get rejected when they apply? Oh, sorry, silly me, I forgot: it will be 'more straight forward' to register via Agencies...

And how many will complete the training and actually become CMs? I am not ashamed to admit that I really struggled to get my head around CYPOP5 and I am educated to degree level. As we all know... it's just not that easy. Never mind the actual day to day hard graft that goes into being a CM.

Massive confusion, a series of horrendous co*k ups and complete decimation of the CM registration system as we now know it by a government who surely....SURELY! won't still be here by 2015. They (Truss & co) just don't give a monkeys, because their days are numbered.... 760 days to be exact. AND COUNTING.

[angeldelight]

My membership runs until January anyway. Let's just say I'm keeping a VERY close eye on what PACEY do this year. If I still feel unhappy with them, I won't renew it. To be honest, if it was coming up for renewal right now, I don't think I would - not sure what they stand for any more and 'how the land lies'. Too many uncertainties that need clarifying.

What I can see is an awful lot of money being wasted by these grants. If the new CMs are expected to do all their training (including Maths & English?) BEFORE registering, how many could potentially get rejected when they apply? Oh, sorry, silly me, I forgot: it will be 'more straight forward' to register via Agencies...

And how many will complete the training and actually become CMs? I am not ashamed to admit that I really struggled to get my head around CYPOP5 and I am educated to degree level. As we all know... it's just not that easy. Never mind the actual day to day hard graft that goes into being a CM.

Massive confusion, a series of horrendous co*k ups and complete decimation of the CM registration system as we now know it by a government who surely....SURELY! won't still be here by 2015. They (Truss & co) just don't give a monkeys, because their days are numbered.... 760 days to be exact. AND COUNTING.

I know your not the only one to feel like this

It's a worry

It's the weekend though ...we all need to unwind and chill out ....this is certainly not going away is it

Have a good weekend

Angel xx

[SammySplodger]

I know your not the only one to feel like this

It's a worry

It's the weekend though ...we all need to unwind and chill out ....this is certainly not going away is it

Have a good weekend

Angel xx

Thank you Angel xxxx
Just needed to get that off my chest
Not feeling very well today either - nasty cold
Duvet day and catching up on the dreaded holiday washing methinks.

[angeldelight]

Thank you Angel xxxx
Just needed to get that off my chest
Not feeling very well today either - nasty cold
Duvet day and catching up on the dreaded holiday washing methinks.

No rest for the wicked

Hope you feel better soon

Angel xx

[Chatterbox Childcare]

Please do not be cross with me...we need to be pro active now, we are possibly furious but that won't help us

I have politely asked ncma to issue a clarification before the end of the day
Request has been posted on ncma local and tweeted...amazing how few are helping in this but we can live in hope!!
More Great Childcare reforms affect us all including 54,000 cms, twice hit by the unwelcome initiatives, so it would be great to be united on this as cms were united on the ratios to help the rest of the sector.

I have also written to the CEOs and left a message on their answering machine just now.
If you wish to send a short message do so at Chief.Executive.s@**************
Please help to put a bit of pressure on ncma...help anyway you can!

Simona whilst I understand that people want answers there hasn't been a release from PACEY yet so why do you want people to put pressure on PACEY and for what?

Confused.com

[Simona]

The message you highlighted was the one sent during the day when the news broke out...yes we were trying to get ncma to answer, as you know they have with a short statement last night that will be followed by clarification next week

what do we want?...answers from our representing association and I feel I am not the only one wanting them in this forum and elsewhere
Once we get them that will inform our future choice
As NPF rep you must be aware that members have been unhappy at many recent decisions taken by ncma despite our opposition to them...this initiative did not even have a consultation process at all so the reaction is not a surprise

I agree lets unwind a bit this weekend and wait for the reply next week...look after your cold Sammy (hot toddy ?)

[Mouse]

Why childminders? They could as easily get them to work for old people in their own homes. Lots of parents have to give up work to look after elderly relatives. Get the unemployed helping the high proportion of older people in our society. Where will all this madness end?

I guess the scheme will be aimed at parents, particularly mothers, who are at home with their own children, meaning the government gets them working without the need to pay out for childcare.

But, if it is aimed at parents with young children, they're going to be limited to the amount of children they can look after, thus limiting their income. How many are going to want to give up their benefits in favour of a job that will probably pay them even less?

Have there been any responses from UKCMA or the Indepenedant Childminders group (can't remember it's name!)?

[rickysmiths]

I actually think this is not a bad plan. In the next two years many more childcare palces have got to be found for the 2 years olds.

How many of those of you who are bellyaching have got your Level 3 and have registered with your LA ready to offer 2 year old funding?

My County has approx 1600 to 1700 childminders and last year when I completed my Level 3 ( only 2 of us among the more experienced childminders took up the funding and did the course out of a 12 or so who could have done near me) there were only 35 Accredited Childminders in the whole County qualified to deliver the 3-4 year funding which I find very sad.

I think it is good that Pacey are getting involved in this at least we know the people will be trained to a good min standard and have the support of a Professional long standing organization who know what they are talking about.

I really don't know what you are all so scared about. Childminders should do better than ever because if they are recognised as good delivering the 2yr funding then we will keep the children through their 3-4 year funding as well.

It seems to me that the Day Nurseries (and a few around us have stopped offering the 3-4 year funding) and Pre schools are the ones that need to be worried. If we all prepare we could do very well out of this.

I have no problem with the increased ratios for Childminders either. I have often cared for 2 under ones or 4 under 5s so that is fine for me I won't have to go through the process of Ofsted to alter my numbers, good, I am at long last going to be able to use my own professional judgement. I also thing we stand to gain on this one, as the Day Nurseries start to increase their children and decrease their staff, which they will do if they see they can make more profit.

The only issue I have is with the Agency model which I don't think they have thought through very well at all.

[Simona]

Many points in your reply Rickysmiths which highlight the variety on offer by LAs and the many unanswered questions we have

I have a Foundation Degree and an outstanding grade...have I registered interest in funding 2 year olds?
yes but I have to re join the network (and all paperwork involved which is nothing but duplication of what I evidence to Ofsted) and become Accredited (which I was when I left the network years ago) and do quality assurance which doubles what I have already

the rate for 2 year olds is £6.10 rather good... but drops to £3.50 (same rate as 6 years ago when I left the network) when the child is 3...so many cms have to think about sustainability
Will I ever look after 2 year olds? ...not really because they are allocated to network cms at present but later on it may be different when 130,000 need a space and then another 130,000 in 2014
My LA also allow satisfactory cms to deliver the funding to 2 year olds...so have reshuffled the DfE criteria and basket of measures...if they want to ignore good/outstanding cms in favour of the satisfactory then let them get on with it

In my view if ncma get involved in this training of unemployed mothers the LAs will lose out...my LA and many others have qualified and experienced consultants with a mixture of training on offer...new cms still need LA training in Safeguarding and LAs also have local knowledge of cms

Only one day nursery chain is now 'considering' whether to raise ratios after consulting with parents if the higher ratio is passed
Both Busybees and Kidsunlimited who backed Truss have now withdrawn
Preschools are not raising ratios hence their petition

There is no one agency model...as we know from replies from the DfE many models are being developed and suggested by those sitting with the DfE...community and social enterprises as well as commercial ones (Truss' model) versus Sue Gregory (cms hubs in CCentres)

what ncma's initiative has in common is that they can recruit and train new cms to fulfil govt policy??...we will of course find out next week what it is all about...especially as they are doing it with Barnardo's and we can then decide if it is good or otherwise for cms

Read what the new associations can do even if they are not agencies and you will find the answer in the small print and some similarities
When these cms are up and running who will support them...ncma or the LA? will they be in an agency? employed or self employed?

I feel cms are not scared but frustrated at the drip drip of info and if the vast majority wish to remain independent, as it appears, we are being sidelined by all talk of agencies

I know that other cms will have their own system in place with their LA...and that is where all this has started from...lack of a standardised system to equally support all cms across England instead of a two tier of cms (network and non network)
now we can look forward to agency cms and unemployed mothers joining in as well as Ofsted registered independent cms and those non Ofsted registered independent and, last but not least, employed cms and self employed cms

So I would not apply 'scared' to our feelings at the moment but rather utter confusion until all is clarified...the waiting game will be over soon.

[bunyip]

I have to say this thread leaves me feeling quite cold and very saddened by the trends going on at pacey and by the attitude of some of my fellow-CMs. (I'll address the pacey issue later.)

Their seems to be a rather unpleasant streak of prejudice here, suggesting that "The Unemployed" are somehow not fit to become CMs. I fully understand regime tactics in wanting a lot more childcarers in order to relieve the unemployment statistics and meet their targets for 2yo provision. But that does not give us the right to make slurs against a whole swathe of individuals with very real and varied talents. However much they are statistically doctored, unemployment figures remain a measurement of the failure of capitalist regimes; they are not a measure of the moral fibre of its individual victims.

Am I to take it that any current CM who took up CMing to get out of the dole queue is, therefore, not fit to do the job? I suspect many of us went into CMing to fit around our home/family circumstances, rather than as the end goal in a lengthy career path. And what of those people who progress from their school studies with the single intention of pursuing childcare as a career: well lo and behold, aren't they just the very people who are repeatedly sneered at by CMs as "teenage nursery staff"? Shame on us.

So is it true or false that "anyone can become a CM" ? Well, no - not strictly true. We have a system of regulation that decides: suitable people, suitable premises, minimum standards, requirements, training. We are all subject to these regulations - and so is anyone else who wants to gain registration. In fact: anyone entering CMing today may well have to achieve more than some of our longer-established colleagues. Or perhaps we should demand the government 'raises the bar' when it comes to regulation? But then how many existing CMs might fail to make the grade? Let's face it, the basic entry level training requirements are currently pretty minimal.

So are we to say we are somehow better than these people who are currently having their potential wasted by the plague of unemployment? Despite what you're reading in the Sun and the Daily Mail, most of these people want to find work. (if anything, it's the profit-hungry businesses and so-called "wealth-creators" that actually need a pool of unemployed in order to suppress demands for decent wages.)

Do so many CMs really see "The Unemployed" as some undeserving underclass of sub-humans or are they just not middle-class enough to look after children - even if they can prove themselves by meeting the very same regulatory standards that many of us have achieved. And before we sneer at people who are "living on benefits", we might actually take a look at ourselves. Up to 90% of the UK working population are living on some form of benefit or government support. A lot of CMs rely on Tax Credits, never mind the number of us who would lose vital clients if they had no TCs or childcare vouchers to help with our fees - our income.

Shame on us.

[FussyElmo]

I have to say this thread leaves me feeling quite cold and very saddened by the trends going on at pacey and by the attitude of some of my fellow-CMs. (I'll address the pacey issue later.)

Their seems to be a rather unpleasant streak of prejudice here, suggesting that "The Unemployed" are somehow not fit to become CMs. I fully understand regime tactics in wanting a lot more childcarers in order to relieve the unemployment statistics and meet their targets for 2yo provision. But that does not give us the right to make slurs against a whole swathe of individuals with very real and varied talents. However much they are statistically doctored, unemployment figures remain a measurement of the failure of capitalist regimes; they are not a measure of the moral fibre of its individual victims.

Am I to take it that any current CM who took up CMing to get out of the dole queue is, therefore, not fit to do the job? I suspect many of us went into CMing to fit around our home/family circumstances, rather than as the end goal in a lengthy career path. And what of those people who progress from their school studies with the single intention of pursuing childcare as a career: well lo and behold, aren't they just the very people who are repeatedly sneered at by CMs as "teenage nursery staff"? Shame on us.

So is it true or false that "anyone can become a CM" ? Well, no - not strictly true. We have a system of regulation that decides: suitable people, suitable premises, minimum standards, requirements, training. We are all subject to these regulations - and so is anyone else who wants to gain registration. In fact: anyone entering CMing today may well have to achieve more than some of our longer-established colleagues. Or perhaps we should demand the government 'raises the bar' when it comes to regulation? But then how many existing CMs might fail to make the grade? Let's face it, the basic entry level training requirements are currently pretty minimal.

So are we to say we are somehow better than these people who are currently having their potential wasted by the plague of unemployment? Despite what you're reading in the Sun and the Daily Mail, most of these people want to find work. (if anything, it's the profit-hungry businesses and so-called "wealth-creators" that actually need a pool of unemployed in order to suppress demands for decent wages.)

Do so many CMs really see "The Unemployed" as some undeserving underclass of sub-humans or are they just not middle-class enough to look after children - even if they can prove themselves by meeting the very same regulatory standards that many of us have achieved. And before we sneer at people who are "living on benefits", we might actually take a look at ourselves. Up to 90% of the UK working population are living on some form of benefit or government support. A lot of CMs rely on Tax Credits, never mind the number of us who would lose vital clients if they had no TCs or childcare vouchers to help with our fees - our income.

Shame on us.

Very true Bunyip.

When I said we need the revolution it was not because of the plan to help the unemployed into cming. Hey I was actually unemployed on income support and a single parent when I trained as a cm.

If it helps someone to get into cming then its a could thing. However I think the millions they are pumping into this could be invested somewhere else.

Our La is great and all our courses are free Im sure the Cypop or whatever it is called now will be free if you are on benefits.

So the problem in our area if the unemployed don't want to train now when they already get most of it free pumping money into wont work.

Bedroom tax, universal credit, 20% reduction to the disability living allowance, tax break for high earners it goes on and on and on.

[FussyElmo]

And while Im on my soapbox this government cabinet (23 of them are millionaires) rejected a mansion tax and introduced the bedroom tax to hit the poor

[bunyip]

Moving onto pacey, I have serious concerns about some apparent trends they seem to be showing.

They have become very keen to "announce" things: to tell us what they are doing for us, their members, rather than to properly consult and allow members to decide. A distinct pattern is emerging, whereby pacey lead and expect their members to follow. We've already seen on other threads, how so many members firmly believe that the re-brand and widening of membership were "done deals" and that the so-called "consultation process" amounted to a sham justification of this. That's before we even consider the old political trick of formulating a question in such a way as to deliver the answer you wanted all along. We've seen the executive spinning these decisions in the pages of the childcare professional (sic) whilst totally ignoring the legitimate concerns of those who worry about CMs' particular interests becoming diluted by the wider membership. (I don't personally share those concerns, but do firmly believe they are widely-held and should be recognised and addressed.) It appears that pacey is happy to lead, let its members follow, and ignore any number of let-down CM members who happen to be "off-message".

Many of the pacey members I speak to locally, nationally, or here on the forum, seem to be saying they're unhappy with how things are going. I get the impression NCMA membership and loyalty used to be pretty reliable and a safe assumption going forward. people were happy with the organisation and stuck with it. No longer. So many CMs are saying they'll see how things are when their membership renewal comes up; maybe give it a year or 2 to see if it improves; and so on.

Within this context, the prospect of 1000's of pacey-trained, newly-registered CMs, providing a whole new influx of members must be very appealing to the powers-that-be at pacey HQ. I predict the following over the next few years:-

1. A significant proportion of existing CM members will follow those who have already left pacey due to disappointment, disillusionment, etc.
2. pacey will recruit a large number of new members through the sort of scheme which is the basis of this thread (see OP and link.)
3. Nursery staff membership will also add to pacey's numbers.
4. pacey will continue to praise its own "success" (measured purely as a numbers game with growing membership) whilst ignoring the fact that it is failing its long-standing supporters who will leave and be no further trouble to the organisation.

The risk is there to be seen clearly by anyone with eyes to see. pacey identifies itself so strongly with "the interests of CMs" that the organisation assumes anything it does must be good for CMs. Sadly, this is historically the mark of a despot.


[Please note that I do know how to use capital letters, but see no reason to wear out my shift key if our "professional" association cannot be bothered.]

[hectors house]

I hear what you are saying Bunyip about people's perception of "the unemployed" but I feel that if these unemployed women who attend Children's Centres wanted to be childminders, why haven't they done it before - is it because of start up costs and spending money that they don't have on medical checks, first aid courses, childminding courses, equipment etc - if so why can't the government go back to giving a grant as they used to 8 years ago, when I re-registered - £300 paid for all of the above, plus a years membership to NCMA & stationery - but I re-registered because I wanted to do it, when I self reflected I realised that it was the only job I had done that gave me job satisfaction - you could say I had a calling to return.

Will forcing people into childminding give us the high standards we are all striving to achieve - I agree that a great many unemployed people are educated and find themselves unemployed because of the recession, but you have to "want" to do it to do it not be made to.

I know Truss has got her childcare ideas from Europe which we don't all agree with, but I think it is time that the Employment Ministers looked to Europe in particular Denmark (my uncle lives there) - my uncle had to give up work due to disability (caused by the repetitive nature of his work), however after just 6 months on disability benefit he was found work in an Old People's Care Home (which are fantastic places - not like our "waiting to die" institutions!) as a handyman/gardener - he worked 20 hours a week but was paid a full time wage.

In Denmark the churchyards are immaculate, the streets clean, State Care homes (not private BUPA ones) like top hotels with restaurants so good that they open to non-residents, they have libraries and gyms etc. People shouldn't be paid benefits to sit at home and do nothing, they should be paid volunteers making a difference to the community. This wouldn't take jobs away from people because no-one does these jobs, these people would need childcare and we all would be happy.

Anyway - that's me sorted out unemployment and childcare for the morning - better get off my soapbox before someone shoots me down.

[FussyElmo]

I hear what you are saying Bunyip about people's perception of "the unemployed" but I feel that if these unemployed women who attend Children's Centres wanted to be childminders, why haven't they done it before - is it because of start up costs and spending money that they don't have on medical checks, first aid courses, childminding courses, equipment etc - if so why can't the government go back to giving a grant as they used to 8 years ago, when I re-registered - £300 paid for all of the above, plus a years membership to NCMA & stationery - but I re-registered because I wanted to do it, when I self reflected I realised that it was the only job I had done that gave me job satisfaction - you could say I had a calling to return.

Will forcing people into childminding give us the high standards we are all striving to achieve - I agree that a great many unemployed people are educated and find themselves unemployed because of the recession, but you have to "want" to do it to do it not be made to.

I know Truss has got her childcare ideas from Europe which we don't all agree with, but I think it is time that the Employment Ministers looked to Europe in particular Denmark (my uncle lives there) - my uncle had to give up work due to disability (caused by the repetitive nature of his work), however after just 6 months on disability benefit he was found work in an Old People's Care Home (which are fantastic places - not like our "waiting to die" institutions!) as a handyman/gardener - he worked 20 hours a week but was paid a full time wage.

In Denmark the churchyards are immaculate, the streets clean, State Care homes (not private BUPA ones) like top hotels with restaurants so good that they open to non-residents, they have libraries and gyms etc. People shouldn't be paid benefits to sit at home and do nothing, they should be paid volunteers making a difference to the community. This wouldn't take jobs away from people because no-one does these jobs, these people would need childcare and we all would be happy.

Anyway - that's me sorted out unemployment and childcare for the morning - better get off my soapbox before someone shoots me down.

No come and join me on the soapbox

[Simona]

Thanks for that thought Bunyip

I think that this requires clarification
I am not against unemployed mothers finding jobs or becoming cms

I am against the way this is being done now obviously in line with govt policy to get women back to work and off benefits?
what of those mothers who wish to stay at home and raise their children? will they be forced to enter a profession they could have done so independently by themselves by approaching their LA and start the registration process?

Unemployed mothers have been attending CCentres for years...why have they not been encouraged to find jobs or become cms before?
In some areas there is a huge need to have more cms because there are not enough providers
In some LAs the number of 2 year olds requiring childcare from 2013 and from 2014 is very large and those LAs will not be able to place all these children so there the need for new cms is totally justified...where I worried is in the areas where there are too many cms and not enough children to care for

The question is then why all of a sudden is this initiative coming out and funded by the govt when we are constantly told there is no money...where is this £120 m coming from??

Most CCentres have some link to their LA...why have the LAs not encouraged these unemployed mothers into finding a job before and recruited them to become cms?
In my LA cms actually work in CC while parents go to training sessions...they are called Stay and Play Plus cms, earn good money and are constantly being recruited by our childminding association

ncma is working on this project with Barnados'...this is a renowned charity that works for poor children and families...so it is obvious who is being targeted and no one is against these families finding jobs
ncma is also working with NCB to use EYPs to engage with 'disadvantaged families' to improve the HLE (much mentioned by Truss when she refers to the EPPE project in her speeches) by using Early Years Professionals into supporting these families

So I doubt many are against women finding jobs and using their skills as you describe ...it is the way it has come out and if ncma feel this is a good scheme why keep it quiet and not explain the benefit that will result from this initiative... at first the reaction is that it will disadvantage our businesses

Once again I feel many have ignored the small print recently...it has been obvious this was happening, what we did not know is that ncma is involved